IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i20p3876-d275882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Yang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China yangxin@mail.hzau.edu.cn)

  • Anlu Zhang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China yangxin@mail.hzau.edu.cn)

  • Fan Zhang

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia fan.zhang@uwa.edu.au)

Abstract

The exploration of different stakeholders’ heterogeneous willingness to pay for farmland ecological value is a fundamental part of understanding the total value of farmland protection and designing a scientific farmland protection policy. Unlike the homogenous assumption used in the previous studies, the mixed logit model of choice experiment method was applied to estimate respondents’ heterogeneous willingness to pay for farmland non-market value (represented by farmland area, farmland fertility, water quality, air quality, species richness, and recreational value) in this study. Data came from a sample of 289 farmers in Wuhan, China who were face-to-face interviewed. Results showed that: (1) Farmers were unsatisfied with the status quo of the present farmland ecological environment and were willing to pay to preserve all the attributes of farmland non-market value. (2) Farmers had a heterogeneous preference for the status quo and recreational value—the error variances of these two attributes were both significant at the 1% level, and their willingness to pay for the farmland non-market value in Wuhan was 1141.88 Yuan/hm 2 . (3) Farmers’ cognition degree of farmland importance and whether respondents bought medical insurance or not had significant impacts on their willingness to pay. The results can provide the basic foundation for accurate valuation of farmland non-market services, help farmland regulators make the right farmland conversion decisions, and improve the resource allocation efficiency of local financial expenditure during farmland protection in Wuhan.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3876-:d:275882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3876/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3876/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pruckner, Gerald J, 1995. "Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 22(2), pages 173-190.
    2. Mike Burton & Dan Rigby, 2009. "Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 211-226, February.
    3. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    4. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    5. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    6. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 413-424, December.
    7. Shiyi Chen, 2011. "The Abatement of Carbon Dioxide Intensity in China: Factors Decomposition and Policy Implications," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34, pages 1148-1167, July.
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Wu, Laping, 2014. "Chinese producer behavior: Aquaculture farmers in southern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 17-24.
    9. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Kan, Iddo & Haim, David & Rapaport-Rom, Mickey & Shechter, Mordechai, 2009. "Environmental amenities and optimal agricultural land use: The case of Israel," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1893-1898, April.
    11. Raguragavan, Jananee & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael P., 2010. "Economic valuation of recreational fishing in Western Australia," Working Papers 97473, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    13. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    14. Burton, Michael & Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa & White, Ben, 2012. "Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-9.
    15. Xin Nie & Qian Chen & Ting Xiao & Han Wang, 2019. "Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan nature reserve," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 813-829, March.
    16. John R. Ottensmann, 1977. "Urban Sprawl, Land Values and the Density of Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 53(4), pages 389-400.
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    18. Leonard Shabman & Michael K. Bertelson, 1979. "The Use of Development Value Estimates for Coastal Wetland Permit Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(2), pages 213-222.
    19. Do, Thang Nam & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 163-186, April.
    20. Richard Williams, 2007. "Estimating Heterogeneous Choice Models with Stata," West Coast Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 3, Stata Users Group.
    21. Bessette, Douglas L. & Arvai, Joseph L., 2018. "Engaging attribute tradeoffs in clean energy portfolio development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 221-229.
    22. Lori Lynch & Wayne Gray & Jacqueline Geoghegan, 2007. "Are Farmland Preservation Program Easement Restrictions Capitalized into Farmland Prices? What Can a Propensity Score Matching Analysis Tell Us?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 502-509.
    23. James, Sallie & Burton, Michael P., 2003. "Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-18.
    24. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    25. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    26. Muhammed J. Khan & Robert A. Young, 1979. "Farm Resource Productivities, Allocative Efficiencies and Development Policy in the Indus Basin, Pakistan," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(3), pages 388-396.
    27. Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Morrison, Mark D. & Rose, John M. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2011. "Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 1-19, September.
    28. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    29. Jerald R. Barnard, 1978. "Externalities from Urban Growth: The Case of Increased Storm Runoff and Flooding," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(3), pages 298-315.
    30. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    31. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 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), pages 159-179, April.
    32. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    33. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 139-149, July.
    34. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Walsh, Richard G., 1997. "Nonmarket Value Of Western Valley Ranchland Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-14, December.
    35. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    36. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Wu, Laping, 2014. "Reprint of “Chinese producer behavior: Aquaculture farmers in southern China”," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 540-547.
    37. Geoffrey N. Kerr & Basil M. H. Sharp, 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 407-420, October.
    38. Kurttila, Mikko & Hamalainen, Kari & Kajanus, Miika & Pesonen, Mauno, 2001. "Non-industrial private forest owners' attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry -- a multinominal logit model analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 13-28, April.
    39. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1977. "Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A Study of Beach Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 53(2), pages 185-195.
    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. Xin Yang & Michael Burton & Yinying Cai & Anlu Zhang, 2015. "Exploring Heterogeneous Preference for Farmland Non-market Values in Wuhan, Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    3. 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).
    4. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    5. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    6. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    13. Pavel, Ciaian & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "The Value of EU Agricultural Landscape," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 102727, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Ko, Sungmin & Shin, Jungwoo, 2023. "Projection of fuel cell electric vehicle demand reflecting the feedback effects between market conditions and market share affected by spatial factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    17. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Howard, Gregory & Allen Klaiber, H. & Roe, Brian E., 2023. "Food choice behavior of adolescents under parent-child interaction in the context of US school lunch programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    20. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:20:p:3876-:d:275882. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.