IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v68y2017icp277-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach

Author

Listed:
  • Novikova, Anastasija
  • Rocchi, Lucia
  • Vitunskienė, Vlada

Abstract

This study represents a first analysis of citizens’ willingness to pay (WTP) for agroecosystem services in a Baltic country (Lithuania). Since it is part of the European Union, Lithuania applied environmental agriculture schemes to support the production of agroecosystem services by farmers. Therefore, understanding the demand of such services may help policy makers to allocate funds. This study revealed that Lithuanian residents are concerned about environmental problems that may be caused by agriculture. Moreover, while the provision of agroecosystem services is demanded, citizens show very different tastes concerning these services. The application of a latent class model highlights three groups of citizens with different tastes and levels of WTP. Among the ecosystem services tested, the landscape provisions show the highest level of heterogeneity across the class. This study’s findings provide quantitative information concerning the demand for improvements in agroecosystem services through agri-environmental protection programmes. The obtained data supports the conclusion that choice experiments are a reliable tool to analyse consumers’ preferences related to environmental protection in Lithuania.

Suggested Citation

  • Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:277-286
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.051?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. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    3. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    4. Dominati, E. & Mackay, A. & Green, S. & Patterson, M., 2014. "A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 119-129.
    5. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    6. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O, 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    8. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    9. Schneider, Uwe A. & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-5.
    10. Uwe A. Schneider & Pete Smith, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation and Emission Intensities in Agriculture," Working Papers FNU-164, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jul 2008.
    11. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    12. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    15. Pushpam Kumar & Uwe A. Schneider, 2008. "Greenhouse gas emission mitigation through agriculture," Working Papers FNU-155, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Feb 2008.
    16. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    17. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    18. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    21. Kamakura, Wagner A & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "An Empirical Bayes Procedure for Improving Individual-Level Estimates and Predictions from Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 121-125, January.
    22. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    23. Hamparsum Bozdogan, 1987. "Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 345-370, September.
    24. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
    25. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    26. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    27. Borresch, Rene & Maas, Sarah & Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael, 2009. "Modelling the value of a multifunctional landscape – A discrete choice experiment," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51641, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    28. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    29. 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.
    30. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    31. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    32. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    33. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    34. 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.
    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. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    2. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2020. "On how to define, assess and improve the governance of agro-ecosystem services," MPRA Paper 100117, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2021. "A study on type, volume and governance of ecosystem services in Bulgarian farms," MPRA Paper 110966, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2022. "Управленчески Форми За Снабдяване На Агро-Екосистемни Услуги От Земеделските Стопанства В България [Governance modes for the supply of agro-ecosystem services by agricultural farms in Bulgaria]," MPRA Paper 112847, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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).
    6. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    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. Spiegel, Alisa & Slijper, Thomas & Mey, Yann de & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Poortvliet, P. Marijn & Rommel, Jens & Hansson, Helena & Vigani, Mauro & Soriano, Bárbara & Wauters, Erwin & Appel, Franzisk, 2021. "Resilience capacities as perceived by European farmers," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 193.
    9. Rocchi, L. & Campioni, R. & Brunori, A. & Mariano, E., 2023. "Environmental certification of woody charcoal: A choice experiments application," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. repec:arp:sjefsm:2021:p:117-135 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2021. "Ecosystem services of Bulgarian agriculture," MPRA Paper 105437, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Hrabrin Bachev, 2021. "Modes of Governance for Ecosystem Services in Bulgarian Farms," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 8, pages 145-174.
    13. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Hrabrin Bachev, 2020. "Defining, analyzing and improving the governance of agroecosystem services," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 3-30,31-55.
    15. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2022. "Unpacking the governance of agro-ecosystem services – the case of Bulgaria," MPRA Paper 111693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    3. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    4. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Kehinde, M. O. & Shittu, A. M. & Osunsina, I. O. O., 2019. "Willingness to Accept Incentives for a Shift to Climate-Smart Agriculture among Lowland Rice Farmers in Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 9(1), October.
    7. Rocchi, L. & Campioni, R. & Brunori, A. & Mariano, E., 2023. "Environmental certification of woody charcoal: A choice experiments application," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    9. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    10. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    12. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    13. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Espinosa-Goded, María & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2014. "The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-73.
    14. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    17. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    18. 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.
    19. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    20. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    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:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:277-286. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.