IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/276963.html

Integrating soil and climate-related aspects into the valuation of willingness to pay for public goods provided by agriculture in an intensive agricultural production region: The case of the Marchfeld

Author

Listed:
  • Niedermayr, A.
  • Schaller, L.
  • Kieninger, P.
  • Kantelhardt, J.

Abstract

In the context of an upcoming CAP-reform which will most likely condition payments to farmers stronger on a measurable provision of public goods, the aim of this study is to elicit the willingness to pay (WTP) for public goods (PGs) provided by agriculture in the Marchfeld, a dynamically developing and semi-urban region in Austria. Situated between Vienna and Bratislava it is marked by an intensive agricultural production and at the same time rising environmental awareness of the local population. We carry out a discrete choice experiment for the 3 public goods ground water quality, landscape diversity and climate stability, which were pre-selected via focus groups. Due to high preference heterogeneity we estimate a random parameters logit model and include interactions with socio-demographic factors in order to further disentangle differences in preferences. We find a positive and significant WTP for all three public goods, with groundwater quality being most important for the participants, followed by landscape diversity and climate stability. The results of this study in combination with a supply-side assessment, consisting of different management options for farmers, could form the basis for the development of governance mechanisms for the smart provision of public goods by agriculture in the Marchfeld region. Acknowledgement :

Suggested Citation

  • Niedermayr, A. & Schaller, L. & Kieninger, P. & Kantelhardt, J., 2018. "Integrating soil and climate-related aspects into the valuation of willingness to pay for public goods provided by agriculture in an intensive agricultural production region: The case of the Marchfeld," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276963, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:276963
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.276963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/276963/files/335.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.276963?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. Loomis, John & Bell, Paul & Cooney, Helen & Asmus, Cheryl, 2009. "A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 697-712, December.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    4. Powlson, D.S. & Gregory, P.J. & Whalley, W.R. & Quinton, J.N. & Hopkins, D.W. & Whitmore, A.P. & Hirsch, P.R. & Goulding, K.W.T., 2011. "Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 72-87, January.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    6. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    7. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A. & Schmid, Erwin, 2007. "Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 128-140, May.
    8. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Powlson, D.S. & Gregory, P.J. & Whalley, W.R. & Quinton, J.N. & Hopkins, D.W. & Whitmore, A.P. & Hirsch, P.R. & Goulding, K.W.T., 2011. "Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 72-87.
    10. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    11. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    12. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    13. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    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. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    3. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2021. "Public Preferences for Pasture Landscapes and the Role of Scale Heterogeneity," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 70(03), January.
    4. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    6. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    7. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi & Li, Dmitriy, 2021. "Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    8. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    11. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    13. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    15. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika & Magnan, Nicholas, "undated". "Farmer Preferences for Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Hybrid versus Inbred Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150786, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    19. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi, 2018. "Increasing consumer participation rates for green pricing programs: A choice experiment for South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 490-502.
    20. Gschwandtner, Adelina & Jang, Cheul & McManus, Richard, "undated". "Improving Drinking Water Quality in South Korea: A Choice Experiment," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273472, Agricultural Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae18:276963. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.