IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4321-d184450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring How Land Tenure Affects Farmers’ Landscape Values: Evidence from a Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sofía Monroy-Sais

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIES-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico)

  • Eduardo García-Frapolli

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIES-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico)

  • Francisco Mora

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIES-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico)

  • Margaret Skutsch

    (Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (CIGA-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico)

  • Alejandro Casas

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIES-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico)

  • Peter Rijnaldus Wilhelmus Gerritsen

    (Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur, Universidad de Guadalajara (CU Costa Sur-UDG), Autlán C.P. 48900, Mexico)

  • David González-Jiménez

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (IIES-UNAM), Morelia C.P. 58190, Mexico
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), México D.F. C.P. 03100, Mexico)

Abstract

Values play an important role in farmers’ land management decisions, becoming increasingly relevant when designing environmental policy. One key element that influences farming decisions is the land tenure under which farmers and their land are embedded, which represents different sets of rights for farmers. Therefore, the aim of this study was to elicit farmers’ values regarding the social and ecological attributes of the landscape, and determine how these values vary according to differences in land rights. We performed this exercise in the two most important land tenure systems in rural Mexico. We carried out a choice experiment to understand preferences for different landscape attributes such as vegetation cover, surface water, terrain slope, and type of property. Then, we probed how these preferences change according to the land rights that farmers hold. We found that surface water was consistently the most important landscape attribute. However, there were clear differences that were related to land rights for some values, such as for example, vegetation cover. Institutional mechanisms such as boundary rules and conflicting values are part of the explanation of these differences. These results provide a bridge to understanding farmers’ management decisions, and in the future, improving sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofía Monroy-Sais & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Francisco Mora & Margaret Skutsch & Alejandro Casas & Peter Rijnaldus Wilhelmus Gerritsen & David González-Jiménez, 2018. "Exploring How Land Tenure Affects Farmers’ Landscape Values: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4321-:d:184450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4321/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4321/
    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. 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.
    3. Gill, David A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. & Oxenford, Hazel A., 2015. "Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 48-57.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    6. Aizaki, Hideo, 2012. "Basic Functions for Supporting an Implementation of Choice Experiments in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 50(c02).
    7. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    8. Feola, Giuseppe & Binder, Claudia R., 2010. "Towards an improved understanding of farmers' behaviour: The integrative agent-centred (IAC) framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2323-2333, October.
    9. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    10. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    11. Ehrlich, Paul R., 2008. "Key issues for attention from ecological economists1," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    13. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    14. Howley, Peter & Buckley, Cathal & O Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2015. "Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’ of farmers' land use behaviour: The role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 186-193.
    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. Sofía Monroy-Sais & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Alejandro Casas & Francisco Mora & Margaret Skutsch & Peter R. W. Gerritsen, 2022. "Relational values and management of plant resources in two communities in a highly biodiverse area in western Mexico," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1231-1244, December.

    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. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    2. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    6. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    7. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    8. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    9. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    11. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    14. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    15. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2021. "Assessing Tradeoffs between Development and Conservation: A Case of Land Use Change in a National Park of Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    20. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    21. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4321-:d:184450. 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.