IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1419-d144436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ and Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water Quality Improvement through Land Management Practices: The Case Study of the Soyang Watershed in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Saem Lee

    (Professorship of Ecological Services, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitaetsstrasse 30, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany)

  • Hyun No Kim

    (Department of Sustainable Development Research, Korea Environment Institute, Sejong 30147, Korea)

  • Trung Thanh Nguyen

    (Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade, Leibniz University Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germany)

  • Thomas Koellner

    (Professorship of Ecological Services, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitaetsstrasse 30, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany)

  • Hio-Jung Shin

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea)

Abstract

The drinking water quality along the Soyang watershed has been affected negatively by the intensive agricultural practices in the upstream area. Our study used a choice experiment method in order to estimate the values that the upstream water providers (i.e., farmers) and downstream water users (i.e., consumers) attach to the following attributes, namely, the agricultural profits, water quality, and biodiversity level of the Soyang watershed in South Korea. The preferences of the upstream water providers and downstream water users were presented by a conditional logit model and with interactions. The results from the conditional logit model specifications revealed that water quality is the most important attribute that is preferred by the downstream water users and upstream farmers. Both the upstream farmers and downstream water users have put substantial values on the protection of water bodies in the Soyang watershed, and are concerned about the consequences of water usage on the environment and human health. The respondents in each income group and in different local communities with income levels seemed to have different implicit costs for the water quality improvement in the Soyang watershed. Our study has provided robust results regarding the benefits of water improvement using sustainable land management and can be considered as a fundamental input for aiding the sustainable water–land nexus policies. We suggest that the government carefully designs a policy so as to compensate the highland farmers for their income losses as a result of the changing farming practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Saem Lee & Hyun No Kim & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Thomas Koellner & Hio-Jung Shin, 2018. "Farmers’ and Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water Quality Improvement through Land Management Practices: The Case Study of the Soyang Watershed in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1419-:d:144436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1419/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1419/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marita Laukkanen & Anni Huhtala, 2008. "Optimal management of a eutrophied coastal ecosystem: balancing agricultural and municipal abatement measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 139-159, February.
    2. Trung Thanh Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Bumsuk Seo, 2012. "Cost and environmental efficiency of rice farms in South Korea," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 369-378, July.
    3. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    4. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    5. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Carpentier, Alain & Thomas, Alban, 2011. "The willingness to adopt agro-ecological innovations: Application of choice modelling to Caribbean banana planters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 140-150.
    6. Dabrowski, J.M. & Murray, K. & Ashton, P.J. & Leaner, J.J., 2009. "Agricultural impacts on water quality and implications for virtual water trading decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1074-1082, February.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Jean-Lionel Payeur-Poirier & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "The Inclusion of Forest Hydrological Services in the Sustainable Development Strategy of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Saem Lee & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Patrick Poppenborg & Hio-Jung Shin & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Unknown, 2016. "Energy for Sustainable Development," Conference Proceedings 253270, Guru Arjan Dev Institute of Development Studies (IDSAsr).
    11. Elofsson, Katarina, 2003. "Cost-effective reductions of stochastic agricultural loads to the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 13-31, November.
    12. Katsunori Yamada & Masayuki Sato & Yasuhiro Nakamoto, 2009. "Measurement of Social Preference from Utility-Based Choice Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 0759, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    13. Brijesh Mainali & Jyrki Luukkanen & Semida Silveira & Jari Kaivo-oja, 2018. "Evaluating Synergies and Trade-Offs among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Explorative Analyses of Development Paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-25, March.
    14. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    15. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    16. S Georgiou & I H Langford & I J Bateman & R K Turner, 1998. "Determinants of Individuals' Willingness to Pay for Perceived Reductions in Environmental Health Risks: A Case Study of Bathing Water Quality," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(4), pages 577-594, April.
    17. Giles Atkinson & Ian Bateman & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 22-47, Spring.
    18. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2009. "Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 201-206, March.
    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. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    2. 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.
    3. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    4. Kari Hyytiäinen & Anni Huhtala, 2014. "Combating eutrophication in coastal areas at risk for oil spills," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 101-121, August.
    5. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 413-424, December.
    6. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Kari Hyytiäinen & Lassi Ahlvik & Heini Ahtiainen & Janne Artell & Anni Huhtala & Kim Dahlbo, 2015. "Policy Goals for Improved Water Quality in the Baltic Sea: When do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(2), pages 217-241, June.
    8. Amare Tesfaw & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Alemu & Ermias Teferi, 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    9. Dongqing Sun & Fanzhi Wang & Nanxu Chen & Jing Chen, 2021. "The Impacts of Technology Shocks on Sustainable Development from the Perspective of Energy Structure—A DSGE Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Hynes, Stephen & Tinch, Dugald & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "Estimating the value of improvements to coastal waters resulting from revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive," Working Papers 160058, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    11. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    12. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Ole Bonnichsen & Carsten Lynge Jensen & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2016. "An empirical investigation of German tourist anglers’ preferences for angling in Denmark," IFRO Working Paper 2016/10, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Pham, Hung Duy & Crase, Lin & Burton, Michael & Cooper, Bethany, 2019. "Strategies for integrating farmers into modern vegetable supply chains in Vietnam: farmer attitudes and willingness to accept," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    15. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    16. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    17. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    20. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:5:p:1419-:d:144436. 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.