Climate compensation isn’t always enough

At first glance, it looks like a simple calculation. The state offers compensation. The climate demands action. Low-lying soils must be restored as wetlands. Yet landowners hesitate. According to anthropologist and PhD student Kasper Krabbe from the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University, that is exactly where the misunderstanding begins.

“Of course, the size of the financial compensation matters. But our study shows that it cannot stand alone if we want to understand why landowners say yes or no,” he says.

Together with colleagues from Aarhus University and the University of Copenhagen, he has investigated why some Danish landowners decline to convert their land, even when compensation is readily available.

The results point to a tension between what is easiest to design policy around, economic compensation, and what is hardest to formalize: responsibility, uncertainty, professional pride, and attachment to the land.

A landscape of values

Imagine a farmer standing at the edge of a field. This is where it all begins: with a gaze across the land and reflections on what the future holds. Should the land be flooded again? What will happen to the neighboring fields? To the value of the farm? To the next generation?

“For many, this is not just about production. The land is part of their life story,” says Kasper Krabbe.

The study, based on 14 in-depth interviews with landowners, paints a picture of decisions woven together from economics, ethics, identity, and everyday practices. The land is not just a resource. It is heritage. It is responsibility. It is emotion.

“There is a strong sense of obligation both to the family and to the landscape,” says Kasper Krabbe.

The idea of the ‘good farmer’

There are also more implicit norms: ideas about the “good farmer.” A concept the researchers use to describe the unwritten rules of farming, how a field should look and what counts as proper work.

“You are also judged by your neighbours,” as Kasper Krabbe puts it. “The way fields look sends signals about who you are.”

From this perspective, a wet field left untouched can be difficult to reconcile with the ideal of efficient farming. This is not necessarily an argument against nature restoration, but it makes the decision more complex.

At the same time, there are practical considerations. The schemes are voluntary, and although they are financially compensated, they are also associated with uncertainty. What if the regulations change? What if the project affects the rest of the farm? And what about all the administrative requirements?

“There is a perception that it is complex and risky,” says Kasper Krabbe.

For some, it simply becomes too difficult to grasp.

When policy meets reality

Denmark has ambitious plans to retire low-lying agricultural soils as a tool in climate and nature policy. But even when schemes are voluntary and compensated, the decision is rarely simple for individual landowners.

The study highlights a key challenge: many schemes are, understandably, built around financial incentives because they are relatively easy to administer and communicate. However, landowners’ decisions are also shaped by professional pride, local relationships, concerns about the future, and ideas about what it means to take good care of one’s land.

“There is a mismatch between how the schemes are designed and how farmers actually think,” says Kasper Krabbe.

If more landowners are to say yes, it is not just about increasing compensation. It is also about making participation more professionally and socially meaningful.

One option is to more clearly link the schemes to recognition of good farming practice, so that restoring wetlands is not framed as giving up the land, but as another way of taking responsibility for the landscape. Another option is to strengthen the advisory environments that landowners already use and trust.

“We need to take non-economic values more seriously,” says Kasper Krabbe. “Otherwise, we miss the mark.”

More than climate policy

The discussion of low-lying soils is ultimately about something bigger. It concerns how society tries to change practices, and what happens when people do not fit into the models.

“If we want to succeed with the green transition, we need to understand the people who have to carry it out,” says Kasper Krabbe.

In the end, it is not the state that converts the land, but the landowners themselves, who must make present and future align. The study also points to advisory services as a key factor.

“Many landowners seek advice from consultants they already know. If those advisors do not have a clear role in the lowland initiatives, an important bridge between the schemes and the individual farm is lost,” says Kasper Krabbe.

More Information

Collaborators: Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University and Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen.

Funding: Co-funded by the European Union through the SoilValues project (grant agreement no. 101091308), which partially funds Kasper Krabbe’s PhD. Open access is funded by Aarhus University.

Conflict of interest: None

Further reading: The article “Beyond compensation: understanding land manager resistance to nature restoration schemes in Denmark” is published in Agriculture and Human Values. It is authored by Kasper Krabbe, Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe, Tiffanie F. Stone, Michael Friis Pedersen, and Jakob Vesterlund Olsen.