IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v25y1998i1p53-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land

Author

Listed:
  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Slangen, Louis H G

Abstract

The public benefits of agricultural wildlife management are estimated by means of the contingent valuation method. Households are asked for their willingness to pay for wildlife preservation measures taken by farmers. Corresponding with the survey's three-stage budgeting structure, a non-linear recursive model is used to test the study's construct validity. Since the method is not undisputed and rapidly evolving, the outcomes of the study are accompanied by an extensive discussion of the way the method is applied. A rough cost-benefit analysis indicates that current policy towards management agreements is justified based on the neo-Paretian welfare criterion. Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Brouwer, Roy & Slangen, Louis H G, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 25(1), pages 53-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:25:y:1998:i:1:p:53-72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Weber, Gerald, 2003. "Internationaler Handel und multifunktionale Landwirtschaft : Ein Agrarsektormodell zur Analyse Politischer Optionen und Entscheidungsunterstutzung," Working Paper Series 18824, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Thilo W. Glebe & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2008. "Assessing the production and welfare effects of agri-environmental policy: a conceptual analysis," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 1(1), pages 75-92.
    3. Nico Polman & Arianne de Blaeij & Stijn Reinhard & Louis Slangen, 2011. "Landscape and the commercial benefits of recreation," ERSA conference papers ersa10p910, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    5. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Timo Kuosmanen & Eleonora Nillesen & Justus Wesseler, 2004. "Does ignoring multidestination trips in the travel cost method cause a systematic bias?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 629-651, December.
    7. Ingo Bräuer & Rainer Marggraf, 2004. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Biodiversity Conservation: An Integrated Hydrological and Economic Model to Value the Enhanced Nitrogen Retention in Renaturated Streams," Working Papers 2004.54, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Thilo W. Glebe, 2007. "The Environmental Impact of European Farming: How Legitimate Are Agri-Environmental Payments?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 87-102.
    9. Aliza Fleischer & Daniel Felsenstein, 2002. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Economic Surpluses: A Case Study of a Televised Event," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 26(2), pages 139-156, May.
    10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    11. He, Jie & Huang, Anping & Xu, Luodan, 2015. "Spatial heterogeneity and transboundary pollution: A contingent valuation (CV) study on the Xijiang River drainage basin in south China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 101-130.
    12. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    13. Moon, Wanki & Griffith, Jacob Wayne, 2011. "Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 455-465, August.
    14. Moon, Wanki & Chang, Jae Bong & Asirvatham, Jebaraj, 2016. "Identifying Factors Driving US Citizens’ Preferences about Multifunctional Agriculture," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230032, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Katrin Oltmer & Peter Nijkamp & Raymond Florax & Floor Brouwer, 2000. "A Meta-Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agri-Environmental Policies in the European Union," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-083/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    17. Pennington, Derric N. & Dalzell, Brent & Nelson, Erik & Mulla, David & Taff, Steve & Hawthorne, Peter & Polasky, Stephen, 2017. "Cost-effective Land Use Planning: Optimizing Land Use and Land Management Patterns to Maximize Social Benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 75-90.
    18. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:erevae:v:25:y:1998:i:1:p:53-72. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.