Decomposing the value of agricultural multifunctionality: Combining contingent valuation and the analytical hierarchy process

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 218-241

  Kallas, Zein ^c   Gómez Limón, José A ^b   Hurlé, Jesús Barreiro ^a  

^a IFAPA CENTRO EL TORUÑO   (Spain)

^b Edifici ESAB   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Agricultural multifunctionality; Analytical hierarchy process; Castilla y Le n; Contingent valuation; Economic valuation; Spain

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CROP PRODUCTION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM;

CASTILLA Y LEON; EURASIA; EUROPE; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN; TIERRA DE CAMPOS;

EID: 34249800117     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: 14779552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00085.x     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. and Louviere, J. 'Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80, (1998) pp. 65-75.
2. Aguarón, J. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. 'Stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125, (2000) pp. 114-133.
3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leaemer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. 'Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation', Federal Register, Vol. 58, (1993) pp. 4016-4064.
4. Barreiro, J., Casado, J. M. and Pérez y Pérez, L. 'Incorporating uncertainty and zero values into the valuation of protected areas and species', in XI Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE, Copenhagen, 2005).
5. Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, R. and Sawanson, J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2002).
6. Bateman, I., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D. and Poe, G. 'On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 47, (2004) pp. 71-93.
7. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. 'Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation', Economic Journal, Vol. 107, (1997) pp. 322-332.
8. Batie, S. 'The multifunctional attributes of Northeastern agriculture: A research agenda', Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 32, (2003) pp. 1-8.
9. Bennett, J. and Blamey, R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2001).
10. Bennett, J., Van Bueren, M. and Whitten, S. 'Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities', The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 48, (2004) pp. 487-512.
11. Brouwer, F. Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment, Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004).
12. Brown, G. and Shogren, J. 'Economics of the Endangered Species Act', Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, (1998) pp. 3-20.
13. Bryson, N. 'A goal programming method for generating priority vectors', Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, (1995) pp. 641-648.
14. Burbank, M. 'How do contextual effects work? Developing a theoretical model', in M. Eagles (ed.), Spatial and Contextual Models in Political Research (London: Taylor and Francis, 1995, pp. 165-178).
15. Cahill, C. 'The multifunctionality of agriculture: What does it mean?' EuroChoices, Vol. 1, (2001) pp. 36-41.
16. Camarero, L. Del Éxodo Rural y del Éxodo Urbano: Ocaso y Renacimiento de los Asentamientos Rurales en España (Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 1993).
17. Carson, R. Contingent Valuation: A. Comprehensive Bibliography and History (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006).
18. Carson, R. and Mitchell, R. 'The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 75, (1993) pp. 1263-1267.
19. Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J. and Hanley, N. 'Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods', Ecological Economics, Vol. 58, (2006) pp. 850-861.
20. Colombo, S., Hanley, N. and Calatrava, J. 'Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effect of soil erosion using choice experiments', Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56, (2005) pp. 81-95.
21. Cooper, J. 'Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 24, (1993) pp. 25-40.
22. Cottrell, S. P. 'Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behaviour among recreational boaters', Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 35, (2003) pp. 347-375.
23. Dawes, R. M. 'The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making', American Psychology, Vol. 34, (1979) pp. 571-582.
24. Dawes, R. M. and Corrigan, B. 'Linear models in decision making', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81, (1974) pp. 95-100.
25. DG AGRI (2006). Agriculture in the European Union. Statistical and Economic Information. Available on-line at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/agrista/2005/table_en/2005enfinal.pdf (Last accessed: 3/ 2006).
26. Easley, R., Valacich, J. and Venkataramanan, M. 'Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125, (2000) pp. 73-83.
27. EC. Contribution of the European Community on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture (Brussels: European Commission-DG Agriculture, September, 1998).
28. EC. Safeguarding the Multifunctional Role of Agriculture: Which Instruments? (Brussels: European Commission-DG Agriculture, September, 1999).
29. EC. Agriculture's Contribution to Environmentally and Culturally Related Non-trade Concerns (Brussels: European Commission-DG Agriculture, July, 2000).
30. EEA (European Environment Agency). High Nature Value Farmland. Characteristics, Changes and Policy Challenges (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community, 2004).
31. Einhorn, H. J. and Hogart, R. M. 'Unit weighting schemes of decision making', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, (1975) pp. 171-192.
32. Fichtner, J. 'On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons', Socio-Economic Planning Science, Vol. 20, (1986) pp. 341-345.
33. Fishburn, P. C. The Foundations of Expected Utility (Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, 1982).
34. Forman, E. and Peniwati, K. 'Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 108, (1998) pp. 165-169.
35. Franco, F. and Manero, F. 'Valoración global y perspectivas de futuro', in A. Blanco (ed.), Envejecimiento y Mundo Rural en Castilla y León (Madrid: Fundación Encuentro, 2002, pp. 68-79).
36. Golden, B., Wasil, E. and Harker, P. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989).
37. Goméz-Limón, J. A. and Atance, I. 'Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support', Journal of Policy Modelling, Vol. 27, (2004) pp. 1045-1071.
38. Hall, C., McVittie, A. and Moran, D. 'What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods', Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 20, (2004) pp. 211-225.
39. Halstead, J., Lulof, A. and Stevens, T. 'Protest bidders in contingent valuation', Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics, Vol. 21, (1992) pp. 160-183.
40. Hanley, N., Ryan, M. and Wright, R. 'Estimating the monetary value of health care: Lessons from environmental economics', Health Economics Review, Vol. 12, (2002) pp. 3-16.
41. Hanley, N., Wright, R. and Adamowicz, V. 'Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects', Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 11, (1998) pp. 413-428.
42. Harvey, D. 'Agri-environmental relationships and multi-functionality: Further considerations', The World Economy, Vol. 26, (2003) pp. 705-725.
43. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M. and Greene, W. H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
44. Hoehn, J. P. 'Valuing the multidimensional impact of environmental policy: Theory and methods', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, (1991) pp. 289-299.
45. Hoehn, J. P. and Loomis, J. 'Substitution effects in the contingent valuation of multiple environmental programs', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 25, (1993) pp. 56-75.
46. Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. 'A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 14, (1987) pp. 226-247.
47. Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. 'Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test', American Economic Review, Vol. 79, (1989) pp. 544-551.
48. Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. Multi Attribute Decision Making (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981).
49. INE. Censo Agrario 1999. Encuestas Sobre la Estructura de las Explotaciones Agrícolas (Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2001).
50. INE. Contabilidad Regional de España 2003 (Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2004).
51. Irwin, R., Slovic, P., Licktenstein, S. and McCelland, G. 'Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values', Journal Risk Uncertain, Vol. 6, (1993) pp. 5-18.
52. Jin, J., Wang, Z. and Ran, S. 'Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao', Ecological Economics, Vol. 57, (2006) pp. 430-441.
53. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. 'Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 22, (1992) pp. 57-70.
54. Kamenetzky, R. 'The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function', Decision Science, Vol. 13, (1982) pp. 702-713.
55. Kaninen, B. and Kriström, B. 'Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice valuation models: Comment', Land Economics, Vol. 69, (1993) pp. 199-202.
56. Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
57. Laininen, P. and Hämäläinen, R. 'Analysing AHP-matrices by regression', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 148, (2003) pp. 514-524.
58. Lima Santos, J. M. (2001). A Synthesis of Country Reports on Demand Measurement of Non-commodity Outputs in OCDE Agriculture. Workshop on Multifunctionality, Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, OECD, Paris. Available on: Http://www1.oecd.org/agr/mf/doc/Santos.pdf (Last accessed 3/2006).
59. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M. and Delacy, T. 'Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection', Journal of Environment Economics and Management, Vol. 25, (1993) pp. 45-55.
60. Madden, P. 'A generzalization of Hicksian Q substitutes and complements with application to demand rationing', Econometrica, Vol. 59, (1991) pp. 1497-1508.
61. McKenzie, J. 'A comparison of contingent preference models', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 75, (1993) pp. 593-603.
62. McVittie, A., Moran, D., Allcroft, D. and Elston, D. 'Beauty, beast and biodiversity: What does the public want from agriculture?' 78th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, AES, SouthKensington. Available on http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/09/19892/42598 (Last accessed 3/2006).
63. Midmore, P., Naspetti, S., Sherwood, A., Vairo, D., Weir, M. and Zanoli, R. Consumer Attitudes to Quality and Safety of Organic and Low Input Foods: A Review. Deliverable 1.2, Subproject 1, Quality Low Input Food Project. Available at http://www.qlif.org/research/sub1/ QLIF_Review_Reanalysis_%200509.pdf (Last accessed 3/2006).
64. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989).
65. Mogas, J., Riera, P. and Bennett, J. 'A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions', Journal of Forest Economics, Vol. 12, (2006) pp. 5-30.
66. OECD. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework (Paris: OECD, 2000).
67. OECD. Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD Analytical Framework. Guiding Policy Design (Paris: OECD, 2001).
68. OECD. Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications (Paris: OECD, 2003).
69. Pérez, M. Agricultura y Medio Ambiente: Necesidades de Formación Medioambientales en el Sector Agrícola (Valladolid: Instituto de Formación y Estudios Sociales de Castilla y León, 2001).
70. Peterson, J., Boisvert, R. and De Gorter, H. 'Environmental policies for a multifunctional agricultural sector in open economies', European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 29, (2002) pp. 423-443.
71. Prety, J. 'The externalities and multifunctionality of agriculture', EuroChoices, Vol. 2, (2003) pp. 40-44.
72. Randall, A. 'Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture', European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 29, (2002) pp. 289-307.
73. Randall, A. and Hoehn, J. 'Embedding in market demand systems', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 30, (1996) pp. 369-380.
74. Saaty, T. 'A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures', Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, (1977) pp. 234-281.
75. Saaty, T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (New York: McGraw HillInc., 1980).
76. Saaty, T. 'The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process', in M. Köksalan and S. Zionts (eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium (Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2001).
77. Saaty, T. 'Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary?' European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 145, (2003) pp. 85-91.
78. Scott, D. and Willits, F. K. Environmental Concern of Pennsylvania Citizens: Data from a Statewide Survey (Technical Report, A.E. and R.S. 219) (University Park, PA: Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, 1991).
79. Smith, H. and Lantz, V. A Methodology for Evaluating Public Values of New Brunswick Forests (New Brunswick, UK: The Fundy Model Forest, 2003) Available at http://www.fundymodelforest.net/pdf/socioeconomics/ 2003_public_values.pdf (Last accessed 12/2005).
80. Stevens, T., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D. and Willis, C. 'Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management', Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, (2000) pp. 63-74.
81. Suárez, F., Naveso, M. A. and de Juana, E. 'Farming in the drylands of Spain: Birds of pseudosteppes', in D. Pain and M. Pienkowski (eds), Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and Its Implications for Bird Conservation (London: Academic Press, 1997, pp. 297-330).
82. Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Durand, G. Multifunctional Agriculture, A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development (London: Ashgate, 2003).
83. Van Liere, K. D. and Dunlap, R. E. 'The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence', The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44, (1980) pp. 181-197.
84. Wattage, P. and Mardle, S. 'Total economic value of fishery dependent area conservation in Sri Lankan wetlands: Application of contingent valuation method (CVM) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to identify use and non-use values', in The XVIth Annual Conference of the European Association of Fisheries Economists (Rome: UN-FAO, 2004).
85. Yrjölä, T. and Kola, J. 'Consumer preferences regarding multifunctional agriculture', International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 1, (2004) pp. 78-90.
86. Zahedi, F. 'A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process', Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 9, (1987) pp. 387-395.
87. Zoppi, C. 'A contingent valuation-multicriteria analysis case study on the taxonomy of three planning scenarios for a coastal zone of Sardinia (Italy)', in The 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association (Porto, Portugal: ERSA, 2004).