IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12171-d925646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tourists’ Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Mountain Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Mazzocchi

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergies, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy)

  • Guido Sali

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Production, Territory, Agroenergies, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ESs) can be defined as the values and benefits provided by ecosystems for human well-being. The main characteristic of ESs is that they benefit people. Agriculture is an important provider of ESs for society, culture, the environment and the economy. In mountain areas, agriculture embodies different functions. This work assesses the value of ESs provided by mountain farms according to mountain tourists’ opinions, using a Choice Experiments (CEs) approach and quantitative surveys. CEs allow multiple scenarios with different attributes associated with monetary values that respondents had to choose. The sample comprised 840 mountain tourists, interviewed through an online survey in April 2020. The main results show that the ESs provided by agriculture and preferred by tourists are the maintenance of pastures and grazing, which are considered to shape the mountain landscape and provide for cultural and environmental ESs. Moreover, biodiversity conservation is another one of the most appreciated attributes, being fundamental for protecting the environment. A noticeable result is the importance associated with the ES provided by agriculture related to the regulation of hydrogeological assets, meaning that the awareness of the hydrogeological instability of mountain slopes is widespread and that tourists are sensitive to this topic.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Tourists’ Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Mountain Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12171-:d:925646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12171/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12171/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2016. "Sustainability and Competitiveness of Agriculture in Mountain Areas: A Willingness to Pay (WTP) Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    3. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Weibel, Bettina, 2020. "Global assessment of mountain ecosystem services using earth observation data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    4. Caroline Pecher & Maria Bacher & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2018. "Agricultural landscapes between intensification and abandonment: the expectations of the public in a Central-Alpine cross-border region," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 428-442, April.
    5. Lecegui, Antonio & Olaizola, Ana María & López-i-Gelats, Feliu & Varela, Elsa, 2022. "Implementing the livelihood resilience framework: An indicator-based model for assessing mountain pastoral farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    6. Brigitte Desaigues, 2001. "Is expressed WTP consistent with welfare economics? A response from 73 cognitive interviews," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 137(I), pages 35-47, March.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    8. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    9. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    10. Jackson, Cecile, 1993. "Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 21(12), pages 1947-1963, December.
    11. Francesco Pagliacci & Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto, 2022. "The EU Mountain Product Voluntary Quality Term as a Valorization Tool for Livestock Farms: Challenges and Opportunities in an Alpine Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    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. Stefano Duglio & Giulia Salotti & Giulia Mascadri, 2023. "Conditions for Operating in Marginal Mountain Areas: The Local Farmer’s Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, April.

    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. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    2. Batarce, Marco & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2016. "Valuing crowding in public transport: Implications for cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 358-378.
    3. Chiara Mazzocchi & Luigi Orsi & Guido Sali, 2021. "Consumers’ Attitudes for Sustainable Mountain Cheese," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    5. González, Rosa Marina & Román, Concepción & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2019. "Preferences for sustainable mobility in natural areas: The case of Teide National Park," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 42-51.
    6. Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel & Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Sörensen, Kenneth, 2016. "An integrated algorithm for the optimal design of stated choice experiments with partial profiles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 648-669.
    7. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    8. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    10. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    11. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    12. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    13. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    15. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    16. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    17. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.
    19. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    20. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," Research Reports 94818, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    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:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12171-:d:925646. 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.