Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach

Ecological Economics

Volumn 76, Issue , 2012, Pages 104-111

  Garrod, Guy ^a   Ruto, Eric ^a   Willis, Ken ^b   Powe, Neil ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agri environment; Choice experiment; Environmental stewardship; Landscape preferences; Latent class model; United kingdom

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; SAMPLING;

ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84858334088     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P., 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. Bateman I.J., Mace G.M., Fezzi C., Atkinson G., Turner R.K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 48:177-218.
3. 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.
4. Bishop I.D., Hull R.B. Integrating technologies for visual resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 1991, 32:295-312.
5. Boatman N., Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., Powe N.A. Estimating the wildlife and landscape benefits of environmental stewardship. Prepared for DEFRA by Food and Environment Research Agency and Newcastle University 2010, Available at, Last accessed 22/6/11. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/estimatingthewildlife.pdf.
6. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
7. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Economics 2010, 86:552-568.
8. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58:467-483.
9. Daniel T.C., Meitner M. Representational validity of landscape visualisations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:61-72.
10. Davey C.M., Vickery J.A., Boatman N., Chamberlain D., Parry H., Siriwardena G.M. Regional variation in the efficacy of entry level stewardship in England. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2010, 139:121-128.
11. DEFRA A Rural/Urban Classification of Parliamentary Constituencies of England and Wales 2007 2007, DEFRA, London, Available at, Last Accessed: 21/6/11. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/rural/documents/rural-defn/parlia-constituencies-classification.pdf.
12. DEFRA, Natural England Environmental Stewardship Review of Progress 2008, DEFRA, London, Available at, Last accessed 15/1/11. http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20081027092120/http://defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es/es-report.pdf.
13. Dramstad W.E., Tveit S.M., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 78:465-474.
14. Espinosa-Goded M., Barreilo-Hurle J., Ruto E. What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, Vol. 61(Issue 2):259-273.
15. Ewald J.A., Aebischer N.J., Richardson S.M., Grice P.V., Cooke A.I. The effect of agri-environment schemes on grey partridges at the farm level in England. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2010, 138:55-63.
16. Field R.H., Morris A.J., Grice P.V., Cooke A. The provision of winter bird food by the English environmental stewardship scheme. Ibis 2011, 153:14-26.
17. Garrod G.D., Scarpa R., Willis K.G. Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2002, 36:211-231.
18. Glenk K. Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92:531-541.
19. González M., León C. Consumption, process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes. Ecological Economics 2003, 45:159-169.
20. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis, contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B-Methodological 2003, 37:681-698.
21. Hanley N., Colombo S., Johns H., Mason P. The reform of support mechanisms for upland farming: paying for public goods in the severely disadvantaged areas of England. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58:433-453.
22. Hanley N., Ready R., Colombo S., Watson F., Stewart M., Bergmann E.A. The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:1404-1412.
23. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52(5):1219-1240.
24. Hunziker M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995, 31:399-410.
25. Hynes S., Campbell D., Howley P. A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: do welfare estimates differ?. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2011, 62:305-329.
26. Karjalainen E., Tyrvainen L. Visualisation in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 59:13-28.
27. Kearney A.R., Bradley G.A., Petrich C.H., Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Simpson-Colebank D. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 87:117-124.
28. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R., Gilissen N., Smit J., Brak B., Groeneveld R. Ecological effectiveness of Agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in the Netherlands. Conservation Biology 2004, 18:775-786.
29. Lokocz E., Ryan R.L., Sadler A.J. Motivations for land protection and stewardship: exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 99:65-76.
30. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P.E. Zarembka (Ed.).
31. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
32. Meitner M.J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perpetual judgements to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 68:3-13.
33. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, John Hopkins University Press, Washington D.C.
34. Morey E., Thiene M., de Salvo M., Signorello G. Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preferences for landscape preservation. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:536-546.
35. Natural England Look After Your Land with Environmental Stewardship 2011, Natural England, London, Available at, Last accessed 21/6/11. http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE124.
36. Natural England Assessing and responding to climate change risks in natural England's objectives. Report to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2011, Natural England, London, Available at, Last accessed 21/6/11. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/interim2/natural-england-climate-risk-report-1010.pdf.
37. Park J.J., Jorgensen A., Swanwick C., Selman P. Perceived landscape impacts of mobile telecommunications development in the Peak District National Park, England. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008, 51:679-699.
38. Pruckner G.J. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1995, 22:173-190.
39. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J., Peron E.M., Falchero S. Preference or preferences for landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14:195-209.
40. Quillerou E., Fraser R., Fraser I. Farmer compensation and its consequences for environmental benefit provision in the higher level stewardship scheme. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2011, 62:330-339.
41. Ruto E., Garrod G.D. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:631-647.
42. Ruto E., Garrod G.D., Scarpa R. Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modelling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 2008, 38:89-98.
43. Sayadi S., Gonlazez Roa M.C., Requena J.C. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics 2005, 55:539-530.
44. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Economics 2005, 81:426-444.
45. Sevenant M., Antrop M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:827-842.
46. Swanwick C., Hanley N., Termansen M. Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Final Report to DEFRA 2007, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield.
47. Train K. Discrete Choice Models with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. Wedel M., Kamukura W. Market Segmentation: Conceptual Methodological Foundations 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
49. Whittingham M.J. The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48:509-513.
50. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1992, 23:17-32.
51. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., Saunders C.M. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 1995, 44:105-125.