IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae05/24778.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficacy of European Policies on Rural Landscape: the Case Study of Sardinia (ITALY)

Author

Listed:
  • Idda, Lorenzo
  • Madau, Fabio A.
  • Orru, Elia
  • Pulina, Pietro
  • Sini, Maria Paola

Abstract

Over the last decades, a large number of developed countries have explicitly recognized the importance of benefits generated from agricultural and rural landscape into their legislation. Since the early '90, preservation and enhancing of rural landscape has played an increasing role also into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) promoted by the European Union (EU). More generally, the whole European rural development policy seems to recognize an important role to the keeping of agricultural and rural landscape. The present work is a part of a wider research aimed to identify rational instruments for guidance policies on rural landscape. The specific purpose of this paper is to evaluate efficacy of Sardinian (Italy) regional policies on rural landscape. In particular, the analysis aims to assess "functionality" of policies on rural landscape in programming policy. Results arisen from analysis of Rural Development of this first evaluation are controversial.

Suggested Citation

  • Idda, Lorenzo & Madau, Fabio A. & Orru, Elia & Pulina, Pietro & Sini, Maria Paola, 2005. "Efficacy of European Policies on Rural Landscape: the Case Study of Sardinia (ITALY)," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24778, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae05:24778
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24778/files/pp05id02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24778?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen, 2003. "Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(1), pages 51-75, March.
    2. Pruckner, Gerald J, 1995. "Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 22(2), pages 173-190.
    3. A Fleischer & Y Tsur, 2000. "Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(3), pages 385-398, September.
    4. Craig Bullock & Jim Kay, 1997. "Preservation and Change in the Upland Landscape: The Public Benefits of Grazing Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 315-334.
    5. Drake, Lars, 1992. "The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(3), pages 351-364.
    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. Idda, Lorenzo & Benedetto, Graziella & Madau, Fabio A. & Orru, Elia & Pulina, Pietro, 2005. "The Structure of Rural Landscape in Monetary Evaluation Studies: Main Analytical Approaches in Literature," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24549, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 70.
    3. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    4. Schmid, Erwin & Sinabell, Franz, 2004. "Multifunctionality of Agriculture: Political Concepts, Analytical Challenges and an Empirical Case Study," Discussion Papers DP-08-2004, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    5. Javier Lozano Ibáñez & Javier Rey-Maquieira Palmer & Carlos Mario Gómez Gómez, 2004. "Land, Environmental Externalities and Tourism Development," Working Papers 2004.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Mbolatiana Rambonilaza, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Post-Print hal-01201064, HAL.
    7. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Francois Bonnieux & . Università Degli Studi Di Genova,imperia (ita), 1998. "The provision of amenities by agriculture and rural tourism," Post-Print hal-01595426, HAL.
    10. Marangon, Francesco & Visintin, Francesca, 2007. "Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    11. 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.
    12. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    13. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    14. Lovell, Sabrina J. & Lynch, Lori, 2002. "Hedonic Price Analysis Of Easement Payments In Agricultural Land Preservation Programs," Working Papers 28564, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Benefit Estimates For Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design And Respondents’ Rationality In A Choice Experiment Study," Working Papers 0606, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    16. Hyytia, Nina & Kola, Jukka, 2005. "Citizens' Attitudes Towards Multifunctional Agriculture," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24736, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    18. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13.
    19. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Do welfare estimates differ?," Working Papers 0911, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    20. Yerushalmi, Erez, 2018. "Using Water Allocation in Israel as a Proxy for Imputing the Value of Agricultural Amenities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 12-20.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:ags:eaae05:24778. 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: AgEcon Search (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.