IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v171y2020ics0921800919314429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Alcon, Francisco
  • Marín-Miñano, Cristina
  • Zabala, José A.
  • de-Miguel, María-Dolores
  • Martínez-Paz, José M.

Abstract

The agricultural sector faces a series of environmental challenges such as water and soil pollution, erosion or biodiversity loss, especially in monoculture systems. Alternatively, crop diversification is seen as an option to reduce negative impacts and to enhance agricultural Ecosystem Services (ES). Most of these ES, such as improving resilience, despite the benefits and the high social value, do not take part in the market. In this context, the present paper presents an analysis of social preferences regarding crop diversification practices in Mediterranean agroecosystems. To do so, a choice experiment has been developed to assess social demand for more welfare-improving agricultural cropping systems. Benefits were obtained from improving environmental and cultural ES provision due to intercropping, as crop diversification practices. The results show a strong social preference for crop diversification with regard to all the benefits considered in the experiment. In fact, the total economic value for non-market goods and services provided by intercropping, which ranges from 900 to 1400 €/ha/year, for some crops might be potentially higher than cropland financial benefits. These results highlight the social support for a change in agricultural model to reach sustainable agroecosystems, which is essential to ensure the success of agrarian and rural development policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:171:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919314429
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919314429
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106593?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. 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.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    4. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    5. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    6. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    7. Antony Trewavas, 2002. "Malthus foiled again and again," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 668-670, August.
    8. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    9. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    12. Martínez-Paz, José Miguel & Banos-González, Isabel & Martínez-Fernández, Julia & Esteve-Selma, Miguel Ángel, 2019. "Assessment of management measures for the conservation of traditional irrigated lands: The case of the Huerta of Murcia (Spain)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 382-391.
    13. Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    16. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    17. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    18. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    19. Rosa-Schleich, Julia & Loos, Jacqueline & Mußhoff, Oliver & Tscharntke, Teja, 2019. "Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 251-263.
    20. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    21. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    22. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    23. Damien Jourdain & Somsak Vivithkeyoonvong, 2017. "Valuation of ecosystem services provided by irrigated rice agriculture in Thailand: a choice experiment considering attribute nonattendance," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(5), pages 655-667, September.
    24. Morugán-Coronado, Alicia & Linares, Carlos & Gómez-López, María Dolores & Faz, Ángel & Zornoza, Raúl, 2020. "The impact of intercropping, tillage and fertilizer type on soil and crop yield in fruit orchards under Mediterranean conditions: A meta-analysis of field studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    25. Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode, 2016. "Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 232-245.
    26. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    27. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    28. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    29. 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.
    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. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Li, Xinyi & Zhang, Weina & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2021. "Policy-oriented versus market-induced: Factors influencing crop diversity across China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Stéphan Marette, 2021. "Sustainability and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Legumes: A Laboratory Study with Lentils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Bernardo Martin-Gorriz & José A. Zabala & Virginia Sánchez-Navarro & Belén Gallego-Elvira & Víctor Martínez-García & Francisco Alcon & José Francisco Maestre-Valero, 2022. "Intercropping Practices in Mediterranean Mandarin Orchards from an Environmental and Economic Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Dowling, Alyce & Roberts, Penny & Doolette, Ashlea & Zhou, Yi & Denton, Matthew D., 2023. "Oilseed-legume intercropping is productive and profitable in low input scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    5. Parron, Lucilia Maria & Villanueva, Anastasio Jose & Glenk, Klaus, 2022. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    6. Weituschat, Chiara Sophia & Pascucci, Stefano & Materia, Valentina Cristiana & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2023. "Can contract farming support sustainable intensification in agri-food value chains?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    7. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta, 2022. "Just a little bit more legumes! Results of an online survey in Europe," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(2), March.
    8. Zuo, Qiting & Wu, Qingsong & Yu, Lei & Li, Yongping & Fan, Yurui, 2021. "Optimization of uncertain agricultural management considering the framework of water, energy and food," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    9. Ioannidou, Sotiroula C. & Litskas, Vassilis D. & Stavrinides, Menelaos C. & Vogiatzakis, Ioannis N., 2022. "Linking management practices and soil properties to Ecosystem Services in Mediterranean mixed orchards," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Zhen, Huayang & Qiao, Yuhui & Zhao, Haijun & Ju, Xuehai & Zanoli, Raffaele & Waqas, Muhammad Ahmed & Lun, Fei & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman, 2022. "Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting the ecologically intensified agriculture," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    11. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Nong, Yixin & Yin, Changbin & Yi, Xiaoyan & Ren, Jing & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2021. "Smallholder farmer preferences for diversifying farming with cover crops of sustainable farm management: A discrete choice experiment in Northwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    13. Albaladejo-García, José A. & Alcon, Francisco & Martínez-Carrasco, Federico & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2023. "Understanding socio-spatial perceptions and Badlands ecosystem services valuation. Is there any welfare in soil erosion?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    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. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    3. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    5. 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).
    6. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    7. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    9. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    10. Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Mzek, Tareq & Samdin, Zaiton & W. Mohamad, Wan Norhidayah, 2022. "Assessing visitors' preferences and willingness to pay for the Malayan Tiger conservation in a Malaysian National Park: A choice experiment method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    14. 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.
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    16. 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.
    17. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    18. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    19. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    20. David Wuepper, 2017. "What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(5), pages 1114-1123, August.

    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:171:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919314429. 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.