Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US

Food Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 455-465

  Moon, Wanki ^a   Griffith, Jacob Wayne ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Mediation hypothesis; Nonmarket valuation; Valuation of Multifunctional Agriculture; Willingness to pay; WTO trade rules

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS; AGRICULTURAL LAND; AGRICULTURAL MARKET; CONTINGENT VALUATION; FAMILY FARM; TRADE POLICY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 79959324626     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abler, D., 2001. A Synthesis of Country Reports on Jointness Between Commodity and Non-Commodity Outputs in OECD Agriculture. Workshop on Multifunctionality, OECD, Paris 2-3.
2. Antle J.M., Valdivia R.O. Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum-data approach. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2006, 50:1-15.
3. Antle J.M., Stoorvogel J.J. Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88:1174-1180.
4. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51:1173-1182.
5. Batie S.S. The multifunctional attributes of northeastern agriculture: a research agenda. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2003, 32(1):1-8.
6. Bennett J., van Bueren M., Whitten S. Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2004, 48:487-512.
7. Bergstrom, J.C., 2002. Postproductivism and rural land values. Paper Presented at Conference on Land Use Conflicts and Problems Sponsored by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, February, 2002, Orlando, FL.
8. Bergstrom J.C., Ready R.C. What have we learned from over 20 years of farmland amenity valuation research in North America?. Review of Agricultural Economics 2009, 31:21-49.
9. Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W., Morrison M.D. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 1999, 75:126-141.
10. Brouwer R., Slangen L.H.G. Contingent valuation of the public benefits of agricultural wildlife management: the case of Dutch peat meadow land. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1998, 25:53-72.
11. Brown T.C., Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., McCollum D.W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Economics 1996, 72:152-166.
12. Burrell, A., 2001. Multifunctionality and Agricultural Trade Liberalisation. 77th EAAE Seminar, Helsinki, August 17-18, 2001.
13. Cameron T.A., James M.D. Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: an alternative pre-test market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research 1987, 24:389-395.
14. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.H., Elisabet R.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. American Economic Review 1995, 85:260-266.
15. Drake L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1992, 19:351-364.
16. Dobbs, T.L., 2002. Agricultural, Resource, and Ecological Economics with a Multifunctionality Perspective. Economics Staff Paper 2002-2003, July 2002.
17. Dobbs T.L., Pretty J. Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and multifunctionality. Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 26:220-237.
18. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D. New environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education 2008, 40:19-28.
19. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56:425-442.
20. Foltz, J.D., Larson, B.A., 2002. Public Support for Farmland Preservation Programs: Empirical Evidence from Connecticut. Presented at NAREA Meeting.
21. Hall C., McVittie A., Moran What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal of Rural Studies 2004, 20:211-225.
22. Hellerstein, D., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Mullarkey, D., Tegene, A., Barnard, C., 2003. Farmland Protection: The Role of Public Preference for Rural Amenities. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 815.
23. Hoehn J.P. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 88:289-299.
24. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economic Review 1989, 79:544-551.
25. Holmes T.P., Kramer R.A. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:121-132.
26. Hudson D., Rosson C.P., Robinson J., Malaga J. The WTO cotton case and US domestic policy. Choices, 2nd Quarter 2005, 20:143-147.
27. Hyytia N., Kola J. Finnish citizens' attitudes towards multifunctional agriculture. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2006, 9:2-22.
28. Kahn M.E., Matsusaka J.G. Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. The Journal of Law and Economics 1997, 40:137-174.
29. Kallas Z., Gomez-Limon J.A., Arriaza M. Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?. Agricultural Economics 2007, 36:405-419.
30. Kallas Z., Gomez-Limon J.A., Hurle J.B. Decomposing the value of agricultural multifunctionality: combining contingent valuation and the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58:218-241.
31. Kline J., Wichelns D. Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics 1994, 70(2):223-233.
32. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:93-107.
33. Kraft S.E. Ecosystem services: 21st century policy challenges. Choices 2008, 23(2):26-27.
34. Krutilla J.V. Conservation revisited. American Economic Review 1967, 57:777-786.
35. Libby L. Farmland is not just for farming any more: the policy trends. Agricultural Policy for the 21st Century 2002, Iowa State Press. L. Tweenten, S.R. Thompson (Eds.).
36. Loomis J., Gonalez-Caban A., Gregory R. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?. Land Economics 1994, 70:499-506.
37. Moon W., Balasubramanian S.K. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: the mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 26:186-208.
38. NOAA, 1993. Natural Resource Damage Assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Fed Register 58, 4601-4614.
39. Oh, Se-Ik, 2003. Multifunctionality of Korean agriculture. 2nd RDA/ARNOA International Conference on Asian Organic Agriculture, November 11, 2003.
40. Paarlberg P.L., Bredahl M., Lee J.G. Multifunctionality and agricultural trade negotiations. Review of Agricultural Economics 2002, 24:322-335.
41. Potter, C., 2002. Multifunctionality as an agricultural and rural policy concept. In: Brouwer, F., (Ed.), Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment.
42. Randall A. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2002, 29(3).
43. Rosset, P., 2000. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. World Food Programme, Special Section on Food Security. The Society for Development, vol. 43. SAGE Publications, 77-82.
44. Ruhl J.B. Farms and ecosystem services. Choices 2000, 23(2):32-36.
45. Santos, J.M.L., 2000. Problems and potential in valuing multiple outputs: externality and public-good non-commodity outputs from agriculture. Ch 3 from Valuing Rural Amenities, OECD.
46. Swanton S.M. Reimaging farms as managed ecosystem. Choices 2008, 23(2):28-31.
47. Swinbank, A., 2001. Multifunctionality: A European Euphemism for Protection? FWAG Conference. National Agriculture Centre, Stoneleigh, 29 November, 2001.
48. Tweeten L. Farm commodity programs: essential safety net or corporate welfare?. Agricultural Policy for the 21st Century 2002, Iowa State Press. L. Tweeten, S.R. Thompson (Eds.).
49. USDA, FY, 2008. Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan. United States Department of Agriculture, 2008.
50. Vanzetti, D., Wymen, E., 2004. The multifunctionality of agriculture and its implications for policy. In: Ingco, M.D., Nash, J.D. (Eds.), Agriculture and the WTO: Creating A System for Development. World Bank, Washington, DC.
51. Variyam J.N., Jordan J.L., Epperson J.E. Preferences of citizens for agricultural policies: evidence from a national survey. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1990, 72(1990):258-267.
52. Vatn A. Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2002, 29:309-327.
53. Vatn, A., 2001. Transaction Costs and Multifunctionality. Workshop on Multifunctionality. Paris, 2-3 July 2001, OECD.