IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tea/wpaper/0906.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Howley

    () (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland)

  • Stephen Hynes

    (Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway)

  • Cathal O’Donoghue

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland)

Abstract

The rural landscape can be thought of as a non-market commodity associated with the multifunctional aspect of agriculture and the need for its conservation is gaining more prominence in EU policy. This paper explored the Irish general public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for agricultural activities aimed at protecting the rural landscape. Using factor analysis, variables representing individuals’ opinions on the importance of a variety of landscape features were derived. Features associated with the wider biological and cultural diversity of the countryside such as woodland, bogland, wild flora and fauna, water quality and features associated with our cultural heritage play a more significant role in influencing WTP than more traditional and obvious scenic features of farming activities such as open grass covered fields, grazing farm animals and well maintained farm buildings. In relation to personal characteristics, income, education, the presence of children within the family structure and whether respondents had siblings involved in farming were also all found to significantly affect WTP. Using a generalized Tobit Interval model, the average WTP for the conservation of the traditional rural landscape was estimated at €44 per person per year. The results would indicate a strong justification for increasing the support for second pillar objectives under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) such as the protection of the rural landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
  • Handle: RePEc:tea:wpaper:0906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/downloads/workingpapers/09wpre06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum, 1997. "Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1495-1500.
    2. Alan Randall, 2002. "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 289-307, July.
    3. 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 173-190.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    5. Hanley, Nicholas & Hynes, Stephen, 2008. "The "Crex crex" Lament: Estimating Landowners Willingness to Pay for Corncrake Conservation on Irish Farmland," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-14, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    6. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D., 2002. "Using factor analysis to identify consumer preferences for the protection of a natural area in Portugal," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 499-516, July.
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401.
    9. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    10. A Fleischer & Y Tsur, 2000. "Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 385-398, September.
    11. Jayachandran N. Variyam & Jeffrey L. Jordan & James E. Epperson, 1990. "Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 257-267.
    12. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Huylenbroeck & J. Meensel, 2005. "Impact of Agriculture on Rural Tourism: A Hedonic Pricing Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 17-30.
    13. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    14. Arild Vatn, 2002. "Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 309-327, July.
    15. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    16. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    17. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Anderson, Christopher M., 2003. "Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 65-82, April.
    18. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    19. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1996. "Measuring Public Preferences for the Environmental Amenities Provided by Farmland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(4), pages 421-436.
    20. Reza Daniels & Sandrine Rospabé, 2005. "Estimating an Earnings Function from Coarsened Data by an Interval Censored Regression Procedure," Working Papers 05091, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit.
    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. Áine Macken Walsh, 2010. "Agriculture, Rural Development and Potential for a ‘Middle Agriculture' in Ireland," Working Papers 1004, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    landscape conservation; willingness to pay; CAP;

    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:tea:wpaper:0906. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/reteaie.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.