Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Volumn 120, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 5-20

  Madureira, Lívia ^a   Rambonilaza, Tina ^b   Karpinski, Isabella ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS OS MONTES AND ALTO DOURO   (Portugal)

^b CEMAGREF   (France)

^c LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Agricultural non commodity outputs; Assessment of multifunctionality in agriculture; Economic valuation; Land use change valuation; Multi attribute valuation; Stated preference techniques; Valuation of land based services

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS; AGRICULTURAL MODELING; ASSESSMENT METHOD; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND USE CHANGE;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; GERMANY; PORTUGAL; SOUTHERN EUROPE; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33846531245     PISSN: 01678809     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.015     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., and Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80 (1998) 64-75
2. Armand-Balmat C. Comportement du consommateur et produits biologiques: le consentement á payer pour la caractéristique biologique. Revue d'économie politique 112 (2002) 33-46
3. Aumand A., Le Cotty T., and Voituriez T. Changeons de multifonctionnalité. Courrier de la Planète 65 (2001) 8-12
4. Bateman I. Research methods for valuing environmental benefits. In: Dubgaard A., Bateman I., and Merlo M. (Eds). Economic Valuation of Benefits from Countryside Stewardship. Proceedings of a Workshop Organised by the European Communities, Directorate General for Agriculture. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel K G, Brussels, June 7-8, 1993 (1994) 47-82
5. Bateman, I., Jones, A., Nishikawa, N., Brouwer, R., 2000. Benefits transfer in theory and practice: a review. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-25.
6. Bishop K. Assessing the benefits of community forests: an evaluation of the recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 35 (1992) 63-76
7. In: Bjornstad D., and Kahn J. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources-Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
8. Bonnieux F., and Le Goffe P. Valuing the benefits of landscape restoration: a case study of the Cotentin in Lower-Normandy, France. J. Environ. Manage. 50 (1997) 321-333
9. Bonnieux F., and Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences-Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, New York 585-612
10. Boxall P., Adamowicz W., Swait J., Williams M., and Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18 (1996) 243-253
11. Bowker J., and Stoll J. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the Whooping Crane resource. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70 (1988) 372-381
12. Bräuer, I., 2001. Artenschutz aus volkswirtschaftlicher Sicht. Eine Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse der Biberwiedereinbürgerung in Hessen. In: Elsasser, P., Meyerhoff, J. (Eds.), Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltgütern. Methodenfragen zur Kontingenten Bewertung und praktische Erfahrungen im deutschsprachigen Raum. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg.
13. Cameron T. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 15 (1988) 355-379
14. Caradec, Y., Lucas, S., Vidal, C. (Eurostat), 2005. Agricultural landscapes: over half of Europe's territory maintained by farmers. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/en/terr__en/report.htm.
15. Carson R., Flores N., Martin K., and Wright J. Contingent valuation and revealed reference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 72 (1996) 80-99
16. Carson R., Flores N., and Meade N. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Res. Econ. 19 (2001) 173-210
17. Carson R., Flores N., and Mitchell R. The theory and measurement of passive-use value. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences-Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, New York 97-130
18. Chilton S., and Hutchinson W. Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies. J. Agric. Econ. 50 (1999) 1-16
19. Colson F., and Stenger-Letheux A. Evaluation contingente et paysages agricoles. Application au bocage de Loire-Atlantique. Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales 39-40 (1996) 152-177
20. Dachary-Bernard, J., 2004. Approche Multi-Attibut pour une Évaluation Économique du Paysage. Thèse de Doctorat. Cemagref, France.
21. Degenhardt, S., Gronemann, S., 1998. Die Zahlungsbereitschaft von Urlaubsgästen für den Naturschutz, Theorie und Empirie des Embedding-Effekts. Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
22. Drake L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 19 (1992) 351-364
23. Eftec, 2002. Populating the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory: 40 European Valuation Studies. Final Report submitted to the European Commission, DG Environment, June 28, 2000. Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
24. Elsasser P., and Meyerhoff J. Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltgütern. Methodenfragen zur Kontingenten Bewertung und praktische Erfahrungen im deutschsprachigen Raum (2001), Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg
25. Enneking, U., 1999. Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltgütern. Methodenfragen zur Kontingenten Bewertung im Entscheidungsprozeß. Frankfurt/Main.
26. Fischer A., Hespelt S., and Marggraf R. Ermittlung der Nachfrage nach ökologischen Gütern der Landwirtschaft - Das Northeim-Projekt. Agrarwirtschaft 52 (2003) 390-399
27. Fischhoff B., and Furby L. Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. J. Risk Uncertainty 29 (1988) 147-184
28. Garrod G., and Willis K. Valuing the benefits of South Downs environmentally sensitive area. J. Agric. Econ. 46 (1995) 160-173
29. Hampicke U. Die monetäre Bewertung von Naturgütern zwischen ökonomischer Theorie und politischer Umsetzung. Agrarwirtschaft 52 (2003) 408-418
30. Hampicke, U., Böcker, R., Konold, W., 2000. Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Was darf Naturschutz kosten? - 2. Erg. Lfg. 7/00. Ecomed, Landsberg.
31. Hanley N., and Knight J. Valuing the environment: recent UK experience and an application to Green Belt Land. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 35 (1992) 145-160
32. Hanley N., Wright R., and Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Res. Econ. 11 (1998) 413-428
33. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., and Crabtree R. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 49 (1998) 1-15
34. Hanley N., Whitby M., and Simpson I. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16 (1999) 67-80
35. Hein L., Koppen K., Groot R., and Ierland E. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2006) 209-228
36. Karkow, K., 2003. Wertschätzung von Besuchern der Erholungslandschaft Groß-Zicker auf Rügen für naturschutzgerecht genutzte Ackerstandorte in Deutschland. Diplomarbeit Greifswald.
37. Kontogianni A., Skourtos M., Langford I., Bateman I., and Georgiou S. Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets. Ecol. Econ. 37 (2001) 123-138
38. Latouche K., Rainelli P., and Vermersch D. Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case. Food Policy 23 (1998) 347-356
39. Le Goffe P. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities. Environ. Res. Econ. 15 (2000) 397-401
40. Madureira, L., 2001. Valoração Económica de Atributos Ambientais e Paisagísticos através de Escolhas Contingentes. Ph Thesis. Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal.
41. Maria L., and McCluskey J. Assessing consumer response to protected geographical identification labelling. Agribusiness 16 (2000) 309-320
42. In: Meyerhoff J., and Dehnhardt A. (Eds). Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Stromlandschaft Elbe. Nutzen und Kosten der Wiedergewinnung und Renaturierung von Überschwemmungsauen (2002), Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel
43. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
44. Mollard A., Rambonilaza M., and Vollet D. Aménités environnementales et rente territoriale sur un marché de services différenciés: le cas du marché des gîtes ruraux labellisés en France. Revue d'Economie Politique 2 (2006) 251-276
45. Navrud, S., Vagues, M., 2000. Assessment of Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) and the Expansion of its Coverage to the EU. Report to the European Commission, DG XI, March 23, 2000. ENCO Environmental Consultants AS, Lysaker, Norway.
46. Noublanche, C., 1998. Apports et limites de l'approche marchande du paysage: le cas de la châtaigneraie en Cévennes. Colloque Gestion des territoires ruraux - connaissances et méthodes pour la décision publique, Cemagref, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
47. Nunes, P., 2000. Contingent Valuation of the Benefits of Natural Areas and its Warmglow Component. Ph Thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
48. Nunes P., and Bergh J. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense. Ecol. Econ. 39 (2001) 203-222
49. OECD. Valuing Rural Amenities (2000), OECD, Paris, France
50. OECD. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation. A Guide for Policy Makers (2002), OECD, Paris, France
51. Potter C., and Burney J. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO-legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism?. J. Rural Stud. 18 (2002) 35-47
52. Powe N., Garrod G., and McMahon P. Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and the post-questionnaires qualitative analysis. Ecol. Econ. 52 (2005) 513-526
53. Pruckner J. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 22 (1995) 173-190
54. Randall A. Total and non-use values. In: Braden J., and Kolstad C. (Eds). Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality (1991), North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 303-321
55. Randall A. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 29 (2002) 28-307
56. Ready R., and Abdalla C. The amenity and disamenity impacts of agriculture: estimates from a hedonic pricing model. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87 (2005) 314-326
57. Rommel K. Methodik umweltökonomischer Bewertungsverfahren - Kosten und Nutzen des Biosphärenreservates Schorfheide-Chorin (1998), Transfer Verlag, Regensburg
58. Santos, J., 1997. Valuation and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Multi-Attribute Environmental Changes. Ph Thesis. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
59. Santos J. The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change. Theory and Policies for Land Use and Conservation (1998), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
60. Schmitz K., Schmitz M., and Wronka T. Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit choice Experiments. Agrarwirtschaft 8 (2003) 379-389
61. Schuman H. The sensitivity of CV outcomes to CV survey methods. In: Bjornstad D., and Kahn J. (Eds). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources-Methodological Issues and Research Needs (1996), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 75-96
62. Siriex, A., 2004. Le Paysage Agricole: Un Essai d'Évaluation. Thèse de Doctorat. Université de Limoges, France.
63. Stevens T., Barret C., and Willis C. Conjoint analysis of groundwater protection programs. Agric. Res. Econ. Rev. 26 (1997) 229-236
64. Wronka T. Integrierte ökonomische und ökologische bewertung der landnutzung in peripheren regionen. Bewertung der biodiversität und der trinkwasserqualität im Lahn-Dill-Bergland. In: Müller M., Schmitz P., Thiele H., and Wronka T. (Eds). Berichte über Landwirtschaft vol. 79 (2001) 19-48
65. Zander, P, Meyer, B., Michel, B., Karpinski, I., Uthes, S., Reinhardt, F.-J., 2004. Multifunctionality of Agriculture in Germany. Country Report MultAgri/WP3, UFZ Leipzig; ZALF, Müncheberg.
66. Zander, P., Meyer, B., Michel, B., Karpinski, I., Rossing, W., Groot, J., Josien, E., Rambonilaza, T., Madureira, L., 2005. Knowledge, Models, Techniques and Tools that Help to Explain and Forecast Multifunctionality of Agriculture. Comparative Report MultAgri/WP3, Bruxelles.