IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v60y2023ics2212041623000062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the ecosystem services provided by conventional and organic farmlands: A better outcome for organic farmlands?

Author

Listed:
  • Hsieh, Ching-Hua
  • Lin, Hsing-Wei
  • Liu, Wan-Yu

Abstract

To assess and compare the value of conventional and organic farmland ecosystem services, this study firstly used the analytic network process to measure the weights of these services to the value. Then, the contingent valuation method was employed to investigate the public’s perception of farmland ecosystems as well as the amount that they would be willing to pay for ecosystem services offered by different types of farmland use. The results of the study revealed that, among seven common farmland use types, farmland cultivated using organic farming methods was perceived to be the most valuable. The estimated results of the regression model revealed that the amount that participants would be willing to pay for farmland ecosystem services was related to their average monthly income and their perception of farmland ecosystem services. This study offered the following recommendations: if the Taiwanese government wishes to increase the value of Taiwan’s farmland ecosystem services, it should introduce farmland afforestation incentives, organic farming incentives, and farmland-friendly incentives to encourage farmers to transform abandoned farmland or farmland cultivated using conventional farming methods into farmland cultivated using organic or environmentally friendly farming methods. Moreover, the government should increase subsidies granted for production environment maintenance to induce farmers to allow farmland to lie fallow. Additionally, the government can guide and promote agricultural experience activities such as 1-day trips to villages and farmland ecosystems to educate the public about farmland ecosystem services and to enable them to develop a positive understanding of farmland ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsieh, Ching-Hua & Lin, Hsing-Wei & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2023. "Assessing the ecosystem services provided by conventional and organic farmlands: A better outcome for organic farmlands?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:60:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000062
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000062
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101514?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. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    2. Vieira da Silva, Lia & Everard, Mark & Shore, Robert G., 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment at Steart Peninsula, Somerset, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 19-34.
    3. Krause, Marlen S. & Nkonya, Ephraim & Griess, Verena C., 2017. "An economic valuation of ecosystem services based on perceptions of rural Ethiopian communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 37-44.
    4. Cao, Shixiong & Xia, Chengqi & Suo, Xinhao & Wei, Zhuoran, 2021. "A framework for calculating the net benefits of ecological restoration programs in China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Blanco, Julien & Sourdril, Anne & Deconchat, Marc & Barnaud, Cécile & San Cristobal, Magali & Andrieu, Emilie, 2020. "How farmers feel about trees: Perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with rural forests in southwestern France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Pierre Alexandre Willot & Joël Aubin & Jean-Michel A Salles & Aurélie Wilfart, 2019. "Ecosystem service framework and typology for an ecosystem approach to aquaculture," Post-Print halshs-02172389, HAL.
    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. 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. Merida, Vincent Elijiah & Cook, David & Ögmundarson, Ólafur & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices of meat and dairy production: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    7. Ehsan Moradi & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino & Enric Terol & Gaspar Mora-Navarro & Alexandre Marco da Silva & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Hassan Khosravi & Manuel Pulido Fernández & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Quantifying Soil Compaction in Persimmon Orchards Using ISUM (Improved Stock Unearthing Method) and Core Sampling Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    9. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    10. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    11. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    12. Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Identifying obstacles to the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115992, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Karner, Katrin & Schmid, Erwin & Schneider, Uwe A. & Mitter, Hermine, 2021. "Computing stochastic Pareto frontiers between economic and environmental goals for a semi-arid agricultural production region in Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    15. Lucia Rocchi & Antonio Boggia & Luisa Paolotti, 2020. "Sustainable Agricultural Systems: A Bibliometrics Analysis of Ecological Modernization Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    17. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    18. Paola Gullino & Luca Battisti & Federica Larcher, 2018. "Linking Multifunctionality and Sustainability for Valuing Peri-Urban Farming: A Case Study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Suich, Helen & Howe, Caroline & Mace, Georgina, 2015. "Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 137-147.
    20. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.

    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:ecoser:v:60:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000062. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.