Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 561-581

  Broch, Stine Wamberg ^a   Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Afforestation; Compensation; Contract preferences; Latent class; Participation; Regulation; RPL

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION (PERSONNEL); GROUNDWATER; REFORESTATION;

AFFORESTATION; CONTRACT PREFERENCES; LATENT CLASS; PARTICIPATION; REGULATION;

AGRICULTURE;

AFFORESTATION; AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL WORKER; BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EUROPEAN UNION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GROUNDWATER; HETEROGENEITY; INCENTIVE; INCOME; LAND MANAGEMENT; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POLICY APPROACH; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PRIVATE LAND;

AGRICULTURE; BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION; FORESTATION; GROUND WATER; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGULATIONS;

EID: 84858126781     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9512-8     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P, Louviere J, Williams M (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 65-84.
2. Adamowicz W, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere J (1998a) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80(1): 64-75.
3. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J (1998b) Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. NOAA-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center.
4. Alix-Garcia J, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2008) The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environ Dev Econ 13: 375-394.
5. Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L (2008) Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecol Econ 65(4): 753-764.
6. Biénabe E, Hearne RH (2006) Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy Econ 9(4): 335-348.
7. Bogetoft P, Olsen HB (2002) Ten rules of thumb in contract design: lessons from Danish agriculture. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(2): 185-204.
8. Bolton P, Dewatripont M (2005) Contract theory. MIT Press, Cambridge.
9. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23: 421-446.
10. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18: 243-253.
11. Church A, Ravenscroft N (2008) Landowner response to financial schemes for recreational access to woodlands in South East England. Land Use Policy 25: 1-16.
12. Espinosa-Goded M, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Ruto E (2010) What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. J Agric Econ 61(2): 259-273.
13. Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53(3): 343-363.
14. Frey BS (1993) Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry with trust and loyalty. Econ Inquiry 31: 663-670.
15. Frey BS, Jegen R (2005) Motivation crowding theory. J Econ Surv 15(5): 589-611.
16. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2007) Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 43(5): 610-623.
17. Groth M (2009) The transferability and performance of a payment-by-result approach and conservation procurement auctions for cost-effective biodiversity conservation: results of a case-study in Northern Germany. Annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE) Amsterdam, 24-27 June 2009.
18. Hackl F, Halla M, Pruckner GJ (2007) Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: a panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes. Eur Rev Agric Econ 34(3): 295-320.
19. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3-4): 413-428.
20. Hanley N, Whitby M, Simpson I (1999) Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16: 67-80.
21. Hanley N, Wright RE, Koop G (2002) Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environ Resour Econ 22: 449-466.
22. Hart R, Latacz-Lohmann U (2005) Combating moral hazard in agri-environmental schemes: a multiple-agent approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32(1): 75-91.
23. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis-a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Horne P (2006) Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation-a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn 40(1): 169-178.
25. Hudson D, Lusk J (2004) Risk and transaction cost in contracting: results from a choice-based experiment. J Agric Food Ind Organ 2(1): 1-17.
26. Jørgensen K (2009) Personal communication. Princial, The Danish Forest and Nature Agency, 5 Aug 2009.
27. Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74: 132-157.
28. Latacz-Lohmann U, van der Hamsvoort C (1997) Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am J Agric Econ 79(2): 407-418.
29. Latacz-Lohmann U, van der Hamsvoort C (1998) Auctions as a means of creating a market for public goods from agriculture. J Agric Econ 49(3): 334-345.
30. Latacz-Lohmann U, Schilizzi S (2005) Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Report to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.
31. Lindblom CE (1959) The science of "Muddling through". Public Admin Rev 19(2): 79-88.
32. Louviere JJ, Hensher DD, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods. Analysis and applications. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
33. Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo JD (2001) An introduction to the economics of information-incentives and contracts, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. McDonald H, Adam S (2003) A comparison of online and postal data collection methods in marketing research. Mark Intell Plan 21(2): 85-95.
35. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105-142.
36. McLachlan G, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. Wiley, New York.
37. Nlogit (2007) Version 4. 0. Econometric software, Inc.
38. Ozanne A, White B (2008) Hidden action, risk aversion and variable fines in agri-environmental schemes. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52: 203-212.
39. Ruto E, Garrod G (2009) Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environmental schemes: a choice experiment approach. J Environ Plan Man 52(5): 631-647.
40. Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock climbing in the northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81: 426-444.
41. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Tempesta T (2007) Latent class count models of total visitation demand: days out hiking in the eastern Alps. Environ Resour Econ 38(4): 1502-1573.
42. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Marangon F (2008) Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Can J Agric Econ 56(2): 145-162.
43. Schenk A, Hunziker M, Kienast F (2007) Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures-a qualitative study in Switzerland. J Environ Manage 83: 66-79.
44. Siebert R, Toogood M, Knierim A (2006) Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol Rural 46(4): 318-340.
45. Statistics Denmark (2008) Befolkningens brug af internettet 2008. (People's use of the Internet) http://www. dst. dk/upload/befolkningensbrugafit2008. pdf. Cited 10 July 2009.
46. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) Choice experiment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ Behav Hum Dec 86(2): 141-167.
47. The Danish Forest and Nature Agency (2002) Danmarks nationale skovprogram. Skov-og Naturstyrelsen, Miljøministeriet. Denmark's National Forestry Programme. The Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of the Environment.
48. The Danish Forest and Nature Agency (2009) Vejledning til privat skovrejsning 2009 (Guide to Private Afforestation 2009) http://www. skovognatur. dk/Skov/Privat/Tilskud/Skovrejsning/. Cited 26 March 2009.
49. Thorsen BJ (1999) Afforestation as a real option: some policy implications. Forest Sci 45: 171-178.
50. Train KE (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74(2): 230-239.
51. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
52. Umbach PD (2004) Web surveys: best practices. New Dir Inst Res 121: 23-38.
53. Urquhart J, Courtney P, Slee B (2010) Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small Scale For 9: 1-20.
54. Vanslembrouck I, van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agric Econ 53(3): 489-511.
55. Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2010) Contracts for environmental goods and the role of monitoring for landowners' willingness to accept. Paper presented at the world conference of environmental and resource economics, Montreal, Canada, 28 June to 2 July 2010.
56. Wilson GA (1997) Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. J Environ Manage 50: 67-93.
57. Wilson GA, Hart K (2000) Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivation for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plan A 32: 2161-2185.