Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices

Ecological Economics

Volumn 74, Issue , 2012, Pages 95-103

  Duke, Joshua M ^a   Borchers, Allison M ^a   Johnston, Robert J ^b   Absetz, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agricultural conservation easements; Agriculture; Nutrient management; Riparian buffers; Sustainability; Tillage

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; LAND MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; POLICY MAKING; SOIL EROSION; SUSTAINABILITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WATER QUALITY;

DELAWARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84856374842     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80(1):64-75.
2. Amigues J.-P., Boulatoff (Broadhead) C., Desaigues B., Gauthier C., Keith J.E. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics 2002, 43:17-31.
3. Baerenklau K.A., Nergis N., Schwabe K.A. Effects of nutrient restrictions on confined animal facilities: insights from a structural-dynamic model. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 56(2):219-241.
4. Banzhaf H.S. Economics at the fringe: non-market valuation studies and their role in land use plans in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91:592-602.
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Surveys: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
6. 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(1):21-49.
7. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:145-156.
8. Bond C.A., Hoag D.L., Kipperberg G. Agricultural producers and the environment: A stated preference analysis of Colorado corn producers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2011, 59(1):127-144.
9. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 1996, 18:243-253.
10. Boxall P., Adamowicz W.L., Moon A. Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2009, 53:503-519.
11. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:97-111.
12. Claassen R. Conservation Policy Briefing Room 2011, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Available from. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/conservationpolicy/background.htm.
13. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. The economic benefits of soil erosion control: an application of the contingent valuation method in the Alto Genil basin of southern Spain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2003, 58(6):367-371.
14. Colombo S., Hanley N., Calatrava-Requena J. Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 56(1):81-95.
15. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Analyzing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:850-861.
16. De Laporte A., Weersink A., Yang W. Ecological goals and wetland preservation choice. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 58(1):131-150.
17. Land Use and Planning-Farmland Preservation 2011, Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation, Delaware Department of Agriculture, Dover, Delaware, Available from. http://dda.delaware.gov/aglands/index.shtml.
18. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2000, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
19. Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 2002, 42(1-2):131-145.
20. Duke J.M., Johnston R.J. Nonmarket valuation of multifunctional farm and forest preservation. New Perspectives on Agri-Environmental Policies: A Multidisciplinary and Transatlantic Approach 2010, 124-142. Routledge, New York. S.J. Goetz, F. Brouwer (Eds.).
21. Duke J.M., Lynch L. Four classes of farmland retention techniques: comparative evaluation and property rights implications. Land Economics 2006, 82(2):189-213.
22. Hensher D.A. Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 34:7-44.
23. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
24. Hoehn J.P. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73:289-299.
25. Hoehn J.P., Loomis J.B. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 25:56-75.
26. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economics Review 1989, 79:544-551.
27. Holmes T.P., Bergstrom J., Huszar E., Kask S., Orr F. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 2004, 49(1):19-30.
28. Hu W., Veeman M.M., Adamowicz W.L. Labeling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 53:83-102.
29. Johnston R.J., Bergstrom J.C. Valuing Farmland Protection: Does Policy Guidance Depend On the Econometric Fine Print?. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 2011, 33(4):639-660.
30. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Willingness to pay for agricultural land preservation and policy process attributes: does the method matter?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 89(4):1098-1115.
31. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Economics 2009, 85(2):217-237.
32. Johnston R.J., Opaluch J.J., Grigalunas T.A., Mazzotta M.J. Estimating amenity benefits of coastal farmland. Growth and Change 2001, 32(3):305-325.
33. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Allen C.W., Smith L.A. Designing multidimensional environmental programs: assessing tradeoffs and substitution in watershed management plans. Water Resources Research 2002, 38(7). 10.1029/2001WR000521.
34. Kline J., Wichelns D. Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):538-549.
35. Kotchen M., Powers S. Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52(1):373-390.
36. Kuhfeld W.F. Marketing Research Methods in SAS 2005, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC. SAS 9.1 ed.
37. Layton D.F., Brown G. Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2000, 82:616-624.
38. Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(1):103-117.
39. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Lynch L., Brown C. Landowner decision making about riparian buffers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2000, 32(3):585-596.
41. Mazzotta M.J., Opaluch J.J. Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner's hypothesis. Land Economics 1995, 71(4):500-515.
42. Messer K.D. The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 79:305-315.
43. Messer K.D., Allen W.L. Applying optimization and the analytic hierarchy process to enhance agricultural preservation strategies in the state of Delaware. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2010, 39(3):442-456.
44. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R., Louviere J. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 84(1):161-170.
45. Palmquist R., Roka F.M., Vukina T. Hog operations, environmental effects, and residential property values. Land Economics 1997, 73(1):114-124.
46. Qui Z., Prato T., Boehm G. Economic valuation of riparian buffer and open space in a suburban watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2006, 42(6):1583-1596.
47. Ready R., Abdalla C. The amenity and disamenity impacts of agriculture: estimates from a hedonic pricing model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):314-326.
48. Ribaudo M.O., Johansson R.C. Nutrient management use at the rural-urban fringe: does demand for environmental quality play a role?. Review of Agricultural Economics 2007, 29(4):689-699.
49. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modeling: how to measure it, what to report and why. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2008, 52(3):253-282.
50. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 90(4):994-1010.
51. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
52. Train K.E., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).