ArticleData in brief2026
Data on the stated willingness to accept collective agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity conservation of European grassland farmers.
Article in Data in brief, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a data set on the stated willingness to accept collective agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity conservation of farmers managing grassland in six European case studies: Austria (AT), Switzerland (CH), Germany (DE), Estonia (EE), Ireland (IE), and Norway (NO). The survey was conducted between spring 2024 and 2025 and consisted of two parts: 1) a choice experiment; and 2) questions about farmers' and farm characteristics, attitudes, and preferences. In the choice experiment (Part 1), farmers were presented with 10 consecutive choice tasks. Each task consisted of three alternatives, two hypothetical designs for collective biodiversity conservation schemes at the landscape scale and an opt-out option, representing the status quo. The method helps to clarify farmers' policy design preferences and willingness to accept (WTA) collective biodiversity conservation schemes. Non-monetary attributes of the choice experiment included 1) group size (i.e., the number of partners a farmer works in a collective scheme with), 2) monitoring (i.e., execution of the biodiversity monitoring process), and 3) discretion (i.e., responsibility for management decisions at the farm to enhance biodiversity conservation: the farmers or an external consultant). The survey questions (Part 2) collected data on farmers' personal and farm characteristics, production orientation, attitudes towards collaboration, the environment, trust and self-efficacy, their risk, time, and social network preferences, as well as their income satisfaction. To reduce respondents' load, the survey data was matched with farm census data in instances where such data was available (CH, AT, NO).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.