IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/28733.html

Estudio de las preferencias por los elementos agrarios del paisaje mediante los metodos del analisis conjunto y valoracion contingente

Author

Listed:
  • Sayadi, Samir
  • Roa, Maria Carmen Gonzalez
  • Calatrava-Requena, Javier

Abstract

RESUMEN - Entre las externalidades producidas por la actividad agraria hay que considerar su aportación a la configuración del paisaje, es decir, la externalidad estética de los agroecosistemas. Su conocimiento y valoración adquiere cada vez más relevancia. En el presente trabajo se han utilizado los métodos de Análisis Conjunto y Valoración Contingente para estudiar, por una parte, la importancia relativa de la componente agraria en la función de utilidad derivada del disfrute de los paisajes de Las Alpujarras (Granada-España) y, por otra, la disposición a pagar de los entrevistados por disfrutar de dichos paisajes. Se ha realizado un test a una muestra de potenciales visitantes a la zona, utilizando tres elementos básicos de los paisajes: cubierta vegetal, pendiente y nivel de edificación. Dentro de cada uno de estos componentes del paisaje, se han considerado distintos niveles, algunos relacionados con la actividad agraria. Posteriormente, se ha ajustado un modelo de regresión múltiple con el fin de identificar la relación entre la Disposición a Pagar por disfrutar de cada uno de los paisajes considerados y los atributos del mismo y las características sociodemográficas de los entrevistados. Los resultados de los análisis de preferencias y de la Disposición a Pagar han permitido identificar líneas estratégicas para potenciar la función paisajística de los sistemas agrarios de la zona con vistas a su desarrollo endógeno, integral y sostenible. PALABRAS CLAVE: Análisis Conjunto; Valoración Contingente; Paisaje Agrario; Desarrollo Rural Sostenible. SUMMARY - Among the externalities produced by agrarian activities one must consider its contribution to the shaping of the landscape, an aesthetic externality value of the agrosystems. Recognizing and appraising this contribution is becoming more and more important every day. In this study a Conjoint Analysis and Contingent Valuation methods has been used to estimate, first the relative importance of the agrarian component level in the utility function achieved from enjoying landscapes, and secondly the Willingness To Pay of surveyed for these landscapes existing in the area of The Alpujarras (Granada-Spain). Data has been obtained by a questionnaire performed to a sample of a potential visitor of the area, using three main features of landscape, as follows: Vegetation layer, level of building, and mountain inclines, each of them with different levels. Subsequently, a multiple regression model has been fitted to identify the relationship between the Willingness to Pay for landscapes and its features and the socio-cultural traits of the individuals. According to results concerning both the preferences and the Willingness To Pay of visitors for landscapes, some conclusions have finally been drawn, allowing to derive strategies to maintain the most valued landscape in the area and to make use of it for the sustainable development of the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Sayadi, Samir & Roa, Maria Carmen Gonzalez & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2004. "Estudio de las preferencias por los elementos agrarios del paisaje mediante los metodos del analisis conjunto y valoracion contingente," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(07), pages 1-17.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:28733
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28733/files/04070135.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28733?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. 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.
    2. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    3. Andrew H. Trice & Samuel E. Wood, 1958. "Measurement of Recreation Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(3), pages 195-207.
    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. Hanemann, W., 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Economics," CUDARE Working Papers 198636, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Andy Barlow & David Forrest, 2015. "Benefits to their Communities from Small Town Professional Football Clubs," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 232(1), pages 18-29, May.
    3. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    4. Kuuluvainen, Jari & Kuuluvainen, Jari, 2002. "Editorial - Value of nature conservation: the good or the context?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 101-103.
    5. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1997. "Towards More Efficient Compensation Programmes for Tourists' Benefits From Agriculture in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 189-205, September.
    6. 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.
    7. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    8. repec:osf:osfxxx:pume6_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Philippe Bance & Angelique Chassy, 2017. "The Rollout of the Multilevel Governance System: A Source of Reworking the Contingent Valuation Method?," Post-Print halshs-01965114, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    13. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    14. John List, 2020. "Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem," Natural Field Experiments 00687, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Sande, Doris N. & Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Nzaku, Kilungu, 2009. "Amenity benefits and public policy: An application to the Georgia Pecan Industry," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46851, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Patrick Lloyd‐Smith & Ewa Zawojska, 2025. "How stable and predictable are welfare estimates using recreation demand models?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(3), pages 846-868, May.
    17. Banerjee, Prasenjit & Shogren, Jason F., 2014. "Bidding behavior given point and interval values in a second-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 126-137.
    18. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    19. Junfeng Zhang & Anlu Zhang & Min Song, 2020. "Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    20. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    21. Maria Rosa Trovato & Paolo Micalizzi & Salvatore Giuffrida, 2021. "Assessment of Landscape Co-Benefits in Natura 2000 Site Management Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-38, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:earnsa:28733. 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/aeeaaea.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.