Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution

Ecological Economics

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 78-86

  Broch, Stine Wamberg ^a   Strange, Niels ^a   Jacobsen, Jette B ^a   Wilson, Kerrie A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Choice experiments; Groundwater; Hunting; Preference modelling; Recreation

Indexed keywords

AFFORESTATION; BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FOREST COVER; HETEROGENEITY; HUNTING; LANDOWNER; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; POPULATION DENSITY; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES RICHNESS;

DENMARK;

EID: 84879287383     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Balmford A., Cowling R.M. Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 2006, 20:692-695.
2. Barrett C.B., Brandon K., Gibson C., Gjertsen H. Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. Bioscience 2001, 51:497-502.
3. Barton D.N., Bergland O. Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an 'individual status quo' modelling of farm specific water scarcity. Environment and Development Economics 2010, 15:321-340.
4. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:450-460.
5. Bech M., Kjaer T., Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics 2011, 20:273-286.
6. Boon T.E., Meilby H., Thorsen B.J. An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: improving communication between authorities and owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2004, 19(S4):45-55.
7. Broch S.W., Vedel S.E. Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in farmer agri-environmental contract preferences. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, DOI 10.1007/s10640-011-9512-8.
8. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Economics 2010, 86:552-568.
9. Buckley C., Hynes S., van Rensburg T.M., Doherty E. Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:1053-1070.
10. Campbell D., Scarpa R., Hutchinson W. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008, 1:117-126.
11. Campbell D., Hutchinson W., 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. Caussade S., Ortúzar J.de D., Rizzi L., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B 2005, 39:621-640.
13. Church A., Ravenscroft N. Landowner responses to financial incentive schemes for recreational access to woodlands in South East England. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:1-16.
14. Cuncu G.B. Measuring environmental externality spillovers through choice modelling. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:199-212.
15. Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy Area Information System-AIS 2000, Danish National Environmental Research Institute, Ministry of Environment and Energy.
16. Danish Ministry of the Environment Danish National Forest Programme 2002, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of the Environment, (83 pp.).
17. Danish National Environmental Research Institute Jagt statistik 2009 2009.
18. Danish Statistics Danish Statistical Bank-Landowner information 2009.
19. Danish Statistics Danish Statistical Bank-Population density 2009.
20. Dutton A., Edwards-Jones G., Strachan R., MacDonald D.W. Ecological and social challenges to biodiversity conservation on farmland: reconnecting habitats on a landscape scale. Mammal Review 2008, 38:205-219.
21. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2007, 53:342-363.
22. Fielding K.S., Terry D.J., Masser B.M., Hogg M.A. Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in nature conservation practices. British Journal of Social Psychology 2008, 47:23-48.
23. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review 2007, 43:610-623.
24. Grout C.A., Jaeger W.K., Plantinga A.J. Land-use regulations and property values in Portland, Oregon: a regression discontinuity design approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2011, 41(29):98-107.
25. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 2003, 68:297-304.
26. Hensher D.A., Jones J.M., Greene W.H. Applied choice analysis-a primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
27. Hiedanpaa J. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 61:113-123.
28. Jensen F.S., Koch N.E. Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its influence on forest policy. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2004, 19(Suppl. 4):93-102.
29. 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.
30. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Bauer D.M. Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Economics 2002, 78:481-500.
31. Knight A.T., Cowling R.M. Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology 2007, 21:1124-1126.
32. Lancaster K.J. New approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
33. Landbrugsraadet Landbruget i tal 2008 2008, Landbrugsraadet, Copenhagen, Denmark, (21 pp.).
34. Larsen F.W., Petersen A.H., Strange N., Lund M.P., Rahbek C. A quantitative analysis of biodiversity and the recreational value of potential national parks in Denmark. Environmental Management 2008, 41:685-695.
35. Lokhorst A.M., Staats H., van Dijk J., van Dijk E., de Snoo G. What's in it for me? motivational differences between farmers' subsidised and non-subsidised conservation practices. Applied Psychology: An International Review 2011, 60:337-353.
36. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.D., Swait J.D. Stated choice methods. Analysis and applications 2000, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
37. Lund M.P. Performance of the species listed in the European Community "Habitats" Directive as indicators of species richness in Denmark. Environmental Science and Policy 2002, 5:105-112.
38. Lundhede T.H., Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Hunting is more than shooting: a hedonic pricing model of the complex hunting experience. Paper presented at the 17th Annual conference of EAERE, Amsterdam, June 24-27, 2009 2009, (30 pp.).
39. Manning R.E., Valliere W.A. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 2001, 33:410-426.
40. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1973, 105-142. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
41. Morris C., Potter C. Recruiting the new conservationists-farmers adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 1995, 11:51-63.
42. Munn I., Hussain A., Hudson D., West B.C. Hunter preferences and willingness to pay for hunting leases. Forest Science 2011, 57:189-200.
43. Noss R.F., Carroll C., Vance-Borland K., Wuerthner G. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 2002, 16:895-908.
44. Pannell D.J., Marshall G.R., Barr N., Curtis A., Vanclay F., Wilkinson R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 2006, 46:1407-1424.
45. Plantinga A.J., Lubowski R.N., Stavins R.N. The effects of potential land development on agricultural land prices. Journal of Urban Economics 2002, 52:561-581.
46. Polman N.B.P., Slangen L.H.G. Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: the role of trust and social capital. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2008, 55:413-430.
47. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Designs efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2008, 52:253-282.
48. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Tempesta T. Latent class count models of total visitation demand: days out hiking in the eastern Alps. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 38:447-460.
49. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Marangon F. Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally-friendly production methods. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie 2008, 56:145.
50. Slee B. The scope for reconciling public good and private forestry in the UK. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2006, 5:1-18.
51. Smith R.J., Muir R.D.J., Walpole M.J., Balmford A., Leader-Williams N. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature 2003, 426:67-70.
52. Sutherland W.J., Adams W.M., Aronson R.B., Aveling R., Blackburn T.M., Broad S., Ceballos G., Cote I.M., Cowling R.M., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Dinerstein E., Ferraro P.J., Fleishman E., Gascon C., Hunter M., Hutton J., Kareiva P., Kuria A., MacDonald D.W., MacKinnon K., Madgwick F.J., Mascia M.B., McNeely J., Milner-Gulland E.J., Moon S., Morley C.G., Nelson S., Osborn D., Pai M., Parsons E.C.M., Peck L.S., Possingham H., Prior S.V., Pullin A.S., Rands M.R.W., Ranganathan J., Redford K.H., Rodriguez J.P., Seymour F., Sobel J., Sodhi N.S., Stott A., Vance-Borland K., Watkinson A.R. One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:557-567.
53. Tenge A.J., De Graaff J., Hella J.P. Social and economic factors affecting the adoption of soil and water conservation in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Land Degradation & Development 2004, 15:99-114.
54. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74:230-239.
55. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
56. Train K., Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources 6 2005, 117-134. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
57. Urquhart J., Courtney P., Slee B. Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small-Scale Forestry 2010, 9:1-20.
58. Vanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbroeck G., Verbeke W. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 53:489-511.
59. Wilson G.A. Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 1997, 50:67-93.
60. Wilson G.A., Hart K. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A 2000, 32:2161-2185.
61. Zandersen M., Termansen M., Jensen F.S. Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13:103-128.
62. Zandersen M., Termansen M., Jensen F.S. Testing benefit transfer of forest recreation values over a twenty-year time horizon. Land Economics 2007, 83:412-440.