Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 107, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 181-191

  Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna ^a   Pouta, Eija ^a   Salmiovirta, Maija ^b   Soini, Katriina ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b John Nurmisen Säätiö   (Finland)

Author keywords

Agricultural landscape; Choice experiment; Heterogeneity; Latent class

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; ANIMALS;

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE ATTRIBUTES; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; LATENT CLASS; LATENT CLASS MODEL;

AGRICULTURE;

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL LAND; COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; STAKEHOLDER;

FINLAND;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84863874283     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abello R.P., Bernaldez F.G. Landscape preference and personality. Landscape Urban Planning 1986, 13:19-28.
2. Antrop M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 67:9-26.
3. Antrop M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005, 70:21-34.
4. Arnberger A., Eder R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landscape Research 2011, 36(1):19-40.
5. 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.
6. Boxall C.P., Adamowicz L.W. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
7. Brody S.D., Hihgield W., Alston L. Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment and behaviour 2004, 36(2):229-250.
8. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58(3):467-483.
9. Campbell D., Hutchinson G., Scapra R. Using choice experiments to value farm landscape improvements: Implications of inconsistent preferences 2005, Applied Environmental Conference, London.
10. Campbell D., Hutchinson G., Scarpa R. Using discrete choice experiments to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from the rural environment protection scheme in Ireland 2006, The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/default.htm.
11. Casey F.J., Kahn R.J., Rivas A.F.A. Willingness to accept compensation for the environmental risks of oil transport on the Amazon: A choice modelling experiment. Ecological Economics 2008, 67:552-559.
12. A primer on nonmarket valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
13. Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software, Research Paper Series.
14. Colombo S., Hanley N., Louviere J. Modelling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: An analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics 2009, 40:307-322.
15. Dachary-Bernard J., Rambolinaza M. Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: How can we support the land use decision making process?. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:846-854.
16. Déjeant-Pons M. The European landscape convention. Landscape Research 2006, 31:363-384.
17. Dillman D. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method 1978, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
18. Dillman B., Bergstrom J. Measuring environmental amenity benefits of agricultural land. Farming and the countryside. An economic analysis of external costs and benefits 1991, CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 250-271. N. Hanley (Ed.).
19. Drake L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1992, 19:351-364.
20. Drake L., Kumm K.-I., Andersson M. Har jordbruket i Rottnadalen någon framtid? 1991, Småskriftsserien no. 48, Department of Economics, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, (in Swedish).
21. Eiter S., Potthoff K. Improving the factual knowledge of landscapes: Following up the European Landscape Convention with a comparative historical analysis of forces of landscape change in the Sjodalen and Stølsheimen mountain areas, Norway. Norwegian Journal of Geography 2007, 61:145-156.
22. Fleischer A., Tsur Y. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2000, 27:385-398.
23. Gupta S., Chintagunta P.K. On using demographic variables to determine segment membership in logit mixture models. Journal of Marketing Research 1994, 31:128-136.
24. Hackl F., Halla M., Pruckner G.J. Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: A panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2007, 34:295-320.
25. Hackl F., Pruckner G.J. Towards more efficient compensation programmes for Tourists' benefits from agriculture in Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 1997, 10:189-205.
26. Hasund K.P. Valuable landscapes and reliable estimates. The economics of landscape and wildlife conservation 1998, CAB International. S. Dabbert, A. Dubgaard, L. Slangen, M. Whitby (Eds.).
27. Hietala-Koivu R. Landscape and modernizing agriculture: A case study of three areas in Finland in 1954-1998. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2002, 91:273-281.
28. Hole R.A. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics 2007, 16:827-840.
29. Howley P. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics 2011, 72:161-169.
30. Howley P., Donoghue O.C., Hynes S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 104:66-74.
31. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1595-1603.
32. Jones M. The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research 2007, 32:613-633.
33. Juutinen, A., Horne, P., Koskela, T., Matinalo, S., Mäntymaa, E., & Mönkkönen, M. (2005). Metsänomistajien näkemyksiä luonnonarvokaupasta: Kyselytutkimus luonnonarvokaupan kokeiluhankkeeseen osallistuneille [Forest owners' perceptions of nature value trade: Survey for the participants of experimental pilot project]. Metlan työraportteja 18 (in Finnish).
34. Kamakura W., Russell G. A Probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research 1989, 26:379-390.
35. Karjalainen E., Komulainen M. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 43:79-90.
36. Kent R.L. Attributes, features and reasons for enjoyment of scenic routes: A comparison of experts, residents, and citizens. Landscape Research 1993, 18:92-102.
37. Kline J., Wichelns D. Measuring public preferences for the environmental amenities provided by farmland. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1996, 23:421-436.
38. Kosenius A. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:528-538.
39. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated choice models-Analysis and application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Morey E., Thiene M., Salvo M., Signorello G. Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:536-546.
41. Morrison M.D., Bennett J.W., Blamey R.K., Louviere J. Choice modelling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 84:161-170.
42. Norton B.G., Hannon B. Environmental values: A place-based theory. Environmental Ethics 1997, 19:227-245.
43. Pouta E., Ovaskainen V. Assessing the recreational demand for agricultural land in Finland. Agricultural and Food Science 2006, 15:375-387.
44. Pouta E., Rekola M., Kuuluvainen J., Li C.-Z., Tahvonen O. Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: Insights into respondents' decision-making processes. Ecological Economics 2002, 40:295-311.
45. Pouta E., Salmiovirta M. Viljelymaisema julkishyödykkeenä. Maaseutumaiseman muutos, arvottaminen ja eurooppalainen maisemayleissopimus 2008, Vol. 135:113-132. Maa-ja elintarviketalous, (in Finnish). http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/met135.pdf.
46. Rambolinaza M., Dachary-Bernard J. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method?. Landscape and Urban planning 2007, 83:318-326.
47. Raymond C.M., Brown G. Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Climatic Change 2011, 104:653-678.
48. Ready R.C., Berger M.C., Blomquist G.C. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: Hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change 1997, 28:438-458.
49. Rosenberger R.S., Walsh R.G. Nonmarket value of western valley Ranchland using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997, 22:296-309.
50. Sang N., Miller D., Ode A. Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2008, 35:504-520.
51. Sayadi S., Gonzàlez M., Calatrava-Requena J. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics 2005, 55:539-550.
52. Sayadi S., Gonzàlez M., Calatrava-Requena J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:334-344.
53. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefits estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Economics 2007, 83:617-634.
54. Scott A., Shannon P. Local landscape designations in Scotland: Opportunity or barrier to effective landscape management?. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 81:257-269.
55. Sevenant M., Antrop M. The use of latent class to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:827-842.
56. Soini K., Pouta E., Kivinen T., Uusitalo M. Maaseutumaiseman muutos, arvottaminen ja eurooppalainen maisemayleissopimus 2008, Vol. 135. MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Maa-ja elintarviketalous, (updated 23.12.08; in Finnish). http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/met135.pdf.
57. Swait J.R. A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994, 1:77-89.
58. Tahvanainen L., Ihalainen M., Hietala Koivu R., Kolehmainen O., Tyrväinen L., Nousiainen I., et al. Measures of the EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 2002, 66:213-227.
59. Tilastokeskus Suomen tilastollinen vuosikirja 2008, Tilastokeskus, Helsinki, (in Finnish).
60. Tilastokeskus (2008b). Väestö iän mukaan [Population of Finland by age]. Updated 24.4.08. Referred 17.9.08. (in Finnish). http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html.
61. Tress B., Tress G. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning-A study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 64(3):161-178.
62. Tyrväinen L., Tahvanainen L. Impacts of afforestation on the scenic value of rural countryside. NEWFOR-new forests for Europe: Afforestation at the turn of the century 2000, Vol. 35. European Forest Institute (EFI) Proceedings, Joensuu, pp. 141-150.
63. Van Den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18:141-157.
64. Verbič M., Slabe-Erker R. An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volčji Potok landscape area. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:1316-1328.
65. 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.