IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/51641.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling the value of a multifunctional landscape – A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Borresch, Rene
  • Maas, Sarah
  • Schmitz, Kim
  • Schmitz, P. Michael

Abstract

In the context of today’s intensive discussion of landscape multifunctionality, one primary objective of the current European Union policy is to support the implementation of multifunctionaly within the EU. In order to assess the economical feasibility of the implementation of a multifunctional land use in the Wetterau region in Germany this study addresses the question whether the local population, which is above all affected by the degradation of landscapes, benefits from a change from today’s landscape dominated by intensive agricultural production towards a multifunctional landscape. Based on data obtained by discrete choice experiments in the Wetterau region, a cost-benefit-analysis is carried out using the modelling and assessment framework CHOICE. The results show that the local population of the Wetterau region assigns a high value to a landscape that takes into account ecological aspects of landscape composition. In fact, the CHOICE model suggests that the willingness-to-pay for the multifunctionality scenario is higher than for all other scenarios under study. Moreover, taking implementation costs into account a regional cost-benefit-analysis indicates that the provision of a multifunctional landscape will lead to a positive net benefit for society.

Suggested Citation

  • Borresch, Rene & Maas, Sarah & Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael, 2009. "Modelling the value of a multifunctional landscape – A discrete choice experiment," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51641, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:51641
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51641/files/IAAE2009_692.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.51641?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. Borresch, René & Weinmann, Bernd & Kuhlmann, Friedrich & Schmitz, Michael, 2005. "Interdisciplinary Modelling and Assessment of Multifunctionality," 89th Seminar, February 2-5, 2005, Parma, Italy 232585, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pavel CIAIAN & Sergio GOMEZ y PALOMA, 2011. "The Value of EU Agricultural Landscape," JRC Research Reports JRC65456, Joint Research Centre.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    3. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    4. Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2011. "Valuation of EU Agricultural Landscape," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2011_20, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    5. Czyżewski, Bazyli & Matuszczak, Anna & Czyżewski, Andrzej & Brelik, Agnieszka, 2021. "Public goods in rural areas as endogenous drivers of income: Developing a framework for country landscape valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. de Ayala, Amaia & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Transferring landscape values using discrete choice experiments: Is meta-analysis an option?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(01), pages 1-16, June.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    3. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    4. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    6. 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.
    7. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    9. Barnes-Mauthe, Michele & Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Brander, Luke M. & Zafindrasilivonona, Bienvenue & Oliver, Thomas A. & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Social capital as an ecosystem service: Evidence from a locally managed marine area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 283-293.
    10. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Parvaneh Shahnoori & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2019. "Valuation of the Quality Attributes of Online Banking Services by Small and Medium Enterprises Engaged in International Trade," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 87(1), pages 65-81, March.
    12. Hyunjoo Lee & Misuk Lee & Sesil Lim, 2018. "Do Consumers Care about the Energy Efficiency of Buildings? Understanding Residential Choice Based on Energy Performance Certificates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    13. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    14. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    15. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    18. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. 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.

    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:iaae09:51641. 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.