Demand for non-commodity outputs from Extensive Agricultural systems

New Medit

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 4-12

  Kallas, Zein ^a   Gómez Limón, José Antonio ^b   Arriaza, Manuel ^c  

^a Edifici ESAB   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

^c IFAPA CENTRO ALAMEDA DEL OBISPO   (Spain)

Author keywords

Agricultural multifunctionality; Cereal steppes; Choice experiments; Economic valuation; Extensive agriculture; Olive groves (Spain)

Indexed keywords

EID: 72349090376     PISSN: 15945685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J. and Williams M., 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Southern Economic Journal, 55 (3), 728-742.
2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J. and Williams M., 1997. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32 (1), 65-84.
3. Barnett V., 1991. Sampling survey, principles and methods, Arnold, London
4. Bennett J. and Blamey R., 2001. The Choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Edward Elgar publishing, Massachusetts.
5. Bennett J., Van Bueren M. and Whitten S., 2004. Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48 (3), 487-512.
6. Blandford D. and Boisvert R., 2002. Non-Trade Concerns and Domestic/International Policy Choice, Working Paper 02-1 International Agricultural Trade Consortium. http://www.iatrcweb.org/Publications/ workpap.html.
7. Boxall P. and Adamowicz W., 2002. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach, Environmental and Resource Economics, 23 (4), 421-446.
8. Boxall P., Adamowicz W., Swait J., Williams M. and Louviere J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation, Ecological Economics, 18 (3), 243-253.
9. Colombo S., Hanley N. and Calatrava J., 2005. Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effect of soil erosion using choice experiments, Journal of Agriculture Economics, 56 (1), 81-95.
10. Cuesta M.J., 2005. Los paisajes del olivar: un diagnóstico del estado erosivo del medio. In: Anta, J.L., Palacios J., Guerrero J. eds., La cultura del olivo, Ecologia, economía, sociedad. Jaén, University of Jaén.
11. Guzmán J.R., 2004. Geogrqfla de los paisajes del olivar andaluz, Consejeria de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla.
12. Hall C, McVittie A. and Moran D., 2004. What does public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods, Journal of Rural Studies, 20 (2), 211-225.
13. Haneman W, 1984. Welfare Evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (3), 332-341.
14. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. and Greene W.H., 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge University Press, London.
15. Hoehn J. and Randall A., 1989. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost Test, American Economic Review, 79 (3), 544-551.
16. Hoehn J. and Loomis B., 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20 (1), 56-75.
17. Kahneman D., Knetsch J. and Thaler R., 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 193-206.
18. Krinsky I. and Robb L., 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68 (4), 715-719.
19. Kriström B. and Riera P., 1996. Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?, Environmental and Resources Economics, 7 (1), 45-55.
20. Lancaster K., 1966. A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy, 74 (1), 132-57.
21. Lima e Santos J.M., 2001, A synthesis of country reports on demand measurement of non-commodity outputs in OCDE agriculture. Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, OCDE, Paris. Available from: http://www1.oecd.org/ agr/mf/doc/santos.pdf; Internet.
22. Louviere J., Hensher D. and Swait J., 2000. Stated choice models methods: Analysis and applications in Marketing, transportation and environmental valuation, Cambridge University Press, London.
23. Mazzanti M., 2003. Discrete choice models and valuation experiments, Journal of Economic Studies, 30 (5-6), 584-604.
24. Mogas J., Riera P. and Bennett J., 2005. Accounting for afforestation externalities: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling, European Environment, 15 (1), 44-58.
25. OECD (2001). Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD Analytical Framework. Guiding Policy Design, OECD, Paris,
26. Pastor M., Castro J. and Humanes M.D., 1999. Sistemas de manejo de suelo en olivares en pendiente. Control de la erosión. In: Cultivo de olivar en zonas de especial protectión ambiental. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla
27. Randall A., 2002. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture, European Review of Agriculture Economics, 29 (3), 289-307. (Pubitemid 37446038)
28. Randall A. and Hoehn J., 1996. Embedding in market demand systems, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30 (3), 369-380.
29. Raymond J., Florax G.M., Travisi CM. and Nijkamp P., 2005. A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure, European Review of Agriculture Economics, 32 (4), 441-467.
30. Swait J. and Adamowicz W, 2001. Choice environment, market complexity and consumer behaviour: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 141-167.