IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v73y2022i2p430-451.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating attitudes into the evaluation of preferences regarding agri‐environmental practices

Author

Listed:
  • Petr Mariel
  • Linda Arata

Abstract

Many stated preference studies have shown that individuals’ attitudes play an important role in explaining their behaviour and helping to disentangle preference heterogeneity. When responses to attitudinal questions are introduced into discrete choice models, a suitable approach that corrects for potential endogeneity must be adopted. We use a discrete choice experiment to analyse the preferences of residents regarding the use of agri‐environmental practices in the peri‐urban area of Milan (Italy). A detailed analysis of these preferences is relevant for policymakers as farmers on the peri‐urban fringe are often asked to provide environmental services to urban‐dwellers. We apply a latent class model that we extend to include indicators of individuals’ attitudes towards the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Besides the application of the control function approach to deal with endogeneity, our main contribution is the use of a refutability test to check the exogeneity of the instruments in the agri‐environmental setting. Our results show that attitudinal indicators help to disentangle the preference heterogeneity and that the respondents’ willingness‐to‐pay distribution differs according to the indicators’ values.

Suggested Citation

  • Petr Mariel & Linda Arata, 2022. "Incorporating attitudes into the evaluation of preferences regarding agri‐environmental practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 430-451, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:73:y:2022:i:2:p:430-451
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12456
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12456?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. Ferreira, Fernando, 2010. "You can take it with you: Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 661-673, October.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Guevara, C. Angelo, 2015. "Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-254.
    4. Luis Márquez & Víctor Cantillo & Julián Arellana, 2020. "Assessing the influence of indicators’ complexity on hybrid discrete choice model estimates," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 373-396, February.
    5. Train, Kenneth E & McFadden, Daniel L & Goett, Andrew A, 1987. "Consumer Attitudes and Voluntary Rate Schedules for Public Utilities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(3), pages 383-391, August.
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2019. "Linking Consumers’ Food Choice Motives to their Preferences for Insect‐based Food Products: An Application of Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Model in an African Context," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 241-258, February.
    7. Linda Arata & Gianni Guastella & Stefano Pareglio & Riccardo Scarpa & Paolo Sckokai, 2021. "Do city dwellers care about peri-urban land use? The case of environment-friendly agriculture around Milan," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(6), pages 1044-1066, May.
    8. Cristian Angelo Guevara & Moshe E. Ben-Akiva, 2012. "Change of Scale and Forecasting with the Control-Function Method in Logit Models," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 425-437, August.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    11. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    12. Guevara, C. Angelo, 2018. "Overidentification tests for the exogeneity of instruments in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 241-253.
    13. Guevara, C. Angelo & Tirachini, Alejandro & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Dekker, Thijs, 2020. "Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted crowding in public transport choice using the Multiple Indicator Solution (MIS) method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 472-484.
    14. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    15. David Wuepper & Philipp Wree & Goezde Ardali, 2019. "Does information change German consumers’ attitudes about genetically modified food?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 53-78.
    16. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    18. Fitalew Agimass Taye & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2018. "Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 420-440, October.
    19. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    20. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    21. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    22. Jaap Sok & Ivo A. van der Lans & Henk Hogeveen & Armin R. W. Elbers & Alfons G. J. M. Oude Lansink, 2018. "Farmers’ Preferences For Bluetongue Vaccination Scheme Attributes: An Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 537-560, June.
    23. Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode, 2016. "Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 232-245.
    24. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    25. Romy Greiner, 2016. "Factors influencing farmers’ participation in contractual biodiversity conservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(1), pages 1-21, January.
    26. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    27. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    2. Mariel, Petr & Khan, Mohammad Asif & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2022. "Valuing individuals’ preferences for air quality improvement: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in South Delhi," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 432-447.
    3. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    5. 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).
    6. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    8. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    9. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    10. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    11. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    12. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    13. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    14. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, William George, 2018. "Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 84-102.
    15. Ainhoa Vega-Bayo & Petr Mariel, 2023. "Parents’ Willingness to Pay for Bilingualism: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 727-742, September.
    16. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R. & Lai, John H. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Would County Residents Vote for an Increase in Their Taxes to Conserve Native Habitat and Ecosystem Services? Funding Conservation in Palm Beach County, Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 24-34.
    17. Tabi, Andrea & del Saz-Salazar, Salvador, 2015. "Environmental damage evaluation in a willingness-to-accept scenario: A latent-class approach based on familiarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 280-288.
    18. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    19. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    20. Gopalakrishnan, Raja & Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2020. "Combining multiple imputation and control function methods to deal with missing data and endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 45-57.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jageco:v:73:y:2022:i:2:p:430-451. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.