IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v39y2019ics2212041619300014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Bernués, Alberto
  • Alfnes, Frode
  • Clemetsen, Morten
  • Eik, Lars Olav
  • Faccioni, Georgia
  • Ramanzin, Maurizio
  • Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon
  • Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara
  • Sturaro, Enrico

Abstract

Multifunctional agroecosystems are the result of complex adaptive interactions between humans and nature where trade-offs between food production and other ecosystem services are key. Our objective is to explore the social preferences for ecosystem services, and the associated willingness to pay, in three multifunctional agroecosystem in Europe (Mediterranean, Atlantic, Alpine) under alternative agrienvironmental policy scenarios. We use the same methodology (a choice experiment including equivalent attributes and levels) to rank and estimate the economic value of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ecosystem services. We define the scenarios (current situation, abandonment and enhanced management) in biophysical terms to elucidate changing relations between social perception and level of delivery of ecosystem services. We derive some lessons. i) Value of ES: biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services always produce welfare gains; people, however, perceive trade-offs between delivery of agricultural landscapes and quality food products. Nevertheless, preferences are heterogeneous and vary across regions, scenarios and ES. ii) Policymaking: society’s willingness to pay for the delivery of ecosystem service exceeds largely the current level of public support. Moreover, further abandonment and intensification of agriculture is clearly rejected by the public. iii) Methodological: monetary valuation is context dependent and extrapolation of economic values can be misleading.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:39:y:2019:i:c:s2212041619300014
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041619300014
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101002?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. Alan Randall, 2002. "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 289-307, July.
    2. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    3. Huber, Christopher & Meldrum, James & Richardson, Leslie, 2018. "Improving confidence by embracing uncertainty: A meta-analysis of U.S. hunting values for benefit transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 225-236.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Erjavec, Karmen & Erjavec, Emil, 2015. "‘Greening the CAP’ – Just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 53-62.
    6. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    7. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    8. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    9. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, à gnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, à gnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & MihÃ, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    10. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    11. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    12. Bas Pedroli & Teresa Pinto Correia & Jørgen Primdahl, 2016. "Challenges for a shared European countryside of uncertain future. Towards a modern community-based landscape perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 450-460, May.
    13. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    14. Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode, 2016. "Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 232-245.
    15. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anastasija Novikova & Renata Zemaitiene & Renata Marks-Bielska & Stanisław Bielski, 2024. "Assessment of the Environmental Public Goods of the Organic Farming System: A Lithuanian Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Parron, Lucilia Maria & Villanueva, Anastasio Jose & Glenk, Klaus, 2022. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Asif Rasool & David Abler, 2023. "Heterogeneity in US Farms: A New Clustering by Production Potentials," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    5. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Paola Sau & Pietro Pulina, 2022. "Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, December.
    6. Vega-Bayo, Ainhoa & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Corsi, Armando Maria & Chovan, Milan, 2023. "Climate change adaptation preferences of winemakers from the Rioja wine appellation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    7. Mao, Zhun & Centanni, Julia & Pommereau, Franck & Stokes, Alexia & Gaucherel, Cédric, 2021. "Maintaining biodiversity promotes the multifunctionality of social-ecological systems: holistic modelling of a mountain system," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    8. Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2020. "Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Christopher Boyce & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend & Steve Tucker, 2015. "The effects of emotions on preferences and choices for public goods," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-08, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    3. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    4. Ramel, Cindy & Rey, Pierre-Louis & Fernandes, Rui & Vincent, Claire & Cardoso, Ana R. & Broennimann, Olivier & Pellissier, Loïc & Pradervand, Jean-Nicolas & Ursenbacher, Sylvain & Schmidt, Benedikt R, 2020. "Integrating ecosystem services within spatial biodiversity conservation prioritization in the Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    7. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain [Optimal design for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivar," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    8. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    9. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    10. Dongliang Dang & Xiaobing Li & Shengkun Li & Huashun Dou, 2018. "Ecosystem Services and Their Relationships in the Grain-for-Green Programme—A Case Study of Duolun County in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    11. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. John M. Rose & Lorenzo Masiero, 2010. "A comparison of prospect theory in WTP and preference space," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1006, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    13. Ifigenia Psarra & Özlem Altınkaya Genel & Alex van Spyk, 2021. "A Research by Design Strategy for Climate Adaptation Solutions: Implementation in the Low-Density, High Flood Risk Context of the Lake District, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, October.
    14. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    16. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Antonio Alberto Rodríguez Sousa & Carlos Parra-López & Samir Sayadi-Gmada & Jesús M. Barandica & Alejandro J. Rescia, 2020. "Evaluation of the Objectives and Concerns of Farmers to Apply Different Agricultural Managements in Olive Groves: The Case of Estepa Region (Southern, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    18. Marius Yapo & Jie He & Bruno Gagnon & Luc Savard & Roland Leduc, 2015. "La valeur économique pour l’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau: le cas de la rivière Magog et du lac Magog (Québec, Canada)," Cahiers de recherche 15-15, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    19. Brown, Thomas C., 2005. "Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 367-379, July.
    20. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    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:39:y:2019:i:c:s2212041619300014. 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.