IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/touman/v39y2013icp62-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?

Author

Listed:
  • Yadav, Lava Prakash
  • O'Neill, Stephen

Abstract

In recent years market based incentives have been regarded as a potential solution for addressing market failure related to environmental externalities. Determining the optimal payment schedule to facilitate such market mechanism typically involves a valuation exercise to capture the static benefits received by beneficiary groups from the public good. In this study we augment the valuation estimates with a notion of ‘fair share’ by assessing opinions of two beneficiary groups (tourists and Bed and Breakfast owners) regarding an acceptable division of the burden of financing the public good. We find a significant difference in views. Tourists believe that their accommodation providers should contribute almost twice the amount that they themselves are willing to pay. On the contrary, a majority of Bed and Breakfast owners surveyed were against burdening tourists with any additional payments.

Suggested Citation

  • Yadav, Lava Prakash & O'Neill, Stephen, 2013. "Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-70.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:touman:v:39:y:2013:i:c:p:62-70
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517713000885
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.001?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. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2007. "Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: a panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 295-320, September.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    6. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 1996. "Embedding in Market Demand Systems," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 369-380, May.
    7. Stephen Hynes & Danny Campbell & Peter Howley, 2011. "A Holistic vs. an Attribute‐based Approach to Agri‐Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 305-329, June.
    8. Chung, Jin Young & Kyle, Gerard T. & Petrick, James F. & Absher, James D., 2011. "Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a national forest," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1038-1046.
    9. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    10. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    11. Stephen Hynes & Eoghan Garvey, 2009. "Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri‐environmental Scheme using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 546-562, September.
    12. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O Donoghue, 2012. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring Individuals' Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Traditional Farm Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 703-719, December.
    13. Jeremy Clark, 1998. "Fairness in Public Good Provision: An Investigation of Preferences for Equality and Proportionality," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 708-729, August.
    14. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    16. David Pearce, 2004. "Environmental market creation: saviour or oversell?," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 3(2), pages 115-144, September.
    17. Paul Fischer & Steven Huddart, 2008. "Optimal Contracting with Endogenous Social Norms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1459-1475, September.
    18. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    20. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    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. Peng Li & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Ying Zou & Mark Beattie & Linsi He, 2018. "Factors Affecting Inn Operators’ Willingness to Pay Resource Protection Fees: A Case of Erhai Lake in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Chen, Bixia & Nakama, Yuei & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2017. "Traditional village forest landscapes: Tourists' attitudes and preferences for conservation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 652-662.
    3. Friedman, Rachel S. & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Rhodes, Jonathan R. & Law, Elizabeth A., 2022. "What does equitable distribution mean in community forests?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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. Lava Prakash Yadav & Stephen O’Neill & Tom van Rensburg, 2013. "Economic Crisis and the Restructuring of Wage Setting Mechanisms for Vulnerable Workers in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 44(2), pages 221-245.
    2. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Martinsen, Louise & Hasler, Berit & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2011. "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1170-1177, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    5. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    6. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    7. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    8. Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Green, Stuart, 2011. "Assessing the compatibility of farmland biodiversity and habitats to the specifications of agri-environmental schemes using a multinomial logit approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 111-121.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    12. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    13. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    14. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    15. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    19. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    20. Mullarky, Daniel, 1999. "Lessons Learned: A Systematic Look at Validity Issues in Conjoint Analysis," Western Region Archives 321714, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).

    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:eee:touman:v:39:y:2013:i:c:p:62-70. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/tourism-management .

    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.