Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2020i1p4-d467015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Stanisław Bielski

    (Department of Agrotechnology, Agricultural Production Management and Agribusiness, Faculty of Environmental Development and Agriculture, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Renata Marks-Bielska

    (Department of Economic Policy, Faculty of Economic Science, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 4, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Anastasija Novikova

    (Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Bernardas Vaznonis

    (Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract
Due to the often-intangible benefits of agroecosystem services (AES), their cultural, social, and economic value is very difficult to quantify and integrate into decision-making and policy-making processes. The aim of this study is to assess the non-market values of AES in an exceptionally environmentally rich area of the Warmia and Mazury region (Poland), identifying consumers’ preferences for them using the choice experiment (CE) method. Four AES attributes were selected for the research: (i) water quality; (ii) wildlife populations; and (iii) agricultural landscape. The study has revealed that the residents of Warmia and Mazury region were concerned about environmental issues that may be caused by agriculture. There was a demand for the provision of AES. The application of multinomial logit (MNL) model has revealed that marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) values were the highest for water quality (EUR 1.94), followed by wildlife population (EUR 1.02) and agricultural landscape (EUR 0.85). The findings have provided quantitative information related to the demand for improvements in AES through agri-environmental protection programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2020. "Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2020:i:1:p:4-:d:467015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/1/4/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/1/4/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2019. "Assessing the value of pastoral farming in the Alps using choice experiments: evidence for public policies and management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(4), pages 552-567, March.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    3. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Joy R. Petway & Yu-Pin Lin & Rainer F. Wunderlich, 2020. "A Place-Based Approach to Agricultural Nonmaterial Intangible Cultural Ecosystem Service Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    9. Takatsuka, Yuki & Cullen, Ross & Wilson, Matthew & Wratten, Steve D., 2005. "Values of Ecosystem Services on Arable Land and the Role of Organic Farming," 2005 Conference, August 26-27, 2005, Nelson, New Zealand 98523, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    12. Knut Per Hasund & Mitesh Kataria & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2011. "Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 31-53.
    13. Arriaza Balmón, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Kallas, Zein & Nekhay, Olexandr, 2009. "Demand for non-commodity outputs from mountain olive groves," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19.
    14. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Amare Tesfaw & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Alemu & Ermias Teferi, 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    6. Clem Tisdell, 2006. "Valuation of Tourism's Natural Resources," Chapters, in: Larry Dwyer & Peter Forsyth (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    11. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    14. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2003. "Economics of Wildlife Tourism," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48969, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    15. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    16. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.
    17. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    18. 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.
    19. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    20. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.

    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:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2020:i:1:p:4-:d:467015. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.