Quantifying the landscape benefits arising from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme: results from a public survey
This paper presents the main results from a sample survey of the adult population designed to measure how much they would pay for the Rural Environment Protection (REP) Scheme’s contribution to rural landscapes. The paper also reports the findings from a number of questions that were included within the survey to determine the public’s attitudes towards the rural environment, farmers and the countryside in general. Findings from these attitudinal questions reveal that there is a wide range in public opinion regarding changes in the state of the rural environment, the role of farmers as custodians of the rural environment and the relative priority of Government spending on the REP Scheme. Within the sample survey, two choice experiments estimated the magnitude of landscape benefits stemming from the REP Scheme. Results from the choice experiments indicate that the landscape improvements are highly valued by the Irish public. Conservative estimates indicate that the value put on landscape benefits of the REP scheme alone amount to almost the entire cost of the Scheme.
|Date of creation:||2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Athenry, Co Galway|
Phone: +353 91 845845
Fax: +353 91 845847
Web page: http://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/
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.:
- 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.
- Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Working Papers in Economics 52, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Peter Martinsson, 2002. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200205t2, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised May 2002.
- Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
- Harvey S. Rosen & Kenneth A. Small, 1979. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 0319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
- McFadden, Daniel L., 2000. "Economic Choices," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2000-6, Nobel Prize Committee.
- W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tea:wpaper:0608. 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: (John Lennon)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.