IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v118y2015icp159-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Santos, Rui
  • Clemente, Pedro
  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Antunes, Paula
  • Pinto, Rute

Abstract

Landowner preferences are elicited for different contractual agri-environmental agreements (AEA) using choice experiments in the Portuguese montados, an agro-forestry ecosystem with high conservation value. The choice experiment is developed with the help of biologists from local environmental authorities and builds upon existing AEA in the Portuguese Rural Development Program ProDeR implemented at Natura 2000 conservation sites. Current uptake rates of AEA for montado conservation are very low. The study's main objective is to assess how varying the institutional–economic terms and conditions underlying current contract design can increase this uptake. We find demand for AEA inside and outside the currently designated protection areas, but there exist clear trade-offs between willingness to accept financial compensation and opportunity costs measured through varying cattle and oak tree density levels. Also contract duration plays a significant role. Minimum willingness to accept financial compensation for a hypothetical scenario representing the current contract conditions in the region is more than six times higher than the actual payment levels under the existing agri-environmental agreements.

Suggested Citation

  • Santos, Rui & Clemente, Pedro & Brouwer, Roy & Antunes, Paula & Pinto, Rute, 2015. "Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-167.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:159-167
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915003195
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.028?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. Tesfaye, Abonesh & Brouwer, Roy, 2012. "Testing participation constraints in contract design for sustainable soil conservation in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 168-178.
    2. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    3. G. A. A. Wossink, 2003. "Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(4), pages 461-485, December.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    5. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    6. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    7. Stephen Hynes & Eoghan Garvey, 2009. "Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri‐environmental Scheme using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 546-562, September.
    8. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    9. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    10. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    11. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    12. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    2. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Rommel, Jens & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Types of collective action problems and farmers’ willingness to accept agri-environmental schemes in Switzerland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Helena Guimarães, M. & Pinto-Correia, Teresa & de Belém Costa Freitas, Maria & Ferraz-de-Oliveira, Isabel & Sales-Baptista, Elvira & da Veiga, José Francisco Ferragolo & Tiago Marques, J. & Pinto-C, 2023. "Farming for nature in the Montado: the application of ecosystem services in a results-based model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    5. Voravee Saengavut & Chintana Somswasdi, 2022. "Preference Heterogeneity of Local Participation in Coupling Conservation and Community-Based Entrepreneurship Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    9. Teresa Pinto-Correia & José Muñoz-Rojas & Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe & Egon Bjørnshave Noe, 2019. "Governance Discourses Reflecting Tensions in a Multifunctional Land Use System in Decay; Tradition Versus Modernity in the Portuguese Montado," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.

    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. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    2. 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).
    3. Brouwer, Roy & Lienhoop, Nele & Oosterhuis, Frans, 2015. "Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 205-222.
    4. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    6. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    7. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. 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.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    11. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    12. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    13. Kuriyama, Koichi & Michael Hanemann, W. & Hilger, James R., 2010. "A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn-Tucker model: An application to recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 209-220, November.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    17. 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.
    18. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    19. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:159-167. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.