Ensuring that farmers' ex ante preferences are accounted for is crucial for the design of effective agri‐environmental contracts. We present a systematic review of 127 discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies of farmers' preferences with respect to agri‐environmental contracts. DCE studies evaluate two central features of farmers' behaviour: (1) their willingness to accept land use prescriptions, such as fertiliser use, application of pesticides, restrictions on cropping, livestock management, integration of silvopasture, maintaining soil health or water use restrictions; and (2) their responses to variations in incentive and commitment criteria, such as reward schemes, monitoring regimes, technical assistance, flexibility of agreements, administrative burden and collaborative implementation. Our analysis considers how these different elements are interlinked and applied in experiments to simulate farmers' decision‐making processes. We examine recent methodological improvements in explaining farmer behaviour, including the accommodation of preference heterogeneity, the combining of discrete (enrolment) and continuous decisions, and the incorporation of farmers' sense of identity. DCEs have been applied for the ex ante analysis of different policy instruments to inform the European Common Agricultural Policy and agri‐environmental schemes outside the EU. The results of this systematic review may be useful in informing the future design of such agri‐environmental programmes. The database underpinning this systematic literature review may help peer scientists to (a) compare, validate and triangulate their own findings with respect to other experimental approaches, (b) use previous willingness‐to‐accept (WTA) measures as priors for their own study design, and (c) identify research gaps regarding farmers' preferences for agri‐environmental measures.

Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of “moving online” are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process.

We replicate Bocquého et al. (2014), who used multiple price lists to investigate the risk preferences of 107 French farmers. We collected new data from 1430 participants in 11 European farming systems. In agreement with the original study, farmers' risk preferences are best described by Cumulative Prospect Theory. Structural model estimates show that farmers in the new samples are, on average, less loss averse and more susceptible to probability distortion than in the original study. Explorative analyses indicate differences between estimation approaches, as well as heterogeneity between and within samples. We discuss challenges in replications of economic experiments with farmers across farming contexts.

Over the last two decades, alternative and holistic concepts, such as Nature-based Solutions (NbS) were introduced and adopted by policy-makers, including to the field of flood protection, thereby causing a paradigm shift towards flood risk management. The inclusion of natural water retention measures (NWRM) such as dike relocation and floodplain restoration into the German guidelines for flood protection institutionalized the new concepts in Germany. Whereas small scale NbS and the affected population have already been subject to thorough scientific research, large-scale NbS and the decision-makers assigned with the measure’s implementation have yet to be studied. How do administrative decision-makers perceive the new approach and measures? Are there particular attitudes among the decision-makers regarding NbS? Which aspects of implementing large-scale NbS influence possible attitudes? Which hurdles do decision-makers concern for the implementation of the new concepts? This paper investigates these questions on the example of dike relocation and floodplain restoration using Q-methodology with administrative decision-makers of flood protection authorities in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt. The consecutive statistical analysis unveiled three significant viewpoints among the decision-makers. The viewpoints/attitudes were classified as 1. The Convinced, 2. The Concerned and, 3. The Evaluators, defined by varying and individual concerns on the implementation of dike relocation and floodplain restoration. Hereby, this study delivers insights on large-scale NbS as well as on the issues of their implementation.

Agri-environmental climate measures (AECM) are considered a promising tool to achieve environmental policy goals. Not only farmers but also policy administrators and intermediaries are important actors whose attitudes and actions drive the success of these measures. To follow the idea of better stakeholder participation in the design of policy instruments, we analyse stakeholder viewpoints on the contract design of the AECM. We apply the Q methodology to 25 individuals from Brandenburg, Germany, who are from the farmer, policy administrator, and intermediary domains. We identify three distinct attitudinal profiles: the ‘planners’, the ‘cooperators’, and the ‘individualists’, which do not correspond to the three individual stakeholder groups. The results provide evidence that general differences in the viewpoints of policy designers and implementers on the one hand and farmers on the other hand are not a source of potential institutional mismatch. We further use the attitudinal profiles to develop three types of policy programmes with slightly different underlying rationalities. Policymakers could use such an approach to better develop target group-specific (sub)programmes in parallel. Our research strengthens the argument that multiple stakeholders should be involved in co-designing conservation measures. Moreover, behavioural factors should be considered in policy making processes.