IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i3p362-d1344945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Environmental Public Goods of the Organic Farming System: A Lithuanian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasija Novikova

    (Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Renata Zemaitiene

    (Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Renata Marks-Bielska

    (Department of Economic Policy, Faculty of Economic Science, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 4, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Stanisław Bielski

    (Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

Abstract

Organic farming is a farming system that combines environmental farming practices, a high degree of biodiversity, and the protection of natural resources. All these environmental services are used in society as public goods, contributing to societal welfare. Understanding the opinions of residents on these environmental public goods is essential because they are both consumers and financial contributors to the common agricultural policy. Therefore, it is imperative to further existing scientific knowledge in the field of consumer behaviour. Using Lithuania as a case study, the present study focuses on analysing societal opinion and willingness to pay (WTP) with respect to the environmental public goods (reflected in three components: the reduction in water, soil, and air pollution) of organic farming. This study uses the contingent valuation (CV) method to obtain the WTP for public goods. The median WTP was calculated for multiple environmental public goods from organic agriculture, excluding the protest zero. This study revealed that the residents of Lithuania understood the contribution of organic farming in creating environmental public goods and were concerned about environmental issues. It was crucial for them to have a clean environment with, for example, better drinking water quality, lower air pollution and soil erosion. The application of the CV method showed a median WTP of EUR 24.58 annually per family for environmental public goods. The preference towards environmental public goods differs depending on the socioeconomic characteristics and knowledge about organic farming. These findings provide quantitative information regarding the demand for the environmental effects of organic farming, which could be useful for policy-makers. Such research could also prove useful in setting the future direction of the common agricultural policy. The example of Lithuania was used to present a universal research problem that concerns European countries, especially those in the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasija Novikova & Renata Zemaitiene & Renata Marks-Bielska & Stanisław Bielski, 2024. "Assessment of the Environmental Public Goods of the Organic Farming System: A Lithuanian Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:362-:d:1344945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/3/362/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/3/362/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková & Eliška Svobodová & Inez Naaki Vanderpuje, 2021. "Organic Food Needs More Land and Direct Energy to Be Produced Compared to Food from Conventional Farming: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    3. Joy R. Petway & Yu-Pin Lin & Rainer F. Wunderlich, 2020. "A Place-Based Approach to Agricultural Nonmaterial Intangible Cultural Ecosystem Service Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    5. Mel W Khaw & Denise A Grab & Michael A Livermore & Christian A Vossler & Paul W Glimcher, 2015. "The Measurement of Subjective Value and Its Relation to Contingent Valuation and Environmental Public Goods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Eva Richterová & Martin Richter & Zlata Sojková, 2021. "Regional eco-efficiency of the agricultural sector in V4 regions, its dynamics in time and decomposition on the technological and pure technical eco-efficiency change," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 16(3), pages 553-576, September.
    7. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    10. 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.
    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. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    2. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    3. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Costa, Cristina Amaro da & Santos, José Lima, 2016. "Estimating the demand curve for sustainable use of pesticides from contingent-valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 121-128.
    5. Frör, Oliver, 2008. "Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 570-581, December.
    6. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    7. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani & Dritsas, Sophoclis, 2017. "Exploring social values for marine protected areas: The case of Mediterranean monk seal," MPRA Paper 82490, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Stavroula Tsigou & Stathis Klonaris, 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ WTP for innovative fertilizer against soil salinity," Working Papers 2018-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Mark J. Koetse & Erik T. Verhoef & Luke M. Brander, 2017. "A generic marginal value function for natural areas," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 58(1), pages 159-179, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    12. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. 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.
    14. Frondel Manuel & Kutzschbauch Ole & Sommer Stephan & Traub Stefan, 2017. "Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 335-347, November.
    15. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    16. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    17. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    18. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    19. Jacob LaRiviere & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Katherine Simpson, 2016. "What is the Causal Impact of Knowledge on Preferences in Stated Preference Studies?," Working Papers 2016-12, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.

    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:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:362-:d:1344945. 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.