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

Valuation of EU Agricultural Landscape

  • Pavel Ciaian
  • Sergio Gomez y Paloma

The present paper provides a meta-analysis of agricultural landscape valuation studies and through the estimated benefit transfer function it projects the value of EU landscape. The analyses are based on information from more than thirty European and non-European studies which use a stated preference approach to uncover society's willingness to pay (WTP) for agricultural landscape. Our calculations show that, the WTP in the EU varies between 134 and 201 €/ha with an average value of 149 €/ha in 2009. Furthermore the calculations indicate that the total value of EU landscape in 2009 is estimated to be in the range of €24.5 – 36.6 billion per year, with an average of €27.1 billion, representing around 8 percent of the total value of EU agricultural production and roughly half of the CAP expenditures.

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.eeri.eu/documents/wp/EERI_RP_2011_20.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels in its series EERI Research Paper Series with number EERI_RP_2011_20.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 20 Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:eei:rpaper:eeri_rp_2011_20
Contact details of provider: Postal: Avenue de Beaulieu, 1160 Brussels
Phone: +322 299 3523
Fax: +322 299 3523
Web page: http://www.eeri.eu/index.htm
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. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, . "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  2. Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November.
  3. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA), vol. 7(02).
  4. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
  5. V. Smith & Subhrendu Pattanayak, 2002. "Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 271-296, June.
  6. Marangon, Francesco & Troiano, Stefania & Visintin, F., 2008. "The economic value of olive plantation in rural areas. A study on a hill region between Italy and Slovenia," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44412, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  7. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, March.
  8. Piroli, Giuseppe & Ciaian, Pavel & Kancs, d'Artis, 2012. "Land use change impacts of biofuels: Near-VAR evidence from the US," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 98-109.
  9. d’Artis Kancs & Gerald Weber, 2001. "Modelling Agricultural Policies in the CEE Accession Countries," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2001_02, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
  10. Chen, Xi & Zhou, Bin & Zhong, Funing, 2010. "Do Consumers Really Care about Genetically Modified (GM) Food Label? What Do We Know? What Else Should We Know?," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 53(2), pages 32-56.
  11. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
  12. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez-Limón & Jes�s Barreiro Hurlé, 2007. "Decomposing the Value of Agricultural Multifunctionality: Combining Contingent Valuation and the Analytical Hierarchy Process," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 218-241, 06.
  13. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
  14. Smith, V Kerry & Huang, Ju-Chin, 1995. "Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(1), pages 209-27, February.
  15. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, June.
  16. Marangon, Francesco & Visintin, Francesca, 2007. "Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), vol. 84.
  17. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.
  18. 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.
  19. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-51, June.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. repec:rae:jouces:v:84-85:y:2007:i::p:113-132 is not listed on IDEAS
  23. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2006. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," MPRA Paper 11467, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  24. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Walsh, Richard G., 1997. "Nonmarket Value Of Western Valley Ranchland Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
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:eei:rpaper:eeri_rp_2011_20. 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: (Julia van Hove)

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.