IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae02/24812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Yrjola, Tapani
  • Kola, Jukka

Abstract

This study aims at assessing the costs and benefits of multifunctional agriculture, and it is one of the very first studies using a quantitative approach to this new subject. The starting point is that if current farm subsidies are regarded as means to maintain the multifunctional characteristics of agriculture, what happens if subsidies are reduced. The effects of the decline in agricultural support on multifunctional characteristics of agriculture in Finland are estimated using the cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Only a part of the consequences can be assessed by the CBA due to lack of data on the economic value of many elements of multifunctional agriculture. Hence, the results should not be generalised too strongly, but they still provide useful information for the political decision-making. Concerning further research, we should study, inter alia, what the so-called correct level of compensation for the adequate supply of public goods would be, and what kind of means of agricultural policy are the most efficient to unambiguously enhance the multifunctional character of agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24812, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae02:24812
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24812/files/cp02ir99.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24812?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Kontogianni, Areti & Skourtos, Mihalis S. & Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2001. "Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 123-138, April.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. F. Bonnieux & P. Rainelli & D. Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the Supply of Environmental Benefits by Agriculture: A French Case Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 135-153, March.
    6. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    7. U. Koester & S. Tangermann, 1977. "Supplementing farm price policy by direct income payments: Cost-benefit-analysis of alternative farm policies with a special application to German agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 4(1), pages 7-31.
    8. Hanley, Nick, 1990. "The Economics of Nitrate Pollution," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 17(2), pages 129-151.
    9. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    10. Francois Bonnieux & Pierre Rainelli & Dominique Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture," Post-Print hal-01595403, HAL.
    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. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    2. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    3. Boyle, Kevin J. & Morrison, Mark & Taylor, Laura O., 2004. "Why Value Estimates Generated Using Choice Modelling Exceed Contingent Valuation: Further Experimental Evidence," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58370, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    7. Figini, Paolo & Castellani, Massimiliano & Vici, Laura, 2007. "Estimating Tourist Externalities on Residents: A Choice Modeling Approach to the Case of Rimini," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 9104, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    9. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    10. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    11. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    12. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    13. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    14. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    15. Haitao Yin, 2013. "Insurance Approach for Financing Extreme Climate Event Losses in China: A Status Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013035, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    16. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2011. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme design in rural Tanzania: Famers’ preferences for enforcement and payment options," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103673, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:eaae02:24812. 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/eaaeeea.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.