IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v17y2016icp87-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • van Zanten, Boris T.
  • Zasada, Ingo
  • Koetse, Mark J.
  • Ungaro, Fabrizio
  • Häfner, Kati
  • Verburg, Peter H.

Abstract

The importance of cultural ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes is increasingly recognized as agricultural scale enlargement and abandonment affect aesthetic and recreational values of agricultural landscapes. Landscape preference studies addressing these type of values often yield context-specific outcomes, limiting the applicability of their outcomes in landscape policy. Our approach measures the relative importance of landscape features across agricultural landscapes. This approach was applied in the agricultural landscapes of Winterswijk, The Netherlands (n=191) and the Märkische Schweiz, Germany (n=113) among visitors in the agricultural landscape. We set up a parallel designed choice experiment, using regionally specific, photorealistic visualizations of four comparable landscape attributes. In the Dutch landscape visitors highly value hedgerows and tree lines, whereas groups of trees and crop diversity are highly valued in the German landscape. Furthermore, we find that differences in relative preference for landscape attributes are, to some extent, explained by socio-cultural background variables such as education level and affinity with agriculture of the visitors. This approach contributes to a better understanding of the cross-regional variation of aesthetic and recreational values and how these values relate to characteristics of the agricultural landscape, which could support the integration of cultural services in landscape policy.

Suggested Citation

  • van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:17:y:2016:i:c:p:87-98
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615300619
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    3. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 19-40, February.
    4. Anna Adevi & Patrik Grahn, 2012. "Preferences for Landscapes: A Matter of Cultural Determinants or Innate Reflexes that Point to Our Evolutionary Background?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 27-49.
    5. Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    7. Marianne Lefebvre & Maria Espinosa & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Maria Luisa Paracchini & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada, 2015. "Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(12), pages 2088-2112, December.
    8. repec:ipt:wpaper:jrc73276 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Stephen Hynes & Danny Campbell & Peter Howley, 2011. "A Holistic vs. an Attribute‐based Approach to Agri‐Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 305-329, June.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    11. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    12. Volker Beckmann & Jorg Eggers & Evy Mettepenningen, 2009. "Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 689-716.
    13. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    15. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    16. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    17. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    18. Marianne Lefebvre & Maria Espinosa & Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma, 2012. "The influence of the Common Agricultural Policy on agricultural landscapes," JRC Research Reports JRC73276, Joint Research Centre.
    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. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    3. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    4. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Badura, Tomas & Vačkářová, Davina, 2020. "Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.
    6. Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    10. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    12. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    13. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Chung, Chanjin & Briggeman, Brian C. & Han, Sungill, 2008. "Willingness to Pay for Beef Quality Attributes: Combining Mixed Logit and Latent Segmentation Approach," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6411, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Hai Jiang & Shuiping Chen, 2016. "Dwelling unit choice in a condominium complex: Analysis of willingness to pay and preference heterogeneity," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(11), pages 2273-2292, August.
    18. Parmar, Janak & Saiyed, Gulnazbanu & Dave, Sanjaykumar, 2023. "Analysis of taste heterogeneity in commuters’ travel decisions using joint parking– and mode–choice model: A case from urban India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    20. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.

    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:eee:ecoser:v:17:y:2016:i:c:p:87-98. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.