IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/212054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Lizin, Sebastien
  • Van Passel, Steven
  • Schreurs, Eloi

Abstract

This paper reports on the findings from discrete choice experiments designed to estimate farmers’ perceived costs of land use restrictions, i.e. crop restrictions, additional fertilizing restrictions, and usage restrictions, as opposed to having no such restrictions. To this end, hypothetical land purchasing decisions were simulated based on the information about productivity, lot size, distance to other land, driving time to home, land use restrictions, and price. Farmers from the Campine area (Belgium) were invited to participate in the survey as the agricultural land in this region still faces the effects of historical heavy metal contamination resulting in crop restrictions. For identical pieces of land, we estimate the perceived cost, calculated as a change in the consumer surplus due to having a land use restriction, to be about 46,000 €/ha for the crop restriction, 50,000 €/ha for the usage restriction, and 70,000 €/ha for the fertilizing restrictions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:212054
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212054/files/Lizin-Farmers%20perceived%20cost%20of%20having%20land%20use%20restrictions-1060.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212054?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. 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.
    2. Tomislav Vukina & Ada Wossink, 2000. "Environmental Policies and Agricultural Land Values: Evidence from the Dutch Nutrient Quota System," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 413-429.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    4. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    6. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    7. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    8. Abebayehu Tegene & Keith Wiebe & Betsey Kuhn, 1999. "Irreversible Investment Under Uncertainty: Conservation Easements and the Option to Develop Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 203-219, May.
    9. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    10. F. Bonnieux & P. Rainelli & D. Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the Supply of Environmental Benefits by Agriculture: A French Case Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 135-153, March.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Cynthia J. Nickerson & Lori Lynch, 2001. "The Effect of Farmland Preservation Programs on Farmland Prices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 341-351.
    13. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    14. Guy Garrod & Eric Ruto & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2014. "Investigating Preferences for the Local Delivery of Agri-environment Benefits," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 177-190, January.
    15. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    16. 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.
    17. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & James J. Opaluch & Thomas A. Grigalunas & Marisa J. Mazzotta, 2001. "Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 305-325.
    19. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    20. Lawrence Blume & Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Perry Shapiro, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92.
    21. Polasky, Stephen & Doremus, Holly, 1998. "When the Truth Hurts: Endangered Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 22-47, January.
    22. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    23. 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.
    24. Francois Bonnieux & Pierre Rainelli & Dominique Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture," Post-Print hal-01595403, HAL.
    25. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    26. J. Stephen Clark & Murray Fulton & John T. Scott, 1993. "The Inconsistency of Land Values, Land Rents, and Capitalization Formulas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(1), pages 147-155.
    27. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    28. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    29. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    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. Chen, Zhu & Zhang, Anlu & Zhou, Kehao & Huang, Lingxiang, 2021. "Can payment tools substitute for regulatory ones? Estimating the policy preference for agricultural land preservation, Tianjin, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Xin Nie & Qian Chen & Ting Xiao & Han Wang, 2019. "Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan nature reserve," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 813-829, March.
    4. Jingjing Zhang & Nan Jiang & Jason James Turner & Saeed Pahlevan Sharif, 2021. "The Impact of Scarcity of Medical Protective Products on Chinese Consumers’ Impulsive Purchasing during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Ludo Peeters & Eloi Schreurs & Steven Passel, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of Soil Contamination on Farmland Prices in the Belgian Campine Region: Evidence from Unconditional Quantile Regressions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 135-168, January.
    6. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    7. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    9. Zhaohui Zhang & Krishna P. Paudel & Kamal Upadhyaya, 2023. "Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(1), pages 61-78, January.
    10. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Vera V. Yurak & Margarita N. Ignatyeva & Aleksey V. Dushin, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services in a region: A review of the international experience," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 79-103, December.
    12. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    14. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.

    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. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    2. Schueftan, Alejandra & Aravena, Claudia & Reyes, René, 2021. "Financing energy efficiency retrofits in Chilean households: The role of financial instruments, savings and uncertainty in energy transition," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    4. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    5. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao & Yu Cai & Zhaowei Yin, 2018. "Public Preferences for the Design of a Farmland Retirement Project: Using Choice Experiments in Urban and Rural Areas of Wuwei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    7. 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).
    8. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    9. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Benoît Chèze & Maia M. David & Vincent Martinet, 2017. "Farmers' motivations to reduce their use of pesticides: a choice experiment analysis in France," Post-Print hal-01800261, HAL.
    12. 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.
    13. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    15. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    17. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    18. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    19. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    20. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iaae15:212054. 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/iaaeeea.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.