IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are public preferences for pasture landscapes heterogeneous? Results of a discrete choice experiment in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Schaak, H.
  • Musshoff, O.

Abstract

The development of the extent and the usage of pasture land has become a topic of increasing interest from several perspectives. In comparison to the pasture extent, where political actions seek to protect and preserve pasture land, the usage form faces a broader public discussion. Here, many stakeholders express a preference of the usage of pastures by using grazing techniques. Despite the relevance, grazing livestock is rarely considered in research on public landscape preferences. By using the methods of discrete choice experiments (DCE), this study deepens the understanding of the German public preferences for pasture land. Based on a representative sample, the main results indicate that there is a general preference and WTP for livestock presence in the landscape in Germany. The mean WTP does not depend on the livestock density. Still it is found that scale heterogeneity is present in the sample. The paper discusses the relevant implications which follow from this result. Further, the paper discusses the possible differences in the study outcomes when using different econometric models. Here, the results indicate that future DCE applications on landscape preferences should consider econometrics models which account for scale heterogeneity. This could improve the understanding of the preference structures. Acknowledgement : The study was supported by the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony (MWK) within the collaborative research project SAM, Analysis of Dairy Production: Grazing versus Indoor Housing of Dairy Cows, Support Code: ZN 2864

Suggested Citation

  • Schaak, H. & Musshoff, O., 2018. "Are public preferences for pasture landscapes heterogeneous? Results of a discrete choice experiment in Germany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277213, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277213
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277213/files/1365.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277213?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. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Davis, Katrina J & Burton, Michael & Kragt, Marit E, 2016. "Discrete choice models: scale heterogeneity and why it matters," Working Papers 235373, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Kiefer, Lukas & Bahrs, Enno & Over, Ralf, 2013. "Die Vorzüglichkeit der Grünlandnutzung in der Milchproduktion - Potenzielle Vorteile der Vollweidehaltung," 53rd Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 25-27, 2013 156127, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    7. Žáková Kroupová, Zdenka & Havlíková, M. & Hálová, P. & Malý, M., 2016. "Economic Valuation of Mountain Landscapes and Ecosystems: A Meta-Analysis of Case Studies," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(3), pages 1-10, September.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    10. Weinrich, Ramona & Kühl, Sarah & Zühlsdorf, Anke & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards Different Dairy Housing Systems and Their Implications for the Marketing of Pasture Raised Milk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    12. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    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. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes and the role of scale heterogeneity," FORLand Working Papers 04 (2018), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    2. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2020. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany—A latent class analysis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    4. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    6. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    8. David Wuepper, 2017. "What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(5), pages 1114-1123, August.
    9. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Le, Thanh Ha & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Estimating economic benefits associated with air quality improvements in Hanoi City: An application of a choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 420-433.
    10. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    12. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    13. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    14. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    15. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    16. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. 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).
    18. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "Fairness to dairy cows or fairness to farmers: What counts more in the preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk?," MPRA Paper 83066, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    20. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iaae18:277213. 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.