IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare02/125060.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Value Viable Country Communities?

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.
  • Bueren, Martin van
  • Whitten, Stuart M.

Abstract

Ensuring the continued viability of rural and regional communities in Australia has become a high priority politically. Economic and environmental forces are perceived as threats to viability. Declining terms of trade for agricultural commodities along with decreased relative prices for transportation and communication services have led to fewer and more concentrated regional centres. Environmental threats such as dryland salinity are perceived as potential future causes of diminished settlement densities. In Europe and the United States of America, similar political pressures to keep rural communities viable are also apparent, often as a component of the “multi-functionality” of agriculture. Given that these pressures are manifest in the form of demands for public resources, the question is whether or not the tax paying public enjoy benefits from any resultant improvement in country community viability. As an integral component of a number of recent non-market, environmental valuation exercises, the value of these benefits have been estimated. The results demonstrate a positive “existence value” held primarily by urban dwellers for country communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Bueren, Martin van & Whitten, Stuart M., 2002. "What Value Viable Country Communities?," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125060, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare02:125060
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125060/files/Bennett.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2000. "European Agri-Environmental Policy Facing the 21st Century," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 171918, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    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. 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.
    2. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.
    3. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    4. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    5. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    6. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Thang Nam Do & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Estimate Wetland Values in Viet Nam: Implementation and Practical Issues," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.
    9. Sorada Tapsuwan & Michael Burton & Aditi Mankad & David Tucker & Murni Greenhill, 2014. "Adapting to Less Water: Household Willingness to Pay for Decentralised Water Systems in Urban Australia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(4), pages 1111-1125, March.
    10. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    12. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling in Brisbane, Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 362-377, April.
    14. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 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 1-21.
    15. Helene Naegele, 2015. "Offset Credits in the EU ETS: A Quantile Estimation of Firm-Level Transaction Costs," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1513, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. 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.
    17. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    18. Jeff Bennett & Jeremy Cheesman & Russell Blamey & Marit Kragt, 2016. "Estimating the non-market benefits of environmental flows in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 236-248, July.
    19. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    20. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aare02:125060. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.