IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v54y2011i1p31-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Knut Per Hasund
  • Mitesh Kataria
  • Carl Johan Lagerkvist

Abstract

The willingness to pay (WTP) for different types of elements and other environmental qualities of the agricultural landscape were investigated by a choice experiment study. To get value measures of a set of attributes as policy relevant as possible, the WTP for 28 levels of 12 attributes was estimated. Two survey versions concerned permanent grassland and two concerned field elements of cultivated land. A sample of 8000 randomly selected Swedish inhabitants was used. The estimated values vary significantly between linear field elements and grassland types, where stone walls and oak-wooded pastures, respectively have the highest marginal WTP. Highly valued environmental qualities are biodiversity, visibility and absence of brushwood. Reference points were included to capture preference heterogeneity. The study cannot reject that respondents may value environmental service levels based on their reference points.

Suggested Citation

  • Knut Per Hasund & Mitesh Kataria & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2011. "Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 31-53.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:54:y:2011:i:1:p:31-53
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.502753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640568.2010.502753
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2010.502753?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Integrating landscape improvement indices and discrete choice experiments: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0609, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    4. Jose M.L. Santos, 1998. "The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1469.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Nilsson & Håkan Rosenqvist, 2021. "Profitability of Crop Cultivation in Small Arable Fields When Taking Economic Values of Ecosystem Services into Account," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Deborah Ellen Lee & Stephen Gerald Hosking & Mario Du Preez, 2015. "Managing Some Motorised Recreational Boating Challenges in South African Estuaries: A Case Study at the Kromme River Estuary," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(2), pages 286-302, June.
    3. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L Lusk & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Am I Getting a Good Deal? Reference‐DependentDecision Making When the Reference Price Is Uncertain," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 132-153, January.
    4. Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2011. "Valuation of EU Agricultural Landscape," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2011_20, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    5. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    6. Kim, Kyungah & Moon, Sungho & Kim, Junghun, 2023. "How far is it from your home? Strategic policy and management to overcome barriers of introducing fuel-cell power generation facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Carmelo Picone & Roberto Henke & Myriam Ruberto & Emilio Calligaris & Raffaella Zucaro, 2021. "A Synthetic Indicator for Sustainability Standards of Water Resources in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    9. de Ayala, Amaia & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Transferring landscape values using discrete choice experiments: Is meta-analysis an option?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(01), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Pavel CIAIAN & Sergio GOMEZ y PALOMA, 2011. "The Value of EU Agricultural Landscape," JRC Research Reports JRC65456, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2020. "A Meta‐analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Cultural Services from Grasslands in Europe," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 357-383, June.
    13. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    14. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    15. Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2020. "Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Dorota Sikora & Małgorzata Kaczyńska, 2022. "The Cultural Ecosystem Services as an Element Supporting Manor Landscape Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-33, June.
    17. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    3. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    4. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    7. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    8. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    9. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2008. "Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 536-546, December.
    10. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 70.
    11. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    12. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Seung Gyu & Roberts, Roland K. & Jung, Suhyun, 2009. "Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2646-2657, August.
    13. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    14. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(3), pages 291-310.
    15. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 425-435, June.
    16. Bénédicte Rulleau & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2013. "Valuing the benefits of beach protection measures in the face of climate change: a French case-study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 133-147, July.
    17. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    18. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-15, November.
    19. Viegas, Ines & Santos, Jose Manuel Lima & Fontes, Magda Aguiar, 2011. "Joint Production of Safer, Cleaner and Animal Friendlier Beef: Do Consumers Join it Too? - Insights from Focus Groups," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115551, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Tuan, Tran Hu & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," MPRA Paper 11470, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:54:y:2011:i:1:p:31-53. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.