IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i8p1118-d1441127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco José Areal

    (Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
    School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, P.O. Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
    School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

Abstract

Understanding and estimating the economic value that society places on agricultural soil quality protection and improvement can guide the development of policies aimed at mitigating pollution, promoting conservation, or incentivizing sustainable land management practices. We estimate the general public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for agricultural soil quality protection and improvement in Spain (n = 1000) and the UK (n = 984) using data from a cross-sectional survey via Qualtrics panels in March–April 2021. We use a double-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation approach to elicit the individuals’ WTP. We investigate the effect of uncertainty on the success of policies aiming at achieving soil protection. In addition, to understand the heterogeneity in individuals’ WTP for agricultural soil quality protection and improvement, we model individuals’ WTP through individuals’ awareness and attitudes toward agricultural soil quality protection and the environment; trust in institutions; risk and time preferences; pro-social behavior; and socio-demographics in Spain and the UK. We found that there is significant public support for agricultural soil quality protection and improvement in Spain and the UK. We also found that the support does not vary significantly under uncertainty of success of policies aiming at achieving soil protection. However, the individual’s reasons for supporting agricultural soil quality protection and improvement are found to depend on the level of uncertainty and country. Hence, promoting public support for soil protection needs to be tailored according to the level of the general public’s perceived uncertainty and geographic location.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco José Areal, 2024. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1118-:d:1441127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1118/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1118/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elabed, Ghada & Carter, Michael R., 2015. "Compound-risk aversion, ambiguity and the willingness to pay for microinsurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-166.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    4. Wang, Mei & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Hens, Thorsten, 2016. "How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 115-135.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. 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.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    9. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    10. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    11. Rapert, Molly Inhofe & Thyroff, Anastasia & Grace, Sarah C., 2021. "The generous consumer: Interpersonal generosity and pro-social dispositions as antecedents to cause-related purchase intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 838-847.
    12. Hynes, Stephen & Farrelly, Niall & Murphy, Eithne & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2008. "Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 258-269, June.
    13. McGowan, Féidhlim P. & Denny, Eleanor & Lunn, Peter D., 2023. "Looking beyond time preference: Testing potential causes of low willingness to pay for fuel economy improvements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    15. 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.
    16. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    17. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    18. H. Holly Wang & Jing Yang & Na Hao, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice from Remediated Soil: Potential from the Public in Sustainable Soil Pollution Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-22, July.
    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. Chung, Yi-Shih & Chiou, Yu-Chiun, 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for a bus fare reform: A contingent valuation approach with multiple bound dichotomous choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 289-304.
    2. Christian Vossler & Michael McKee, 2006. "Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(2), pages 137-168, October.
    3. Seul-Ye Lim & So-Yeon Park & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Conservation Value of the Saemangeum Open Sea in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    7. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    10. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    11. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    15. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    16. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre & Ueland, Oydis, 2005. "Experimental Evidence of Risk Aversion in Consumer Markets: The Case of Beef Tenderness," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19285, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    18. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    19. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    20. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.

    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:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1118-:d:1441127. 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.