Economic Aspects in Landscape Decision-making: a Participatory Planning Tool based on a Representative Approach
In this paper, we develop a method for spatial decision support that combines economic efficiency – measured by the concept of willingness to pay – with a participatory planning tool, that allows for an active collaboration among the actors involved, in such a way that decision makers can draw on the outcomes in their spatial planning and design process. The method is called RITAM, a Dutch acronym for spatially explicit, participatory and interdisciplinary trade-off method, and combines features of three different approaches to achieve an ‘optimal’ landscape. These three approaches are (i) choice experiment approach; (ii) consumer versus citizen approach; and (iii) participatory approach. As such, RITAM can be seen as a valuation technique that makes explicit use of a participatory approach, in which people managing the landscape – in particular the representatives of the different stakeholder groups that use the landscape for different purposes – are engaged. We applied this new method to a case study in the Frisian Lake District (the Netherlands). The result give an indication of the spatial preferences of the population living in and around the area. Although future works is required, RITAM appears to be a suitable method for landscape planning and design processes, taken into account the preferences of the different organised interest groups in an area.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
- Faber, Malte & Petersen, Thomas & Schiller, Johannes, 2002. "Homo oeconomicus and homo politicus in Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 323-333, March.
- Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
- Curtis, John A. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), March.
- Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
- van Rensburg, Tom M. & Mill, Greig A. & Common, Mick & Lovett, Jon, 2002. "Preferences and multiple use forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 231-244, December.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
- 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.
- Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), December.
- Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:43949. 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: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.