IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1579-d146482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Preferences for the Design of a Farmland Retirement Project: Using Choice Experiments in Urban and Rural Areas of Wuwei, China

Author

Listed:
  • Liuyang Yao

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Minjuan Zhao

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Yu Cai

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Zhaowei Yin

    (Department of Research & Development, Haudi Investigation Design & Consulting Company, Xi’an 710000, China)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of a choice experiment measuring public preferences for a farmland retirement project (FRP) in the Gansu environmental degraded region of China. The project helps improve China’s long-term food security, and information on public preferences can be used to cost-effectively design such policies. FRP is conceptualized with four attributes relating to public preferences: Areas enrolled in the program, duration of the contract, priority zone for conservation, and vegetation type for planting. The analysis employs a mixed logit model, allowing for preference heterogeneity, and explores the differences between the willingness to pay of urban and rural residents. Results identify substantial benefits for FRP, and these benefits are closely linked to the program design. Results also show that the willingness to pay for a longer period of the program of urban residents is significantly higher than that of rural residents. Finally, this study proposes policy recommendations that the number of areas and years of the current FRP in the study area can be increased moderately, but not excessively, to further benefit local residents.

Suggested Citation

  • Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao & Yu Cai & Zhaowei Yin, 2018. "Public Preferences for the Design of a Farmland Retirement Project: Using Choice Experiments in Urban and Rural Areas of Wuwei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1579-:d:146482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    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. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    4. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    6. Xue Xie & Hualin Xie & Cheng Shu & Qing Wu & Hua Lu, 2017. "Estimation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Fallow Heavy Metal-Polluted Farmland in China Based on Farmer Willingness to Accept," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Designing choice experiments to incorporate tests for geographic scale and scope differences," Research Reports 94802, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    12. Fanus Asefaw Aregay & Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao, 2016. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity for Integrated River Basin Management: The Case of the Shiyang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    17. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    18. Xu, Zhigang & Xu, Jintao & Deng, Xiangzheng & Huang, Jikun & Uchida, Emi & Rozelle, Scott, 2006. "Grain for Green versus Grain: Conflict between Food Security and Conservation Set-Aside in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 130-148, January.
    19. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    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. Yang, Xiaoke & Chen, Qiuhua & Lin, Nenmei & Han, Mengzhu & Chen, Qian & Zheng, Qiuqin & Gao, Bin & Liu, Fengbo & Xu, Zhongyue, 2021. "Chinese consumer preferences for organic labels on Oolong tea: evidence from a choice experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), February.
    2. Lin Song & Yi Xue & Yaqiong Jing & Jincan Zhang, 2021. "Visitor’s Willingness to Pay for National Park Entrance Fees in China: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), 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. 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.
    2. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    3. 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.
    4. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    10. Robert Johnston & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2014. "Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 363-387, November.
    11. Benoît Chèze & Maia M. David & Vincent Martinet, 2017. "Farmers' motivations to reduce their use of pesticides: a choice experiment analysis in France," Post-Print hal-01800261, HAL.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    14. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    15. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. 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).
    17. Elisabetta Strazzera & Elisabetta Cherchi & Silvia Ferrini, 2010. "Assessment of Regeneration Projects in Urban Areas of Environmental Interest: A Stated Choice Approach to Estimate Use and Quasi-Option Values," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(2), pages 452-468, February.
    18. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    19. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    20. Abdulrahman, Abdulallah S & Johnston, Robert J, 2016. "Systematic Non-Response in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: Implications for the Valuation of Climate Risk Reductions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235465, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1579-:d:146482. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.