IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6930-d578256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People’s Avoidance of Neighboring Agricultural Urban Green Infrastructure: Evidence from a Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Shinsuke Kyoi

    (Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan)

Abstract

This study evaluates people’s preferences regarding the proximity of their residence to agricultural urban green infrastructure (UGI), such as agricultural land and satoyama, and discusses the availability of these types of land as UGI. UGI is vital for reducing the negative environmental impacts of urban areas, as these impacts are too large to ignore. In this study, we conducted an online survey and a choice experiment to investigate people’s perceptions regarding the proximity of their residence to agricultural UGI (AUGI). The respondents of the choice experiment were 802 inhabitants of Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, which has rich agricultural resources. To examine explicitly the spatial autocorrelation of people’s preferences, in this study, we used the spatial econometrics method. The main empirical findings are that people prefer agricultural land far away from their residence—more than 1000 m, not within 1000 m—which reflects the not-in-my-backyard phenomenon. Meanwhile, people’s preferences regarding proximity to satoyama are complicated and their preferences are positively spatially autocorrelated. The results indicate that policymakers and urban planners should manage and provide AUGI far away from residential areas; otherwise, they must address people’s avoidance of neighboring AUGI.

Suggested Citation

  • Shinsuke Kyoi, 2021. "People’s Avoidance of Neighboring Agricultural Urban Green Infrastructure: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6930-:d:578256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6930/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6930/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    2. Roberto Patuelli & Giuseppe Arbia (ed.), 2016. "Spatial Econometric Interaction Modelling," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-319-30196-9, december.
    3. Shanaka Herath & Johanna Choumert & Gunther Maier, 2015. "The value of the greenbelt in Vienna: a spatial hedonic analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(2), pages 349-374, March.
    4. Kubi Ackerman & Michael Conard & Patricia Culligan & Richard Plunz & Maria-Paola Sutto & Leigh Whittinghill, 2014. "Sustainable Food Systems for Future Cities: The Potential of Urban Agriculture," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 45(2), pages 189-206.
    5. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    6. Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 217-231, September.
    7. Stephen Gibbons & Susana Mourato & Guilherme Resende, 2014. "The Amenity Value of English Nature: A Hedonic Price Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 175-196, February.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    9. Stanislav Stakhovych & Tammo H.A. Bijmolt, 2009. "Specification of spatial models: A simulation study on weights matrices," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 389-408, June.
    10. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    11. Chen, T. Donna & Wang, Yiyi & Kockelman, Kara M., 2015. "Where are the electric vehicles? A spatial model for vehicle-choice count data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 181-188.
    12. Ian C. Mell, 2017. "Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 135-145, February.
    13. Margaret Walls & Carolyn Kousky & Ziyan Chu, 2015. "Is What You See What You Get? The Value of Natural Landscape Views," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19.
    14. Liu, Wen & Chen, Weiping & Peng, Chi, 2015. "Influences of setting sizes and combination of green infrastructures on community’s stormwater runoff reduction," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 236-244.
    15. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    16. Philip Kostov, 2010. "Model Boosting for Spatial Weighting Matrix Selection in Spatial Lag Models," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(3), pages 533-549, June.
    17. Danny Campbell & Riccardo Scarpa & W. Hutchinson, 2008. "Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 117-126, December.
    18. Anselin, Luc, 2002. "Under the hood : Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 247-267, November.
    19. Richard C. Ready & Charles W. Abdalla, 2005. "The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 314-326.
    20. Tadao Hoshino & Koichi Kuriyama, 2010. "Measuring the Benefits of Neighbourhood Park Amenities: Application and Comparison of Spatial Hedonic Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 429-444, March.
    21. Morton, Craig & Anable, Jillian & Yeboah, Godwin & Cottrill, Caitlin, 2018. "The spatial pattern of demand in the early market for electric vehicles: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 119-130.
    22. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    23. Liu, Tian & Hu, Weiyan & Song, Yan & Zhang, Anlu, 2020. "Exploring spillover effects of ecological lands: A spatial multilevel hedonic price model of the housing market in Wuhan, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    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. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    2. Kei Kabaya, 2022. "Examining spatially heterogeneous preferences for coastal ecosystem restoration with Bayesian spatial probit approaches," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 99-112, April.
    3. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Morton, Craig & Anable, Jillian & Yeboah, Godwin & Cottrill, Caitlin, 2018. "The spatial pattern of demand in the early market for electric vehicles: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 119-130.
    5. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2021. "Accounting for Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences in Discrete Choice Models," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, March.
    6. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    7. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    9. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Timothy J. Richards & Stephen F. Hamilton & William J. Allender, 2014. "Social Networks and New Product Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(2), pages 489-516.
    12. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    13. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    14. Matthew Gnagey & Therese Grijalva, 2018. "The impact of trails on property values: a spatial analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 60(1), pages 73-97, January.
    15. Farina, Georges & Le Coënt, Philippe & Hérivaux, Cécile, 2024. "Do urban environmental inequalities influence demand for nature based solutions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    16. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    18. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    19. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    20. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.

    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:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6930-:d:578256. 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.