Robert Finger

Last Name

Finger

First Name

Robert

ORCID

0000-0002-0634-5742

Organisational unit

09564 - Finger, Robert / Finger, Robert

Show all metadata

Search Results

Publications 1 - 10 of 340

Shared responsibility: understanding the role of governments, farmers, retailers, and consumers in food system policies
Irek, Judith; Finger, Robert; Ammann, Jeanine; et al. (2025)
Q Open
This paper explores the question of responsibility for transforming food systems toward greater sustainability. While many agree on general policy goals (e.g. environmental protection, sustainable food consumption, and fair income for farmers), there is less consensus on who should be responsible for achieving these goals. We fill this gap by examining how Swiss citizens perceive the responsibilities of government, farmers, retailers, and consumers. We analyzed two Swiss citizen surveys on agricultural policy and sustainable food consumption. We find that citizens recognize the need for a shared responsibility among governments, farmers, retailers, and consumers-for both agricultural policy and for consumer policy-suggesting that they already hold a systems perspective. Only the perceived role of the government differs, which is seen as highly responsible for achieving agricultural policy goals and less responsible for ensuring sustainable food consumption. Those who perceive food consumption as a government responsibility are more willing to accept policy measures, even if these measures limit their food choices. As nutrition and food consumption have only recently become a policy focus, it may be important to clearly communicate and explain this (new) responsibility to the public.
Impacts of Agricultural Policy Reforms on Crop Yields
Finger, Robert (2008)
EuroChoices
Yield Trend Estimation in the Presence of Farm Heterogeneity and Non-linear Technological Change
Conradt, Sarah; Bokusheva, Raushan; Finger, Robert; et al. (2014)
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture
Remote‐Sensing for Herbicide‐Free Agriculture: A Bio‐Economic and Policy Appraisal
Ziehmann, Eileen; Huber, Robert; Finger, Robert (2025)
Journal of Agricultural Economics
Pesticide reduction is increasingly incentivised in European agriculture but may generate trade-offs. For example, replacing herbicides with mechanical weed control methods is associated with higher costs and exacerbated soil compaction and erosion. We develop a bio-economic modelling approach to explore the potential of remote sensing technologies to measure weed pressure levels to reduce mechanical weed control interventions in herbicide-free production systems. The model is applied to Swiss winter wheat production and accounts for different remote sensing technologies, production systems, and cost scenarios for mechanical control. The model is further used to conduct ex-ante policy analysis, that is, to assess how fuel taxation affects the viability of different technologies. Our results show that remote-sensing technologies have the potential to reduce the number of mechanical control interventions, but that these benefits vary across production systems and cost structures. We further find that fuel taxation has a limited additional impact on technology benefits.
Where is the Risk?
Benni, Nadja El; Finger, Robert (2012)
Spatial arrangement of action-oriented versus hybrid agri-environmental schemes: implications for the optimisation of grassland ecosystem services
Le Clec'h, Solen; Huber, Robert; Finger, Robert; et al. (2026)
Agricultural Systems
CONTEXT The potential of agri-environmental schemes to create synergies among biodiversity conservation and further ecosystem services while accounting for the trade-off with food production is still widely overlooked. OBJECTIVE This paper provides a methodological framework to improve the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes in permanent grasslands at the regional level. METHODS The framework comprises three steps that integrate existing approaches to provide decision-makers with a structured and systematic approach for holistic assessments of ecosystem service and guide the spatial targeting of agri-environmental schemes. Step 1 focusses on better understanding the current system and in particular of how agri-environmental measures co-vary with environmental characteristics that are relevant for agricultural production, biodiversity, and further ecosystem services. Step 2 assesses spatial (mis)matches between the current allocation of agri-environmental schemes and ecosystem services hot- and cold-spots. Step 3 focuses on reducing mismatches through a reallocation of agri-environmental schemes. We illustrated our framework in the canton of Solothurn, Switzerland, to examine how environmental conditions for differently designed agri-environmental schemes (action-based vs. hybrid) and spatial heterogeneity can support synergies between biodiversity and two regulating ecosystem services (climate regulation and pollination) and reduce trade-offs with forage production at the regional level. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Our stepwise framework provides a guideline to assess and improve the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes in grasslands. Each step is methodologically flexible and can be adapted to specific contexts, including the selection of ecosystem services, appropriate indicators, and modelling approaches. In our case study, extensive grasslands, especially those in hybrid schemes, were predominantly situated on marginal lands, when compared to intensively managed grasslands. Over 90 % of pastures (grazed grasslands) under each of the two agri-environmental schemes overlapped with hotspots of regulating services. Around 15 % of meadows (mown), under each of the two agri-environmental schemes, overlapped with yield hotspots, resulting in considerable trade-offs with food production. 34 % of the grassland area could be set aside for biodiversity conservation instead of being used for (intensive) forage production, as it was located in potential hotspots of regulating ecosystem services and on potential yield coldspots. Pastures under agri-environmental schemes generally showed a better fit with yield coldspots and regulating ecosystem services hotspots than respective meadows. Spatial targeting reduced trade-offs in some cases, but it did not eliminate them, as the focus on specific services reflected local geographical constraints. SIGNIFICANCE Our stepwise framework offers insights for the spatial planning of agri-environmental schemes at the regional scale. It serves as a practical tool for spatial planners and decision-makers to enhance the efficiency of environmental management interventions, by supporting the supply of multiple ecosystem services while minimizing trade-offs with agricultural production. The application of the framework suggests that spatial targeting of biodiversity conservation schemes could enhance their effectiveness and reduce trade-offs between regulating and provisioning ecosystem services at the regional scale. Effective reallocation of the schemes should be grounded in environmental contexts that also promote high biodiversity.
Policy analysis of perennial energy crop cultivation at the farm level: Short rotation coppice (SRC) in Germany
Spiegel, Alisa; Britz, Wolfgang; Djanibekov, Utkur; et al. (2018)
Biomass and Bioenergy
Implikationen eines herbizidlosen Extenso-Weizenanbaus in der Schweiz
Böcker, Thomas; Finger, Robert (2018)
Agrarforschung Schweiz
Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture
Walter, Achim; Finger, Robert; Huber, Robert; et al. (2017)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Firm Flexibility in the EU Dairy Processing Industry
Hirsch, Stefan; Mishra, Ashok K.; Finger, Robert (2017)

Publications 1 - 10 of 340

Robert Finger

Last Name

First Name

ORCID

Organisational unit

Filters

Search Results