IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agfoec/v11y2023i1d10.1186_s40100-023-00273-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting beekeepers’ preferences for the small hive beetle control policy in Italy: a contingent valuation survey approach

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Salvioni

    (University of Chieti-Pescara)

  • Simone Cerroni

    (University of Trento)

Abstract

Aethina tumida, commonly known as the small hive beetle (SHB), is a parasite of social bee colonies. In 2014, when the beetle was first detected in the Italian Region of Calabria, the Italian Ministry of Health started an SHB control strategy. Over time, dissatisfaction with the control measures has grown among beekeepers and eroded compliance with the reporting obligations. Our study analyzes Southern Italian beekeepers’ preferences toward alternative SHB control policy. We use a contingent valuation survey to elicit beekeepers' preferences for five alternative control strategies. We find the ex-post biosecurity measure in place reflects in the lowest reporting rate. Our results suggest that implementing the destruction of infested hives only (selective destruction) can be a first, effective step toward enhancing compliance with the reporting obligations. Our findings also suggest that training and extension can be a winning strategy to improve beekeepers’ collaboration with the passive SHB surveillance system.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Salvioni & Simone Cerroni, 2023. "Eliciting beekeepers’ preferences for the small hive beetle control policy in Italy: a contingent valuation survey approach," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00273-8
    DOI: 10.1186/s40100-023-00273-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40100-023-00273-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40100-023-00273-8?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    2. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    3. Osseni, Abdel Fawaz & Gohin, Alexandre & Rault, Arnaud, 2022. "Optimal Biosecurity Policy with Heterogeneous Farmers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    4. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    5. Rob Fraser, 2018. "Compensation Payments and Animal Disease: Incentivising Farmers Both to Undertake Costly On-farm Biosecurity and to Comply with Disease Reporting Requirements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(3), pages 617-629, July.
    6. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2010. "Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 366-374, December.
    7. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    8. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    9. Tong Wang & David A. Hennessy, 2014. "Modelling interdependent participation incentives: dynamics of a voluntary livestock disease control programme," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 681-706.
    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. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    2. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke & Raschky, Paul, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Month Is," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235377, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Swait, Joffre & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2021. "Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    8. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    9. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    10. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    12. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    14. Batarce, Marco & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2016. "Valuing crowding in public transport: Implications for cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 358-378.
    15. Caputo, Vincenzina & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Consumers’ Valuation for European food quality labels: Importance of Label Information Provision," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114324, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Ha Trong Nguyen & Luke B. Connelly, 2017. "The Dynamics of Informal Care Provision in an Australian Household Panel Survey: Previous Work Characteristics and Future Care Provision," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 395-419, September.
    17. Takeshi Takama & John Preston & Jae Hong Kim, 2009. "An Analysis of Road User Charging and Road Pricing at the Upper Derwent Valley, UK," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 37-52, September.
    18. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    19. Justine S. Hastings & Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, 2006. "Preferences and Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in a Public School Choice Lottery," NBER Working Papers 12145, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00273-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.