IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/98082.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Schmitz, Kim
  • Schmitz, P. Michael
  • Wronka, Tobias C.

Abstract

The first application of choice experiments as an environmental valuation method in Germany clearly demonstrates the potential of this method for the valuation of agriculture's multifunctionality. Choice experiments are a reasonable enhancement of the conjoint analysis as they are capable of calculating the theoretically correct welfare measures in the form of implicit prices. In combination with business and ecological models this allows for the comprehensive valuation of agriculture's multifunctionality in the sense, that in addition to the supply or cost side of land use scenarios the demand or benefit side is accounted for. In this study the integrated ecological and economical valuation of land use scenarios was demonstrated for two different scenarios. The welfare changes for the regional population due to changes in the quality or quantity of several landscape functions like drinking water quality, biodiversity, food production and landscape aesthetics were calculated. The inclusion of both supply and demand in this cost-benefit study is an important step forward for the development of sustainable land use concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:98082
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.98082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/98082/files/4_Schmitz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.98082?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Enneking, Ulrich, 2003. "Die Analyse von Lebensmittelpräferenzen mit Hilfe von Discrete-Choice-Modellen am Beispiel ökologisch produzierter Wurstwaren," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(05), pages 1-14.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    7. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    8. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    10. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    11. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
    12. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    13. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    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. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Liski, Eero & Assmuth, Aino & Myyrä, Sami, 2014. "The importance of agricultural objectives – summary of studies," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182792, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2020. "A Meta‐analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Cultural Services from Grasslands in Europe," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 357-383, June.
    3. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    4. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Meyer-Schatz, Henrika Marie, 2007. "UNTER WELCHEN UMSTANDEN WURDEN DEUTSCHE LANDWIRTE GENTECHNISCH VERANDERTEN RAPS ANBAUEN? EIN DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT (German)," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7577, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Borresch, René & Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P.Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2005. "CHOICE – ein integriert ökonomisch-ökologisches Konzept zur Bewertung der Multifunktionalität," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    6. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    7. Breustedt, G. & Müller-Scheeßel, J. & Meyer-Schatz, H.M., 2008. "Unter welchen Umständen würden deutsche Landwirte gentechnisch veränderten Raps anbauen?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    8. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Uthes, Sandra & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2016. "Budgeting for government-financed PES: Does ecosystem service demand equal ecosystem service supply?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 255-264.
    10. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(03), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Borresch, R. & Weinmann, B., 2007. "Modellierung und Bewertung der entkoppelten Direktzahlung – Eine Anwendung des Landnutzungsmodells ProLand sowie des Bewertungs- und Modellrahmens CHOICE," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Falck-Zepeda, José & Kilkuwe, Enoch & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions," IFPRI discussion papers 767, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    5. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    6. 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.
    7. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    8. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    9. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    11. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    12. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    13. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    14. Söderberg, Magnus, 2008. "A choice modelling analysis on the similarity between distribution utilities' and industrial customers' price and quality preferences," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1246-1262, May.
    15. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    18. Teratanavat, Ratapol P. & Hooker, Neal H., 2005. "Exploring Consumer Valuation and Preference Heterogeneity for Functional Foods Using a Choice Experiment: A Case Study of Tomato Juice Containing Soy in Ohio," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    20. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:gjagec:98082. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.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.