IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p3997-d179837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Tyack

    (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
    Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, 110 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Milan Ščasný

    (Charles University Environment Centre, 162 00 Prague, Czech Republic
    Faculty of Finance and Accounting, University of Economics, 130 67 Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The use of diverse genetic resources to breed improved crop varieties has been a key driver of agricultural productivity improvements in the past century. At the same time, the adoption of modern varieties has contributed to substantial loss of traditional varieties. In this analysis, we estimate the social value provided by several proposed crop diversity conservation programs to be carried out by the Czech genebank system. We use a double-bounded dichotomous choice model to estimate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for conserving additional crop varieties in the genebank for ten years using data collected through an online contingent valuation survey administered to a sample representative of the general Czech population (1037 respondents) and a smaller sub-sample representative of the agricultural region of South Moravia (500 respondents). Mean WTP was found to be about $9 for both the Czech and S. Moravian sub-samples, corresponding to country-wide benefits of ~$68 million. These benefits increase by 6–7% for every ten varieties conserved, implying total welfare benefits of ~$84 million for a program conserving the maximum number of 35 additional crop varieties offered in the experiment. The study illustrates an empirical approach of potential value for policymakers responsible for determining funding levels for genetic resource conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3997-:d:179837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3997/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3997/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jobstvogt, Niels & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen & Kenter, Jasper & Witte, Ursula, 2014. "Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 10-19.
    2. Timo Goeschl & Timothy Swanson, 2002. "The Social Value of Biodiversity for R&D," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(4), pages 477-504, August.
    3. Milan Ščasný & Iva Zvěřinová & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Eva Kyselá & Katarzyna Zagórska, 2017. "Public acceptability of climate change mitigation policies: a discrete choice experiment," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(0), pages 111-130, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    7. Aanesen, Margrethe & Armstrong, Claire & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Hanley, Nick & Navrud, Ståle, 2015. "Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 53-67.
    8. Asrat, Sinafikeh & Yesuf, Mahmud & Carlsson, Fredrik & Wale, Edilegnaw, 2010. "Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2394-2401, October.
    9. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1989. "Information Effects in Contingent Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(3), pages 685-691.
    10. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai & Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2013. "Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 110-123.
    11. Torres-Miralles, M. & Grammatikopoulou, I. & Rescia, A.J., 2017. "Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 258-269.
    12. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    13. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    14. Bateman, Ian J. & Mawby, James, 2004. "First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 47-55, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Kati Häfner & Ingo Zasada & Boris T. van Zanten & Fabrizio Ungaro & Mark Koetse & Annette Piorr, 2018. "Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 846-861, August.
    17. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    18. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), 2017. "Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17527.
    19. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    20. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    21. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    22. Marasas, C.N. & Smale, Melinda & Singh, R.P., 2004. "The Economic Impact in Developing Countries of Leaf Rust Resistance Breeding in CIMMYT-Related Spring Bread Wheat," Economics Program Papers 48768, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    23. Wolfe, Elijah & Popp, Michael & Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga Jr, Rudolfo & Danforth, Diana & Popp, Jennie & Chen, Pengyin & Seo, Han-Seok, 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Engineered Edamame," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230016, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Claudia Meier & Bernadette Oehen, 2019. "Consumers’ Valuation of Farmers’ Varieties for Food System Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Jichao Geng & Na Yang & Wei Zhang & Li Yang, 2023. "Public Willingness to Pay for Green Lifestyle in China: A Contingent Valuation Method Based on Integrated Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, January.
    3. ORDOFA JARA, Gemechu & TESHOME GEBRETSADIK, Wubishet & TEMAM HAJIFATO, Nesru, 2021. "Households Willingness To Pay For The Conservation Of Noug: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 24(2), October.
    4. Melinda Smale & Nelissa Jamora, 2020. "Valuing genebanks," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 905-918, October.
    5. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2020. "‘Warehouse’ or research centre? Analyzing public preferences for conservation, pre-breeding and characterization activities at the Czech genebank," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1046, October.

    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. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Scasny, 2018. "Estimating the Value of Crop Diversity Conservation Services Provided by the Czech National Programme for Agrobiodiversity," Working Papers IES 2018/09, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2018.
    2. 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.
    3. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    6. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Meade, Norman & Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni & Welsh, Mike & Blanc, Gleiciane Carvalho, 2023. "Estimating environmental and cultural/heritage damages of a tailings dam failure: The case of the Fundão dam in Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Carrasco, Moisés & Barrientos, Manuel & Gelcich, Stefan & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2021. "Estimating discount rates for environmental goods: Are People’s responses inadequate to frequency of payments?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Abate, Tenaw G. & Börger, Tobias & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Andersson, Jannike & Wyles, Kayleigh J. & Beaumont, Nicola, 2020. "Valuation of marine plastic pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an integrated choice and latent variable model to contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    13. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    14. Needham, Katherine & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2018. "What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-89.
    15. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    16. Seul-Ye Lim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Economic Benefits of the Dokdo Seals Restoration Project in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    18. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    19. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    20. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3997-:d:179837. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.