IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p2061-d153030.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Niedermayr

    (Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, A-1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Lena Schaller

    (Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, A-1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Petr Mariel

    (Department of Applied Economics III (Econometrics Statistics), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), E-48015 Bilbao, Spain)

  • Pia Kieninger

    (Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)

  • Jochen Kantelhardt

    (Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, A-1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to elicit the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for the improved provision of public goods (PGs) by agriculture in a region of intensive agricultural production, embodying many of the environmental problems related to agriculture within and outside the European Union (EU). Our analysis was based on a participatory approach, combining the involvement of local stakeholders and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in the Marchfeld region in Austria. We estimated a random parameters logit model (RPL), including interactions with socio-demographic factors, to disentangle preference heterogeneity and find a positive MWTP of the local population for all three PGs analyzed: (i) groundwater quality; (ii) landscape quality; and (iii) soil functionality in connection with climate stability. Furthermore, MWTP varies considerably with respect to age, farmers/non-farmers and locals/incomers. Further research could combine the results of this demand-side valuation with those of a supply-side valuation, where the opportunity costs of different management options for farmers are estimated. Based on such a cost–benefit analysis and further participation of local stakeholders, new governance mechanisms for the smart and sustainable provision of PGs by agriculture could be developed for the Marchfeld region and for comparable European regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:2061-:d:153030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2061/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2061/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Loomis, John & Bell, Paul & Cooney, Helen & Asmus, Cheryl, 2009. "A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 697-712, December.
    3. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    4. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A. & Schmid, Erwin, 2007. "Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 128-140, May.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Wichman, Casey J., 2016. "Incentives, green preferences, and private provision of impure public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 208-220.
    7. Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & Lars Gårn Hansen & Erik Wengström, 2017. "Framing and Misperception in Public Good Experiments," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(2), pages 435-456, April.
    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. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    10. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez‐Limón & Manuel Arriaza, 2007. "Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 405-419, May.
    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. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Konow, James & Nyborg, Karine, 2017. "Framing in a threshold public goods experiment with heterogeneous endowments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 99-110.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    15. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    16. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    17. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    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. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    20. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    21. LeRoy Hansen & Daniel Hellerstein, 2007. "The Value of the Reservoir Services Gained with Soil Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 285-301.
    22. Graeme S. Cumming & Andreas Buerkert & Ellen M. Hoffmann & Eva Schlecht & Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel & Teja Tscharntke, 2014. "Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 50-57, November.
    23. Laura Blow & Richard Blundell, 2018. "A Nonparametric Revealed Preference Approach to Measuring the Value of Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 503-527, March.
    24. 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.
    25. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    26. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    27. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    28. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. Powlson, D.S. & Gregory, P.J. & Whalley, W.R. & Quinton, J.N. & Hopkins, D.W. & Whitmore, A.P. & Hirsch, P.R. & Goulding, K.W.T., 2011. "Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 72-87, January.
    32. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    33. Powlson, D.S. & Gregory, P.J. & Whalley, W.R. & Quinton, J.N. & Hopkins, D.W. & Whitmore, A.P. & Hirsch, P.R. & Goulding, K.W.T., 2011. "Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 72-87.
    34. 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.
    35. Angela Oliveira & Rachel Croson & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "One bad apple? Heterogeneity and information in public good provision," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 116-135, 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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Costică MIHAI & Mariana HATMANU, 2018. "Particular Aspects Of Consumer Profile Of The Public Goods Generated In A Region With Extensive Agricultural Activities: The Case Of Dorna Valley Area Of Romania," EURINT, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 5, pages 272-288.
    5. Alcon, Francisco & de-Miguel, María Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Assessment of real and perceived cost-effectiveness to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(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. Niedermayr, A. & Schaller, L. & Kieninger, P. & Kantelhardt, J., 2018. "Integrating soil and climate-related aspects into the valuation of willingness to pay for public goods provided by agriculture in an intensive agricultural production region: The case of the Marchfeld," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276963, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. 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).
    7. Ruokamo, Enni & Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Maria & Meriläinen, Teemu & Svento, Rauli, 2019. "Towards flexible energy demand – Preferences for dynamic contracts, services and emissions reductions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(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. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    14. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    15. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    16. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    17. Sobolewski, Maciej, 2021. "Measuring consumer well-being from using free-of-charge digital services. The case of navigation apps," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    18. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    19. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.

    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:6:p:2061-:d:153030. 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.