IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2004.100.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara M. Travisi

    (Department of Management Economics and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnic of Milan and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)

  • Peter Nijkamp

    (Department of Spatial Economics, Free University and Tinbergen Institute)

Abstract

The widespread use of pesticides in agriculture provides a particularly complex pattern of multidimensional negative side-effects, ranging from food safety related effects to the deterioration of farmland ecosystems. The assessment of the economic implications of such negative processes is fraught with many uncertainties. This paper presents results of an empirical study recently conducted in the North of Italy aimed at estimating the value of reducing the multiple impacts of pesticide use. A statistical technique known as conjoint choice experiment is used here in combination with contingent valuation techniques. The experimental design of choice modelling provides a natural tool to attach a monetary value to negative environmental effects associated with agrochemicals use. In particular, the paper addresses the reduction of farmland biodiversity, groundwater contamination and human intoxication. The resulting estimates show that, on average, respondents are prone to accept substantial willingness to pay premia for agricultural goods (in particular, foodstuff) produced in environmentally benign ways.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2004.100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2004-100.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Gregory A. & Crosbie, Peter J., 1993. "Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer Segments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Opaluch James J. & Swallow Stephen K. & Weaver Thomas & Wessells Christopher W. & Wichelns Dennis, 1993. "Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-59, January.
    4. Cuyno, Leah C. M. & Norton, George W. & Rola, Agnes, 2001. "Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 227-233, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Weisten, K. & Hoen, H.F. & Navrud, S. & Strand, J., 1993. "Valuing Biodiversity in Norwegian Forests: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing," Memorandum 1993_007, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    7. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    9. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    12. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    14. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    15. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    16. Misra, Sukant K. & Huang, Chung L. & Ott, Stephen L., 1991. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Pesticide-Free Fresh Produce," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Tsu‐Tan Fu & Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt, 1999. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low‐Pesticide Fresh Produce in Taiwan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 220-233, May.
    18. Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 219-226, September.
    19. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    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. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    2. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    3. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    5. Antonio Seccia & Antonio Stasi & Luigi Roselli, 2006. "Atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti dell'evoluzione del sistema agro-alimentare: l'introduzione di alimenti geneticamente modificati," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 10(1).
    6. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Using Economic Valuation Techniques to Inform Water Resources Management in the Southern European, Mediterranean and Developing Countries: A Survey and Critical Appraisal of Available Techniques," DEOS Working Papers 0806, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    7. Anna Paola Antonazzo & Mariantonietta Fiore & Piermichele La Sala & Francesco Cont?, 2015. "Assessing perceptions of wine tourists on organic wine," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 17(2), pages 57-76.

    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. Travisi, Chiara M. & Nijkamp, Peter, 2004. "Are Italians Willing to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety? A Stated Choice Approach," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24988, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    4. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    5. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    7. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    8. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    9. Cranfield, John A.L. & Magnusson, Erik, 2003. "Canadian Consumer's Willingness-To-Pay For Pesticide Free Food Products: An Ordered Probit Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(4), pages 1-18.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    12. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    13. Daniel McFadden, 2014. "The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 2, pages 7-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Chiara Maria Travisi & Peter Nijkamp & Marco Vighi & Paolo Giacomelli, 2006. "Managing pesticide risks for non-target ecosystems with pesticide risk indicators: a multi-criteria approach," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1/2), pages 141-162.
    15. Daniel L. McFadden, 2013. "The New Science of Pleasure," NBER Working Papers 18687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    19. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pesticide risks; Food safety; Willingness-to-pay; Choice modeling; Contingent valuation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:fem:femwpa:2004.100. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.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.