IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/28733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estudio de las preferencias por los elementos agrarios del paisaje mediante los metodos del analisis conjunto y valoracion contingente

Author

Listed:
  • Sayadi, Samir
  • Roa, Maria Carmen Gonzalez
  • Calatrava-Requena, Javier

Abstract

RESUMEN - Entre las externalidades producidas por la actividad agraria hay que considerar su aportación a la configuración del paisaje, es decir, la externalidad estética de los agroecosistemas. Su conocimiento y valoración adquiere cada vez más relevancia. En el presente trabajo se han utilizado los métodos de Análisis Conjunto y Valoración Contingente para estudiar, por una parte, la importancia relativa de la componente agraria en la función de utilidad derivada del disfrute de los paisajes de Las Alpujarras (Granada-España) y, por otra, la disposición a pagar de los entrevistados por disfrutar de dichos paisajes. Se ha realizado un test a una muestra de potenciales visitantes a la zona, utilizando tres elementos básicos de los paisajes: cubierta vegetal, pendiente y nivel de edificación. Dentro de cada uno de estos componentes del paisaje, se han considerado distintos niveles, algunos relacionados con la actividad agraria. Posteriormente, se ha ajustado un modelo de regresión múltiple con el fin de identificar la relación entre la Disposición a Pagar por disfrutar de cada uno de los paisajes considerados y los atributos del mismo y las características sociodemográficas de los entrevistados. Los resultados de los análisis de preferencias y de la Disposición a Pagar han permitido identificar líneas estratégicas para potenciar la función paisajística de los sistemas agrarios de la zona con vistas a su desarrollo endógeno, integral y sostenible. PALABRAS CLAVE: Análisis Conjunto; Valoración Contingente; Paisaje Agrario; Desarrollo Rural Sostenible. SUMMARY - Among the externalities produced by agrarian activities one must consider its contribution to the shaping of the landscape, an aesthetic externality value of the agrosystems. Recognizing and appraising this contribution is becoming more and more important every day. In this study a Conjoint Analysis and Contingent Valuation methods has been used to estimate, first the relative importance of the agrarian component level in the utility function achieved from enjoying landscapes, and secondly the Willingness To Pay of surveyed for these landscapes existing in the area of The Alpujarras (Granada-Spain). Data has been obtained by a questionnaire performed to a sample of a potential visitor of the area, using three main features of landscape, as follows: Vegetation layer, level of building, and mountain inclines, each of them with different levels. Subsequently, a multiple regression model has been fitted to identify the relationship between the Willingness to Pay for landscapes and its features and the socio-cultural traits of the individuals. According to results concerning both the preferences and the Willingness To Pay of visitors for landscapes, some conclusions have finally been drawn, allowing to derive strategies to maintain the most valued landscape in the area and to make use of it for the sustainable development of the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Sayadi, Samir & Roa, Maria Carmen Gonzalez & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2004. "Estudio de las preferencias por los elementos agrarios del paisaje mediante los metodos del analisis conjunto y valoracion contingente," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(07), pages 1-17.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:28733
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28733/files/04070135.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28733?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drake, Lars, 1992. "The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(3), pages 351-364.
    2. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    3. Andrew H. Trice & Samuel E. Wood, 1958. "Measurement of Recreation Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(3), pages 195-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hanemann, W., 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Economics," CUDARE Working Papers 198636, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    3. Kuuluvainen, Jari & Kuuluvainen, Jari, 2002. "Editorial - Value of nature conservation: the good or the context?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 101-103.
    4. Philippe Bance & Angelique Chassy, 2017. "The Rollout of the Multilevel Governance System: A Source of Reworking the Contingent Valuation Method?," Post-Print halshs-01965114, HAL.
    5. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    6. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Banerjee, Prasenjit & Shogren, Jason F., 2014. "Bidding behavior given point and interval values in a second-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 126-137.
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    9. Junfeng Zhang & Anlu Zhang & Min Song, 2020. "Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Pavel Ciaian & Tomáš Ratinger, 2009. "Income Distribution Effects of EU Rural Development Policies: The Case of Farm Investment Support," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2009_01, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    11. Maria Rosa Trovato & Paolo Micalizzi & Salvatore Giuffrida, 2021. "Assessment of Landscape Co-Benefits in Natura 2000 Site Management Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-38, May.
    12. Yerushalmi, Erez, 2018. "Using Water Allocation in Israel as a Proxy for Imputing the Value of Agricultural Amenities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 12-20.
    13. Erik Wallentin, 2016. "Choice of the angler," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(6), pages 1338-1351, December.
    14. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    15. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    16. Yamaguchi, Shinichi & Oshima, Hidetaka & Saso, Hiroaki & Aoki, Shihoko, 2020. "How Do People Value Data Utilization?: An Empirical Analysis Using Contingent Valuation Method in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Isabel Mendes & Idalina Dias Sardinha & Sérgio Milheiras, 2013. "Methodological Issues for Estimating the Total Value of the Rehabilitation of Mining Fields: the Case of S. Domingo’s Mine," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(4), pages 593-593.
    18. Kim, Ju-Yeon & Mjelde, James W. & Kim, Tae-Kyun & Lee, Choong-Ki & Ahn, Kyung-Mo, 2012. "Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 123-131.
    19. Ouyang, Xiaoling & Zhuang, Wuxu & Sun, Chuanwang, 2019. "Haze, health, and income: An integrated model for willingness to pay for haze mitigation in Shanghai, China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Aliza Fleischer & Yacov Tsur, 2009. "The Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape and Rural–Urban Land Allocation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 132-153, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:28733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.