IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea17/261273.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying typologies of rural areas based on the importance of different public goods and bads

Author

Listed:
  • Marconi, Valentina
  • Raggi, Meri
  • Viaggi, Davide

Abstract

The provision of public goods by agriculture and forestry has been one of the major topics of the policy debate in recent decades. From an economic point of view, public intervention related to pubic goods is justified by the fact that, due to their nature, markets do not provide prices for public goods and, as a consequence, do not allow to reach an optimal level of provision. Research has tried to deal with this topic in different ways. One pathway tries to attach a value to public goods provision to support related decision making, either using monetary or non monetary techniques. In this study we try to address those issues through the identification of typologies of rural areas within Europe based on the relevance assigned by local stakeholders operating in the field of agriculture and forestry in different European countries to different bundles of public goods and bads. In this survey, the PGBs provided by agriculture and forestry that stakeholders scored the highest are considered to be a proxy of society demand for those PGBs. The results indicated that water-related issues are the most relevant environmental concerns in the context of agriculture and forestry. However, we highlighted different relevance of PGs across regions, consistently with most of the studies addressing this issue and with known evidence about the variety of different local conditions in the EU. We identified a large group of respondents attributing a greater relevance to the Public Goods with more prounonced social dimension (in particular ‘rural viability and vitality’) with respect to the more environmental. The same group of respondents also assigned a greater importance to a few environmental Public Bads (e.g. ‘Biodiversity losses’) suggesting that PGBs are perceived as linked to specific components of the Socio-Ecological Capital (e.g. water), which are qualified depending on (threshold-related) levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Marconi, Valentina & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2017. "Identifying typologies of rural areas based on the importance of different public goods and bads," 2017 Sixth AIEAA Conference, June 15-16, Piacenza, Italy 261273, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea17:261273
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261273/files/Marconi_AIEAA_2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261273/files/Marconi_AIEAA_2017.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.261273?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. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    2. A.J. Villanueva & S. Targetti & L. Schaller & M. Arriaza & J. Kantelhardt & M. Rodriguez-Entrena & V. Bossi-Fedrigotti & D. Viaggi, 2015. "Assessing the role of economic actors in the production of private and public goods in three EU agricultural landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(12), pages 2113-2136, December.
    3. Viaggi, Davide & Finn, John Anthony & Kurz, Isabelle & Bartolini, Fabio, 2011. "Multicriteria analysis for environmental assessment of agri-environment schemes: How to use partial information from Mid-Term Evaluations?," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(01).
    4. Livia Madureira & Jose Lima Santos & Ana Ferreira & Helena Guimarães, 2013. "Feasibility Study on the Valuation of Public Goods and Externalities in EU Agriculture," JRC Research Reports JRC83468, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    6. Zahrnt, Valentin, 2009. "Public Money for Public Goods: Winners and Losers from CAP Reform," ECIPE Working Papers 51300, European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE).
    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. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    2. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Davide Viaggi, 2015. "Editorial," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(12), pages 2082-2087, December.
    4. Dotti, Nicola Francesco, 2018. "Knowledge that matters for the ‘survival of unfittest’: The case of the new Brussels' rail junction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 131-140.
    5. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    6. Espinosa, Maria & Rodriguez, Macario & Madureira, Livia Maria Costa & Santos, Jose Lima & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2014. "Are models and respondents talking the same language: evidence from stated and inferred discontinuous preferences in a choice experiment valuing public goods?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182668, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Rauschmayer, Felix & Bauler, Tom & Schäpke, Niko, 2013. "Towards a governance of sustainability transitions: Giving place to individuals," UFZ Discussion Papers 17/2013, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    8. Callan, Tim ed. & Barrett, Alan & Goggin, Jean & Gorecki, Paul K. & Keane, Claire & Kearney, Ide & Matthews, Alan & Walsh, John R., 2009. "Budget Perspectives 2010," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS12.
    9. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    10. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    11. Catarina Esgalhado & Maria Helena Guimaraes, 2020. "Unveiling Contrasting Preferred Trajectories of Local Development in Southeast Portugal," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    13. Eva Wanek & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Alda Mari, 2024. "Desire, moral evaluation or sense of duty: The modal framing of stated preference elicitation," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(4), pages 434-459, August.
    14. Paul Ofei-Manu & Satoshi Shimano, 2012. "In Transition towards Sustainability: Bridging the Business and Education Sectors of Regional Centre of Expertise Greater Sendai Using Education for Sustainable Development-Based Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-26, July.
    15. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Joshua Henkel & Georg Schwesinger, 2020. "Establishing Sustainable Consumption - How Future Policies Can Channel Consumer Preferences," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2007, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    17. Schaller, Lena & Targetti, Stefano & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Zasada, Ingo & Kantelhardt, Jochen & Arriaza, Manuel & Bal, Tufan & Fedrigotti, Valérie Bossi & Giray, F. Handan & Häfner, Kati & Majews, 2018. "Agricultural landscapes, ecosystem services and regional competitiveness—Assessing drivers and mechanisms in nine European case study areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 735-745.
    18. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    19. Kleinhanss, Werner, 2011. "Impacts of the flat rates and digressive schemes on the distribution of Direct Payments in the EU," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114754, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Asimina Kouriati & Anna Tafidou & Evgenia Lialia & Angelos Prentzas & Christina Moulogianni & Eleni Dimitriadou & Thomas Bournaris, 2024. "A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model for Optimal Land Uses: Guiding Farmers under the New European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027)," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, June.

    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:aiea17:261273. 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/aieaaea.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.