IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ssefpa/v12y2020i5d10.1007_s12571-020-01040-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Warehouse’ or research centre? Analyzing public preferences for conservation, pre-breeding and characterization activities at the Czech genebank

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Tyack

    (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
    Charles University)

  • Milan Ščasný

    (Charles University
    Charles University Environment Centre
    University of Economics)

Abstract

Genebanks are places where crop varieties are stored, catalogued, and made available for redistribution so that their genetic diversity is not lost. Besides conserving cultivated crop diversity, some genebanks also conserve the wild relatives of crops, which can contain useful traits not present in the domesticated genepool, and can undertake other activities to make genetic diversity more usable in breeding, such as characterization and evaluation efforts and pre-breeding. We present here the results of a stated preference survey that elicits the preferences of the general Czech public for the conservation of additional wheat and wild wheat varieties, characterization and evaluation activities, and pre-breeding efforts. Czech citizens were asked whether they would be willing to make a one-time voluntary payment to finance specific, 10-year conservation programmes at the Czech genebank. Using a sequence of single-bounded dichotomous choice questions, we estimate a random effects probit model to analyze preferences for such conservation programmes. We find that Czech respondents had a strong preference for characterization and evaluation, and while they do not value pre-breeding, they are willing to pay for the conservation of additional wild wheat accessions (though not for cultivated wheat varieties). In aggregate, the estimated benefits are substantial compared to the current costs of conservation. The stated preference approach of this paper permits the estimation of the social value of crop diversity conservation and associated investments in research, including non-market values. Our results provide information of potential use for policymakers in relation to setting priorities for the funding of agricultural research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2020. "‘Warehouse’ or research centre? Analyzing public preferences for conservation, pre-breeding and characterization activities at the Czech genebank," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1046, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:12:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-020-01040-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s12571-020-01040-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12571-020-01040-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12571-020-01040-z?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. Claudia Meier & Bernadette Oehen, 2019. "Consumers’ Valuation of Farmers’ Varieties for Food System Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Hein, Lars & Gatzweiler, Franz, 2006. "The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 176-185, November.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    4. Evenson, Robert E & Gollin, Douglas, 1997. "Genetic Resources, International Organizations, and Improvement in Rice Varieties," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(3), pages 471-500, April.
    5. Marasas, C. N. & Smale, M. & Singh, R. P., 2003. "The economic impact of productivity maintenance research: breeding for leaf rust resistance in modern wheat," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 253-263, December.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Melinda Smale & Nelissa Jamora, 2020. "Valuing genebanks," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 905-918, October.
    2. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    3. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    4. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    5. 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.
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Hein, Lars & Gatzweiler, Franz, 2006. "The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 176-185, November.
    8. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    9. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    10. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    11. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Dickie, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Gerking, Shelby & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 363-382, October.
    13. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    14. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    18. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    19. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    20. Jensen, Anne Kejser & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2019. "Childhood Nature Experiences and Adulthood Environmental Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 48-56.

    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:spr:ssefpa:v:12:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-020-01040-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.