IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy

  • Zander, Kerstin K.
  • Signorello, Giovanni
  • De Salvo, Maria
  • Gandini, Gustavo
  • Drucker, Adam G.

The total economic value (TEV) of two threatened Italian cattle breeds (Modicana and Maremmana) was investigated using a choice experiment survey. Most respondents (85%) support breed conservation, their stated willingness-to-pay easily justifying EU support. The high landscape maintenance, existence and future option values of both breeds (around 80% of their TEVs) suggest that incentives mechanisms are indeed needed in order to allow farmers to capture some of these public good values and hence motivate them to undertake conservation-related activities. The positive direct use values of both breeds (around 20% of their TEVs) imply that niche product markets aimed at enhancing the private good values associated with conservation could also form elements of a conservation and use strategy for these breeds.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 93 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 219-229

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:93:y:2013:i:c:p:219-229
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Rege, J. E. O. & Gibson, J. P., 2003. "Animal genetic resources and economic development: issues in relation to economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 319-330, July.
  2. Girma T. Kassie & Awudu Abdulai & Clemens Wollny, 2009. "Valuing Traits of Indigenous Cows in Central Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 386-401.
  3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-35, January.
  4. 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.
  5. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  6. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai & Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2013. "Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 110-123.
  7. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
  8. 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.
  9. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), June.
  10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  11. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  12. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Diedhiou, M L, 2003. "Does breed matter to cattle farmers and buyers? Evidence from West Africa," Research Reports 182997, International Livestock Research Institute.
  13. 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.
  14. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
  15. 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), November.
  16. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
  17. Adam Drucker, 2007. "Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Cattle Traits among Cattle-Keeping Households in East Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1005-1019.
  18. Christie, Mike & Gibbons, James, 2011. "The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2250-2257.
  19. Romina Cavatassi & Leslie Lipper & Ulf Narloch, 2011. "Modern variety adoption and risk management in drought prone areas: insights from the sorghum farmers of eastern Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 279-292, 05.
  20. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
  21. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Valuing Animal Genetic Resources: A Choice Modeling Application to Indigenous Cattle in Kenya," Working Papers in Economics 07/05, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  22. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen, 2010. "Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 308-316, December.
  23. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
  24. Aziz Fadlaoui & Jutta Roosen & Philippe V. Baret, 2006. "Setting priorities in farm animal conservation choices--expert opinion and revealed policy preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(2), pages 173-192, June.
  25. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
  26. Signorello, Giovanni & Pappalardo, Gioacchino, 2003. "Domestic animal biodiversity conservation: a case study of rural development plans in the European Union," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 487-499, July.
  27. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  28. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
  29. Salvatore Di Falco & Jean-Paul Chavas, 2007. "On Crop Biodiversity, Risk Exposure, and Food Security in the Highlands of Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 599-611.
  30. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
  31. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
  32. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083.
  33. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:93:y:2013:i:c:p:219-229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.