IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v74y2012icp95-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices

Author

Listed:
  • Duke, Joshua M.
  • Borchers, Allison M.
  • Johnston, Robert J.
  • Absetz, Sarah

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a choice experiment measuring social benefits for sustainable management practices and agricultural land preservation. Sustainable management is conceptualized with three illustrative practices that impact water quality, carbon sequestration, and soil erosion: fertilizing with a broiler litter product, expanding riparian buffers, and no-till cropping. Data for a choice experiment are collected using a mail survey of residents living near a large, unpreserved agricultural parcel in an urban-influenced area of Delaware. Results identify substantial benefits for land preservation, the use of broiler litter, and riparian buffers but not for conservation tillage. Results also suggest that the estimated household benefits of all three sustainable management practices combined are similar in magnitude to the benefits from land preservation alone. Based on model results, policy and future research may wish to examine possibilities for subsidizing sustainable management practices in urban-influenced areas as a more cost-effective means of providing benefits similar to those realized through land preservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:74:y:2012:i:c:p:95-103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911004988
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.002?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. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Lynch, Lori & Brown, Cheryl, 2000. "Landowner Decision Making About Riparian Buffers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-12, December.
    4. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, May.
    5. Marc O. Ribaudo & Robert C. Johansson, 2007. "Nutrient Management Use at the Rural-Urban Fringe: Does Demand for Environmental Quality Play a Role?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 689-699.
    6. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    7. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
    8. Messer, Kent D. & Allen, William L., III, 2010. "Applying Optimization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Enhance Agricultural Preservation Strategies in the State of Delaware," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 1-15, October.
    9. 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.
    10. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    11. Craig A. Bond & Dana L. Hoag & Gorm Kipperberg, 2011. "Agricultural Producers and the Environment: A Stated Preference Analysis of Colorado Corn Producers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59(1), pages 127-144, March.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & John C. Bergstrom, 2011. "Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 639-660.
    13. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    14. Raymond B. Palmquist & Fritz M. Roka & Tomislav Vukina, 1997. "Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, and Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 114-124.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    16. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    17. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    18. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    19. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    20. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    21. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    22. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    23. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    24. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    25. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    26. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    27. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Powers, Shawn M., 2006. "Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 373-390, July.
    28. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    29. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    30. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    31. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    32. Hoehn John P. & Loomis John B., 1993. "Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-75, July.
    33. Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Nermin Nergis & Kurt A. Schwabe, 2008. "Effects of Nutrient Restrictions on Confined Animal Facilities: Insights from a Structural‐Dynamic Model," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 219-241, June.
    34. 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.
    35. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    36. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    37. Richard C. Ready & Charles W. Abdalla, 2005. "The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 314-326.
    38. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    39. 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.
    40. Aaron De Laporte & Alfons Weersink & Wanhong Yang, 2010. "Ecological Goals and Wetland Preservation Choice," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(1), pages 131-150, March.
    41. Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
    42. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    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. Qi Chen & Yun Zhang, 2023. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Artificial Beach Park Development and Management: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Viteri-Salazar, Oswaldo & Toledo, Lucía, 2020. "The expansion of the agricultural frontier in the northern Amazon region of Ecuador, 2000–2011: Process, causes, and impact," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    4. Koffi M. Adji & Aklesso Y. G. Egbendewe & Boris O. K. Lokonon, 2022. "Potential impacts of sustainable agricultural practices on smallholders' behavior in developing countries: Evidence from Togo," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(1), pages 73-87, February.
    5. Amer Ait Sidhoum & K Hervé Dakpo & Laure Latruffe, 2022. "Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social sustainability on farms using a latent class frontier efficiency model: Evidence for Spanish crop farms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437, December.
    7. Damien Jourdain1,2,3 & Juliette Lairez4,5 & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437.
    8. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    9. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Affholder, François, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(4), March.
    10. Crastes, Romain & Beaumais, Olivier & Arkoun, Ouerdia & Laroutis, Dimitri & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Rulleau, Bénédicte & Hassani-Taibi, Salima & Barbu, Vladimir Stefan & Gaillard, David, 2014. "Erosive runoff events in the European Union: Using discrete choice experiment to assess the benefits of integrated management policies when preferences are heterogeneous," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 105-112.
    11. Ramtin Joolaie & Ahmad Abedi Sarvestani & Fatemeh Taheri & Steven Van Passel & Hossein Azadi, 2017. "Sustainable cropping pattern in North Iran: application of fuzzy goal programming," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 2199-2216, December.
    12. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Marcellus Mbah & Charles Fonchingong, 2019. "Curating Indigenous Knowledge and Practices for Sustainable Development: Possibilities for a Socio-Ecologically-Minded University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Mainul Hoque & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Benefits from Conservation Practices Targeted in Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy 2013: A Non Market Valuation Approach," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp561, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    19. Haixia Wu & Yan Ge, 2019. "Excessive Application of Fertilizer, Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution, and Farmers’ Policy Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Yaying Zhu & Juan Chen, 2022. "Small-Scale Farmers’ Preference Heterogeneity for Green Agriculture Policy Incentives Identified by Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    21. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    22. 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.
    23. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Post-Print hal-02995632, HAL.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M. & Kukielka, Jessica B., 2008. "Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    5. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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).
    9. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    10. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    11. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Benefit Transfer and Commodity Measurement Scales: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," Working Papers 2018-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    13. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Makriyannis, Christos & Johnston, Robert, 2016. "Welfare Analysis for Climate Risk Reductions: Are Current Treatments of Outcome Uncertainty Sufficient?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235532, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Bernard, John C. & Vitz, Gregory, 2021. "A new food label to aid farmland preservation programs: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    20. 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.

    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:74:y:2012:i:c:p:95-103. 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.