IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25385.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Andalusian Demand for Non-Market Goods from Mountain Olive Groves

Author

Listed:
  • Arriaza Balmón, Manuel
  • Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio
  • Kallas, Zein
  • Nekhay, Olexandr

Abstract

Agricultural multifunctionality is the recognition of the joint exercise of economic, environmental and social functions by this sector. In order to make this concept operative for the design of public policies, it is necessary to estimate the social demand for such functions. The main objective of this article is to present an empirical application in this line. For this purpose we have taken the agricultural system of mountain olive groves in Andalusia (Southern Spain) at risk of abandonment after the decoupling of the EU subsidies as a case study. The economic valuation technique used is the Choice Experiment. According to the results, there is a different contribution of each attribute to the improvement of the Society level of utility. The main finding of this study is the identification of a social demand for public goods and services provided by the mountains olive groves. This support for agricultural multifunctionality is heterogeneous in its perception by the citizens and the valuation of the various attributes that the concept involves. Taking into account the impact of an overall improvement in the attribute levels and the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents, the results suggest that women, people with higher education levels, urban citizens and families with more than three members are those who benefit most from the provision of public goods by agriculture. There is a different contribution of each attribute to the improvement of the Society level of utility. Thus, and taking into account its WTP for each attribute, keeping rural population in their villages and fighting soil erosion (with ~22.61 and ~21.55/individual/year, respectively) seem to be the most valued functions of the mountain olive groves by Andalusian citizens. It follows the improvement of the visual quality of the rural landscapes (~12.20/individual/year) and the reduction of food residuals (~7.14/individual/year). Finally, the results of this study support the new orientation of the CAP which makes decoupled payments on compliance with a range of environmental, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare standards, as a result of which, the cross-compliance requirement of the EU agricultural support will, presumably, promote a net increase in social welfare. Yet, according to the results of this research, some efforts should be done to allow cross-compliance to reinforce the objectives of keeping rural population in rural areas and the improvement of the landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Arriaza Balmón, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Kallas, Zein & Nekhay, Olexandr, 2006. "Andalusian Demand for Non-Market Goods from Mountain Olive Groves," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25385, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25385
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25385/files/pp062619.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25385?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. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    6. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    7. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez‐Limón & Manuel Arriaza, 2007. "Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 405-419, May.
    8. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    9. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    11. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    12. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf & Hartje, Volkmar, 2009. "Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 37-58, January.
    13. Jeff Bennett & Martin Van Bueren & Stuart Whitten, 2004. "Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 487-512, September.
    14. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    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:iaae06:25385. 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/iaaeeea.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.