Social legitimacy issues in the provision of non-commodity outputs from Rural Development Programs

Land Use Policy

Volumn 34, Issue , 2013, Pages 42-52

  Domínguez Torreiro, Marcos ^a   Durán Medraño, Roi ^b   Soliño, Mario ^c,d  

^a Cantabrian Agricultural Research and Training Centre CIFA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^c Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Discrete Choice Experiment; Heterogeneous preferences; Rural development; Scale parameters

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; PARAMETERIZATION; RURAL DEVELOPMENT; RURAL PLANNING; WELFARE PROVISION;

CANTABRIA; SPAIN;

EID: 84874575102     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abler D. Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2004, 33(1):8-17.
2. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
3. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P., Lovett A., Lake I.R., Day B.H. Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:219-269.
4. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis. Theory and Application to Travel Demand 1985, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Bolduc D., Bradley M. Estimation of travel choice models with randomly distributed values of time. Transportation Research Record 1993, 1413:88-97.
6. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
7. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(3):616-625.
8. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1004-1014.
9. Bernstein, P., Kinnaman, T.C., Wu, M., 2010. Estimating Willingness to Pay for River Amenities and Safety Measures Associated with Shale Gas Extraction - Draft Version. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/thomas_kinnaman/10.
10. Bhat C.R. Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multidimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice. Transportation Research 1998, 32B:455-466.
11. Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference 2003.
12. 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(1):145-166.
13. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: the use of Latent Class Analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
14. Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 1999, 89:109-129.
15. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 41:401-417.
16. Colombo S., Hanley N. Análisis econométrico de la heterogeneidad de las preferencias de los individuos: aplicación a la valoración económica de la conservación del paisaje agrícola de montaña. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 2008, 8(1):103-124.
17. Dachary-Bernard J., Rambonilaza T. 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.
18. Domencich T.A., McFadden D. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis 1975, Elsevier, New York.
19. Dror D.M., Radermacher R., Koren R. Willingness to pay for health insurance among rural and poor persons: field evidence from seven micro health insurance units in India. Health Policy 2007, 82(1):12-27.
20. Duke J.M. Estimating amenity values: will it improve farmland preservation policy?. Choices 2008, 23(4):11-15.
21. European Commission Fact Sheet - The EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2013 2008, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
22. European Commission The CAP in perspective: from market intervention to policy innovation. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Briefs 2009, 1:1-12.
23. European Commission The future of rural development policy. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Briefs 2011, 4:1-7.
24. García álvarez-Coque J.M. Análisis institucional de las políticas agrarias. Conflictos de intereses y política agraria 1991, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid.
25. Gobierno de Cantabria Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Cantabria 2007-2013 2008, Consejería de Desarrollo Rural, Ganadería, Pesca y Biodiversidad, Santander.
26. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiment with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
27. Hanley N., Colombo S., Tinch D., Black A., Aftab A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2006, 33(3):391-413.
28. Hanley N., Colombo S., Mason P., Johns H. 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(3):433-453.
29. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15(3):435-462.
30. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz W.L. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 11(3-4):413-428.
31. Hensher D.A., Johnson L.W. Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling 1981, Croom Helm, London.
32. Hensher D.A., Louviere J.J., Swait J.D. Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics 1999, 89:197-221.
33. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Hodge I. Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy 2001, 18:99-111.
35. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Stated preference methods for valuation of forest attributes. Forests in a Market Economy 2003, 321-340. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. E.O. Sills, K.L. Abt (Eds.).
36. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., O'Donoghue, C., 2006. Using continuous and finite mixture models to account for preference heterogeneity in a group of outdoor recreationalists. The Rural Economy Research Centre Working Paper Series, Working Paper 06-WP-RE-02. Teagasc Galway, Ireland.
37. INE, 2007. Explotación Estadística del Padrón Municipal de Habitantes. Available at: http://www.ine.es/.
38. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
39. Latacz-Lohmann U., Hodge I. European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2003, 47(1):123-139.
40. Layton D.F. Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2000, 40:21-36.
41. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Luce R.D. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis 1959, Wiley, New York.
43. Manski C.F. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 1977, 8:229-254.
44. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
45. McVittie A., Moran D., Elston D. Public preferences for Rural Policy Reform: evidence from Scottish surveys. Regional Studies 2010, 44(5):609-626.
46. OECD Valuing Rural Amenities 2000, OECD Publishing, Paris.
47. OECD Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework 2001, OECD Publishing, Paris.
48. OECD Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications 2003, OECD Publishing, Paris.
49. OECD The New Rural Paradigm 2006, OECD Publishing, Paris.
50. OECD OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Spain 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris.
51. Paavola J. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(1):93-103.
52. Pearce D., Atkinson G., Mourato S. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments 2006, OECD Publishing, Paris.
53. Rambonilaza 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.
54. Randall A. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2002, 29(3):289-307.
55. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed Logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
56. Rigby D., Burton M. Modelling disinterest and dislike: a bounded Bayesian mixed logit model of the UK market for GM food. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 33(4):485-510.
57. Sayadi S., González-Roa M.C., Calatrava-Requena J. Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountaineous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:334-344.
58. Siikamäki J., Layton D.F. Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2007, 53:122-139.
59. Soliño M., álvarez-Farizo B., Campos P. The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: an application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4055-4065.
60. Soliño, M., Joyce, J., Farizo, B.A., 2013. Improving water quality in England and Wales: local endowments and willingness to pay. International Journal of Environmental Research, forthcoming.
61. Solomon B.D., Johnson N.H. Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2137-2144.
62. Street D.J., Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments 2007, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
63. Swait J.D., Louviere J.J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 1993, 30:305-314.
64. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
65. Waltert F., Schulz T., Schlapfer F. The role of landscape amenities in regional development: evidence fro Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy 2011, 28:748-761.