IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2015i1p12-d61147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Heterogeneous Preference for Farmland Non-market Values in Wuhan, Central China

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Yang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Michael Burton

    (School of Agricultural Resource and Economics, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009 WA, Australia)

  • Yinying Cai

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Anlu Zhang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

Abstract

The research question for this study is estimating the public’s willingness to pay for the public goods generated by farmland, and exploring respondents’ heterogeneity in their preferences for these goods. The approach used is a choice experiment, using respondents from the city of Wuhan, China. Six attributes representing public good values (farmland area, farmland fertility, water quality, air quality, species richness, and recreational value) and the level of private cost are selected in this study. A heteroscedastic conditional logit model is used to analyze the respondents’ willingness to pay for improvements in these public goods, accounting for systematic heterogeneity in public preferences. The results show the public are willing to pay to preserve the non-market values generated by farmland, with air quality valued most and followed by farmland fertility, farmland area, water quality, species richness and recreational value. In addition, respondents with higher income, and who are aware of the non-market values of farmland and have a willingness to pay for it have a smaller error variance, i.e. , these respondents are more consistent in their choices. This study may help decision makers improving more differentiated farmland protection policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Yang & Michael Burton & Yinying Cai & Anlu Zhang, 2015. "Exploring Heterogeneous Preference for Farmland Non-market Values in Wuhan, Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:12-:d:61147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Man Li & JunJie Wu & Xiangzheng Deng, 2013. "Identifying Drivers of Land Use Change in China: A Spatial Multinomial Logit Model Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 632-654.
    2. Maksym Polyakov & David J. Pannell & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Geoff Park, 2015. "Capitalized Amenity Value of Native Vegetation in a Multifunctional Rural Landscape," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 299-314.
    3. Pruckner, Gerald J, 1995. "Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 22(2), pages 173-190.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    5. Raguragavan, Jananee & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2013. "Economic Valuation of Recreational Fishing in Western Australia: Statewide Random Utility Modelling of Fishing Site Choice Behaviour," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    9. Sallie James & Michael Burton, 2003. "Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 501-518, December.
    10. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    11. Mike Burton & Dan Rigby, 2009. "Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 211-226, February.
    12. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Wang, Jinxia & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2005. "Evolution of tubewell ownership and production in the North China Plain," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(2), pages 1-19.
    14. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    15. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2010. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 800-816.
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-11, October.
    17. Grosjean, Pauline & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "How Sustainable are Sustainable Development Programs? The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 268-285, January.
    18. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    19. Arne Risa Hole, 2006. "Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(18), pages 1-14.
    20. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    21. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    22. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    25. 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)

    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. Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    4. 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).
    5. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    6. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    7. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    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. Silvia Ferrini & Riccardo Scarpa, 2005. "Experimental Designs for Environmental Valuation with Choice-Experiments: A Monte-Carlo Investigation," Working Papers in Economics 05/08, University of Waikato.
    13. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2019. "Determinants of willingness-to-pay for attributes of power outage - An empirical discrete choice experiment addressing implications for fuel switching in developing countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 206-215.
    14. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    15. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    16. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    17. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    18. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2009. "Estimating farmers' valuation of aquifer recharge with treated wastewater: The Cypriot case study," DEOS Working Papers 0909, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    19. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    20. 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).

    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:8:y:2015:i:1:p:12-:d:61147. 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.