IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1620-d921795.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Rocchi

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, 74-06121 Perugia, Italy)

  • Anastasija Novikova

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

  • Bernardas Vaznonis

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

Abstract

Agricultural activities play an important role in shaping landscape, in particular, in Lithuania, where agricultural land accounts for more than half of the surface land. These landscape services are used by people as public goods, contributing to societal welfare. The aim of this study is to assess the value of agricultural landscape, identifying consumer preferences and willingness to pay for agricultural landscape attributes using the choice experiment (CE) method. The article analyses the agricultural landscape services and attributes the condition of which depends directly on the farming systems and practices applied. Four attributes of agricultural landscape were selected for the research: (i) scenic views; (ii) variety of flora and fauna species, (iii) recreational infrastructure and services, and (iv) objects of cultural heritage. The latent class approach (LCA) was used for analysis of heterogenous preferences among the Lithuanian residents. The findings provided quantitative information related to the demand for agricultural landscape goods, identifying a particular interest for the objects of cultural heritage, in relation to which the willingness to pay is particularly high. It is necessary to understand and analyse the preferences for agricultural landscape services with the purpose of improvement of the agricultural policy measures in order to change the farmers’ performance towards sustainability. The case study offers new empirical arguments for agri-environmental policy development.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1620-:d:921795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1620/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1620/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    3. Kamakura, Wagner A & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "An Empirical Bayes Procedure for Improving Individual-Level Estimates and Predictions from Finite Mixtures of Multinomial Logit Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 121-125, January.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Ingo Zasada & Kati Häfner & Lena Schaller & Boris van Zanten & Marianne Lefebvre & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska & Dimitre Nikolov & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena & Rosa Manrique & Fabrizio Ungaro & Matteo Zava, 2017. "A conceptual model to integrate the regional context in landscape policy, management and contribution to rural development: Literature review and European case study evidence," Post-Print hal-01744526, HAL.
    8. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Wagner, Susanne & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Beletskaya, Olga & Zeddies, Jürgen, 2017. "Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers' costs and society's benefits – A case study for Lower Saxony, Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 70-80.
    10. Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Targetti, Stefano & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2020. "Benefits for the local society attached to rural landscape: An analysis of residents’ perception of ecosystem services," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    12. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    13. Hamparsum Bozdogan, 1987. "Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 345-370, September.
    14. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Martina Slámová & Ingrid Belčáková, 2019. "The Role of Small Farm Activities for the Sustainable Management of Agricultural Landscapes: Case Studies from Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    18. 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.
    19. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2020. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany—A latent class analysis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Ove Eriksson & Sara A. O. Cousins, 2014. "Historical Landscape Perspectives on Grasslands in Sweden and the Baltic Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, March.
    21. 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.
    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. Tavárez, Héctor & Cortés, Mildred, 2024. "Device effects: Results from choice experiments in an agritourism context," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 24(1), June.

    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. Rocchi, L. & Campioni, R. & Brunori, A. & Mariano, E., 2023. "Environmental certification of woody charcoal: A choice experiments application," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    4. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    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. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    10. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2008. "Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 536-546, December.
    12. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    13. Tadao Hoshino, 2011. "Estimation and Analysis of Preference Heterogeneity in Residential Choice Behaviour," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(2), pages 363-382, February.
    14. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Yang, YeHa & Yang, SoYoung & Moon, HyungBin & Woo, JongRoul, 2024. "Analyzing heterogeneous electric vehicle charging preferences for strategic time-of-use tariff design and infrastructure development: A latent class approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    21. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, 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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1620-:d:921795. 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.