What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 259-273

  Espinosa Goded, Maria ^a   Barreiro Hurlé, Jesús ^b   Ruto, Eric ^c  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b IFAPA CENTRO EL TORUÑO   (Spain)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agri environmental schemes; Choice experiment; Error component random parameter logit model; Farmers; Spain

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE; AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FARMERS ATTITUDE; FARMING SYSTEM; NUMERICAL MODEL;

SPAIN;

EID: 77954045172     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: 14779552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barreiro-Hurlé J, Espinosa-Goded M, Dupraz P. Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption in two agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2010, forthcoming
2. Barreiro-Hurlé J, Espinosa-Goded M, Dupraz P. Estrategias para incrementar la participación en programas agroambientales: el papel del capital social. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 2009, 9:3-26.
3. Birol E, Smale M, Gyovai A. Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity of Hungarian small farms. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 34:439-469.
4. Dhar R. Consumer preferences for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research 1997, 24:215-231.
5. Ducos G, Dupraz P, Bonnieux F. Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:669-687.
6. Agri-Environment Measures: Overview on General Principles, Types of Measures, and Application 2005, Brussels, European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development
7. Gómez de Molina M. Environmental constraints on agricultural growth in 19th century in Granada (Southern Spain). Ecological Economics 2002, 41:257-270.
8. Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
9. Hodge I, Reader M. Maximising the Provision of Public Goods from Future Agri-Environmental Schemes. Final Report of Project 15932 2007, Peterborough, UK, Land Use Policy Group
10. Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R. The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias: Anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1991, 5:193-206.
11. Lancaster K J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
12. McFadden D. Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice-bahaviour. Frontiers of Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Zarambka P E. ed, New York, Academic Press.
13. Meyerhoff J, Liebe J. Status Quo effect in choice experiments: Empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics 2009, 85:515-528.
14. Peterson J, Fox J, Leatherman J, Smith C. Choice Experiments to Assess Farmers' Willingness to Participate in a Water Quality Trading Market 2007, Portland, USA, American Agricultural Economics Association
15. Potter C, Lobley M. Ageing and succession on family farms: the impact on decision making and land use. Sociologia Ruralis 1992, 32:317-334.
16. Roessler R, Drucker A D, Scarpa R, Markemann A, Lemke U, Thuy L, Valle Zárate A. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietman. Ecological Economics 2007, 66:184-192.
17. Ruto E, Garrod G. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:631-647.
18. Ruto E, Garrod G, Scarpa R. Valuing animal genetic resources: A choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 2008, 38:89-98.
19. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1998, 1:7-59.
20. Scarpa R, Ruto E, Kristjanson P, Radeny M, Drucker A G, Rege J E O. Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecological Economics 2003, 45:409-426.
21. Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K G. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Scarpa R, Alberrini A, . eds, Dordrecht, Springer
22. Scarpa R, Willis K G, Acutt M. Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2007, 50:449-466.
23. Siebert R, Toogood M, Knierim A. Factors affecting European farmers participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 2006, 46:318-340.
24. Street D J, Burgess L. Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments 2007, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons
25. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 1993, 30:305-314.
26. Train K E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press