IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipp/wpaper/1303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revealed preference land use models in Andalusia: integrating commercial and environmental variables

Author

Listed:
  • José L. Oviedo
  • Alejandro Caparrós

Abstract

We investigate transitions among crop, grass and forest land uses in Andalusia (Spain) through an econometric model that uses individual land use decisions observed in the Corine Land Cover database as dependent variable, and net income, subsidies and biophysical and environmental factors as explanatory variables. Using multinomial logit models (fixed and random parameters), we identify both monetary and environmental and biophysical variables as significant in explaining land use decisions, but model performance significantly improves with the latter variables. We also identify the role of inertia but its effect is low as compared to the other variables. Based on the estimated model, we simulate the hypothetical variation of some explanatory variables in four scenarios up to 2022 and 2038. We find no large changes in land uses in most of the scenarios except for the one with an important reduction of subsidies and a decrease in protected areas. Climate change variables have a moderate impact as the ranges analyzed are narrow. The regional application shows the feasibility of a European wide application.

Suggested Citation

  • José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2013. "Revealed preference land use models in Andalusia: integrating commercial and environmental variables," Working Papers 1303, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://investigacion.cchs.csic.es/RePEc/ipp/wpaper/csic-ipp-wp-2013-03_oviedo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    2. Adina M. Merenlender, 2006. "Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land-Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 28-42.
    3. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    4. Ovando, Paola & Campos, Pablo & Calama, Rafael & Montero, Gregorio, 2010. "Landowner net benefit from Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) afforestation of dry-land cereal fields in Valladolid, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 83-100, April.
    5. Ovando, Paola & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2009. "Land use and carbon mitigation in Europe: A survey of the potentials of different alternatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 992-1003, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    8. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    9. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    10. Gary L. Hunt, 2000. "Alternative Nested Logit Model Structures and the Special Case of Partial Degeneracy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 89-113, February.
    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. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias & Elofsson, Katarina & Munnich, Miriam, 2012. "Stochastic carbon sinks for combating carbon dioxide emissions in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1523-1531.
    2. Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "The Evolution Of Environmental Economics: A View From The Inside," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(02), pages 251-274, June.
    3. Murphy, Rose & Gross, Dominique M. & Jaccard, Mark, 2018. "Use of revealed preference data to estimate the costs of forest carbon sequestration in Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 41-50.
    4. Michetti, Melania & Rosa, Renato, 2012. "Afforestation and timber management compliance strategies in climate policy. A computable general equilibrium analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 139-148.
    5. Kim, Man-Keun & Peralta, Denis & McCarl, Bruce A., 2014. "Land-based greenhouse gas emission offset and leakage discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 265-273.
    6. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Jin, Yan, 2022. "Understanding planting preferences – A case-study of the afforestation choices of farmers in Ireland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    8. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    9. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    10. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, Sergey & Kling, Catherine L., 2014. "Crop Choice and Rotational Effects: A Dynamic Model of Land Use in Iowa in Recent Years," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170366, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Schuster, Monica & Vranken, Liesbet & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "You Can(’t) Always Get the Job You Want: Stated versus Revealed Employment Preferences in the Peruvian Agro-industry," Working Papers 254076, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    13. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, sergey & Valcu-Lisman, Adriana, 2015. "Estimating Adoption of Cover Crops Using Preferences Revealed by a Dynamic Crop Choice Model," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205799, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Riccardo SCARPA & Fiorenza SPALATRO & Maurizio CANAVARI, 2005. "Investigating Preferences For Environment Friendly Production," Others 0505003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Torres, Cati, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-02, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    16. Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "Addressing climate change with a comprehensive US cap-and-trade system," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 298-321, Summer.
    17. 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.
    18. Latta, Gregory & Adams, Darius M. & Alig, Ralph J. & White, Eric, 2011. "Simulated effects of mandatory versus voluntary participation in private forest carbon offset markets in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 127-141, April.
    19. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    land use transitions; land use drivers; discrete choice models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:ipp:wpaper:1303. 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: Adelheid Holl (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ippcses.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.