IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US

  • Moon, Wanki
  • Griffith, Jacob Wayne
Registered author(s):

    This study used contingent valuation method to shed light on public preferences on the multifunctional roles of the US agriculture and to present a holistic estimate of the economic value of the nonmarket goods and services of US agriculture. Contingent valuation survey instrument was administered to a sample composed from the Ipsos web-based panel. Fishbein's model of reasoned behavior and mediation hypothesis were combined to model the relationship between WTP (behavioral intentions) and sets of explanatory variables including attitudes, perceived attributes (about family farms, farmland preservation programs, government involvement in agricultural markets, and ecological state of our world), and socio-demographic profiles. Results show that, while exerting a highly significant impact on WTP, attitudes mediate the effects of the attribute variables on WTP: i.e., the attributes influence WTP directly as well as indirectly through attitudes. The estimated mean WTP was $515 per taxpayer annually. Aggregating individual WTPs across the US taxpayers above 20Â years old produces $105 billion, representing a crude estimate of the economic value that the US consumers place on the multifunctional roles of US agriculture.

    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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211000674
    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 Food Policy.

    Volume (Year): 36 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 4 (August)
    Pages: 455-465

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:4:p:455-465
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

    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. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & van Bueren, Martin & Whitten, Stuart M., 2004. "Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), September.
    2. Peter Rosset, 2000. "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations," Development, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 43(2), pages 77-82, June.
    3. Antle, John M. & Valdivia, Roberto O., 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum-data approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), March.
    4. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    5. 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.
    6. Kahn, Matthew E & Matsusaka, John G, 1997. "Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-73, April.
    7. Batie, Sandra S., 2003. "The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), April.
    8. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    9. John M. Antle & Jetse J. Stoorvogel, 2006. "Predicting the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1174-1180.
    10. Arild Vatn, 2002. "Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 309-327, July.
    11. Kraft, Steven E., 2008. "Ecosystem Services: A 21st Century Policy Challenge," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2).
    12. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    13. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    14. Thomas L. Dobbs & Jules N. Pretty, 2004. "Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and “Multifunctionality”," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 220-237.
    15. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez-Limón & Jes�s Barreiro Hurlé, 2007. "Decomposing the Value of Agricultural Multifunctionality: Combining Contingent Valuation and the Analytical Hierarchy Process," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 218-241, 06.
    16. Brouwer, Roy & Slangen, Louis H G, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 53-72.
    17. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez-Limón & Manuel Arriaza, 2007. "Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 405-419, 05.
    18. Alan Randall, 2002. "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 289-307, July.
    19. Hudson, Darren & Rosson, C. Parr, III & Robinson, John R.C. & Malaga, Jaime E., 2005. "The WTO Cotton Case and US Domestic Policy," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(2).
    20. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    21. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-51, June.
    22. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    23. Hyytia, Nina & Kola, Jukka, 2006. "Finnish Citizens' Attitudes towards Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA), vol. 9(03).
    24. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, 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:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:4:p:455-465. 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.