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

Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region

  • Francesco Marangon

    ()

    (University of Udine, Department of Economics, Via Tomadini 30/a, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Francesca Visintin

    (University of Udine, Department of Economics, Via Tomadini 30/a, 33100 Udine, Italy)

The rural landscape is one of the most valuable agricultural externalities and it is often affected by modifications in the agricultural production process. Moreover, some rural areas are deteriorating due to the depopulation process while others are being transformed owing to socio-economic pressures. However, should agricultural policies concerning landscape preservation only be considered as cost items or should they be seen as sources of social benefits able to justify economic support? On this basis two surveys were carried out in order to study the economic value of the rural landscape, focusing in particular on viticulture. Both studies covered quality wine-producing areas on the Italian/Slovenian border: The Controlled Denomination of Origin zones of ‘Collio’ and ‘Colli Orientali del Friuli’ in Italy, and the municipality of Brda in Slovenia. Both surveys assessed the economic value of the rural landscape in order to estimate the social benefit that populations attach to landscape preservation measures. Despite the fact that similar methods were applied, results differed. The peculiar backgrounds affected our results in two ways. Firstly we found that there was a considerable difference in the way Italians and Slovenes valued the rural landscape. While Italians considered the development and extension of vineyards to be very important in counteracting the abandonment of rural areas, Slovenes preferred “traditional” landscapes (orchards, grasslands and vineyards). Secondly, in Slovenia it was difficult to apply the contingent valuation method, which is based on a hypothetical market scenario. More research should be carried out in order to study the methods that best fitthe preferences for rural landscape.

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.inra.fr/esr/publications/cahiers/pdf/marangon.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INRA Department of Economics in its journal Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales.

Volume (Year): 84-85 (2007)
Issue (Month): ()
Pages: 113-132

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:rae:jouces:v:84-85:y:2007:i::p:113-132
Contact details of provider: Postal: 4, Allée Adolphe Bobierre, CS 61103, 35011 Rennes Cedex
Web page: http://www.sae2.inra.fr/Departement-Recherches/Recherches-departement-SAE2/Raestud/%28key%29/3
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
  2. G. D. Garrod & K. G. Willis, 1995. "Valuing The Benefits Of The South Downs Environmentally Sensitive Area," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 160-173.
  3. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
  4. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
  5. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
  6. 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.
  7. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
  8. Pruckner, Gerald J, 1995. "Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 22(2), pages 173-90.
  9. Hoehn John P. & Loomis John B., 1993. "Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 56-75, July.
  10. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229.
  11. Randall, Alan, 1998. "Beyond the crucial experiment: mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 197-206, June.
  12. Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 322-32, March.
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:rae:jouces:v:84-85:y:2007:i::p:113-132. 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: (Nathalie Saux-Nogues)

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.