Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 127, Issue , 2016, Pages 11-22

  Tagliafierro, C ^a   Boeri, M ^a,b   Longo, A ^a   Hutchinson, W G ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; ORCHARD; RESEARCH METHOD; URBANIZATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CAMPANIA [ITALY]; ITALY; NAPOLI [CAMPANIA]; SORRENTO PENINSULA;

CITRUS LIMON;

EID: 84962829487     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.022     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Amministrazione Provinciale di Napoli Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale (PTCP) - Rapporto Ambientale Available at:, (Last accessed 04/11/2015). http://www.cittametropolitana.na.it/documents/10181/104258/RA01.pdf/17940196-9d3e-4372-850e-232e6a307e53.
2. Antrop M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75:186-197.
3. Antrop M., Van Eetvelde V. Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 50:43-58.
4. Antrop M., Sevenant M., Tagliafierro C., Van Eetvelde V., Witlox F. Setting a framework for valuing the multifunctional landscape and its multiple perceptions. The Economic Value of Landscapes 2013, Routledge, London. M. Van der Heide, W. Heijman (Eds.).
5. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape 1996, Wiley, Chichester. second ed.
6. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58(10):4601-4614. (Available at: http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf (Last accessed 05/07/2010)).
7. Aznar O., Michelin Y., Perella G., Turpin N. Landscape at the crossroads, towards a "geo-economic" analysis of rural landscapes. Proceedings From the 3rd Workshop on Landscape Economics of European Consortium on Landscape Economics (CEEP), May 29-30, Paris (Versailles), France 2008.
8. Bastian C.T., McLeod D.M., Germino M.J., Reiners W.A., Blasko B.J. Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40:337-349.
9. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P., Lovett A.A., Lake I.R., Day B.H. Applying Geographical Information System (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22:219-269.
10. Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, Switzerland 2003.
11. Bockstael N.E. Modelling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 78:1168-1180.
12. Bourassa S. The Aesthetics of Landscape 1991, Belhaven Press, London.
13. Bousset J.P., Chabab N., Bigot G., Josien E., Pinto-Correia T., Perret E., Michelin Y., Turpin N. Do the agri-environmental policies alter sustainability of rural landscapes?. Proceedings From the 3rd Workshop on Landscape Economics of European Consortium on Landscape Economics (CEEP), May 29-30, Paris (Versailles), France 2009.
14. Brander L.M., Koetse M.J. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Institute of Environmental Studies (IVM) Working Paper I.07/03 2007, University of Vrije, The Netherlands, (Available at http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/FC28CE82920A02A711A184A85CD2E66B_tcm53-85983.pdf (Last accessed 21/07/2010)).
15. Breffle W.S., Morey E.R. Investigating preference heterogeneity in a repeated discrete-choice recreation demand model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2000, 15:1-20.
16. Broch S.W., Strange N., Jacobsen J.B., Wilson K.A. Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92:78-86.
17. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86(3):552-568.
18. Burgess D., Patton M., Georgiou S., Matthews D. Public attitudes to changing landscapes: an exploratory study. Proceedings From European Consortium for Landscape Economics, CEEP: 1st International Conference on Landscape Economics, July 2-4, Vienna, Austria 2009.
19. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58(3):467-483.
20. Campbell D., Boeri M., Doherty E., Hutchinson W.G. Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 119:345-363.
21. Cavailhes J., Brossard T., Foltete J.C., Hilal M., Joly D., Tourneux F.P., Tritz C., Wavresky P. GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:571-590.
22. Colombo S., Glenk K., Rocamora-Montiel B. Analysis of choice inconsistencies in on-line choice experiments: impact on welfare measures. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2015, 10.1093/erae/jbv016.
23. Colombo S., Hanley N., Louviere J. Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2009, 40(3):307-322.
24. Comune di Sorrento Portale Istituzionale del Comune di Sorrento. Codice Morale per il Territorio 2011, (Available at: http://www.comune.sorrento.na.it/pagina808_codice-morale-per-il-territorio.html (Last accessed 05/11/2015)).
25. Council of Europe European Landscape Convention. ETS 176 Available at, (Last accessed 21/07/2007). http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/landscape/.
26. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:267-281.
27. Des Rosiers F., Thériault M., Kestens Y., Villeneuve P. Landscaping and house values: an empirical investigation. J. Real Estate Res. 2002, 23:139-161.
28. Domínguez-Torreiro M., Soliño M. Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70(12):2523-2531.
29. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:465-474.
30. Dubin R. Spatial autocorrelation and neighborhood quality. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 1992, 22:433-452.
31. Englund K.B. Integrating GIS into choice experiments: an evaluation of land use scenarios in Whistler 2005, (B.C. Master Thesis), Resource Management, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.
32. European Commission From Land Cover to Landscape Diversity in the European Union Available at, (Last accessed 02/11/2015). http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/corine2000.pdf.
33. Fagnano M. Ruolo dei paesaggi agrari nei territori fortemente urbanizzati. Il caso della provincia di Napoli. Patrimonio culturale e paesaggio: Un approccio di filiera per la progettualità territoriale 2009, Gangemi Editore. M. Mautone, M. Ronza (Eds.).
34. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53:342-363.
35. Fry G., Tveit M.S., Ode A., Velarde M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9(5):933-947.
36. Geoghegan J., Wainger L., Bockstael N. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 23:251-264.
37. Germino M.J., Reiners W.A., Blasko B.J., McLeod D., Bastian C.T. Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53:71-83.
38. Giergiczny M., Czajkowski M., Zylicz T., Angelstam P. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 119:8-23.
39. Gravagnuolo A. Una proposta metodologica per la valutazione dei landscape services nel paesaggio culturale terrazzato. Towards an Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable City: Approaches and Tools 2014, Vol. 14(2). Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", (Available at: http://www.tema.unina.it/index.php/bdc/index (Last accessed 04/11/2015)).
40. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1984, 66:332-341.
41. 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. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58(3):433-453.
42. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 49(1):1-15.
43. Hensher D., Greene W. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. J. Transp. 2003, 30:133-176.
44. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
45. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 1985, 5:225-241.
46. Hess S., Train K.E., Polak J.W. On the use of Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transp. Res. B 2006, 40:147-163.
47. Hilal M., Brossard T., Cavailhes J., Joly D., Tourneux F.P., Wavresky P. Landscape metrics for determining landscape prices. Proceedings From the 3rd Workshop on Landscape Economics of European Consortium on Landscape Economics (CEEP), May 29-30, Paris (Versailles), France 2009.
48. Holmes T.P., Adamowicz W.L. Attribute-based methods. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
49. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ. 2005, 81(1):114-126.
50. Hoyos D., Mariel P., Hess S. Incorporating environmental attitudes in discrete choice models: an exploration of the utility of the awareness of consequences scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505:1100-1111.
51. Huber J., Train K. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean Partworths. Mark. Lett. 2001, 12(1):259-269.
52. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33:307-317.
53. ISTAT Rapporto Annuale 2009 2009, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Roma.
54. Johnston R.J., Schultz E.T., Segerson K., Besedin E.Y., Ramachandran M. Enhancing the content validity of stated preference valuation: the structure and function of ecological indicators. Land Econ. 2012, 88(1):102-120.
55. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Bauer D.M. Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ. 2002, 78(4):481-500.
56. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World 1982, Praeger, New York.
57. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature; A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
58. Kestens Y., Theriault M., Rosiers F.D. The impact of surrounding land use and vegetation on single-family house prices. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2001, 31:539-567.
59. Lawrence C., Zhou J., Tits A. User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.5: A C Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying All Inequality Constraints 1997, Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland.
60. Lifran R. Landscape economics: the road ahead. Proceedings From European Consortium for Landscape Economics, CEEP: 1st International Conference on Landscape Economics, July 2-4, Vienna, Austria 2009.
61. Mazzoleni S., Di Martino P., Strumia S., Buonanno M., Bellelli M. Recent changes of coastal and sub-mountain vegetation landscape in Campania and Molise regions in Southern Italy. Recent Dynamics of the Mediterranean Vegetation and Landscape 2004, John Wilet and Sons, Ltd. S. Mazzoleni, G. di Pasquale, M. Mulligan, P. di Martino, F. Rego (Eds.).
62. McConnell V., Walls M. The value of open space: evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. Resource for the future 2005.
63. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers of Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York, NY. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
64. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15:447-470.
65. McGarigal K., Cushman S.A., Neel M.C., Ene E. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps 2002, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
66. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resource for the Future, Washington, DC.
67. Moore R., Provencher B., Bishop R.B. Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Econ. 2011, 87(1):45-59.
68. Morey E., Thiene M., De Salvo M., Signorello G. Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:536-546.
69. Nahuelhual L., Loureiro M.L., Loomis J. Using random parameters to account for heterogeneous preferences in contingent valuation of public open space. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29(3):537-552.
70. Navrud S., Ready R. Review of methods for value transfer. Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods 2007, 1-10. Springer, Dordrecht - The Netherlands. S. Navrud, R. Ready (Eds.).
71. Newell L.W., Swallow S.K. Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92:37-47.
72. Ode A., Tveit M.S., Fry G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33(1):89-117.
73. Palmentieri S. Risorse paesaggistiche per lo sviluppo sostenibile della Penisola Sorrentina. Annali del turismo 2012, Vol. 1. Edizioni, Geoprgress.
74. Pazzaglia F.J. Landscape evolution models. Development in Quaternary Science 2003, vol. 1. Elsevier B.V.
75. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J. Landscape perception: an examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. J. Environ. Manag. 1984, 19:31-63.
76. Rambonilaza M., Dachary-Bernard J. Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83:318-326.
77. Regione Campania Legge Regionale n.35 del 27/06/1987: Piano Urbanistico Territoriale dell'Area Sorrentino - Amalfitana. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Campania, n.40 del 20 luglio 1987 1987.
78. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80(4):647-657.
79. Sandor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 2001, XXXVIII:430-444. (November).
80. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preference. Land Econ. 2005, 81(3):426-444.
81. Scarpa R., Willis K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:129-136.
82. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Econ. 2007, 83(4):401-417.
83. Scarpa R., Gilbride T.J., Campbell D., Hensher D.A. Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 36(2):151-174.
84. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Working Paper in Economics 15/06 2006, Department of Economics, University of Waikato, New Zeland.
85. Schaeffer P.V. Thoughts concerning the economic valuation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89:146-154.
86. Schlapfer F. Contingent valuation: confusions, problems and solutions. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1569-1571.
87. Sevenant M., Antrop M. Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 2010, 27:373-386.
88. Soini K., Pouta E., Samliovirta M., Uusitalo M., Kivinen T. Perceptions of power transmission lines among local residents: a case study from Finland. Proceedings From the 3rd Workshop on Landscape Economics of European Consortium on Landscape Economics (CEEP), May 29-30, Paris (Versailles), France 2009.
89. Swanwick C., Hanley N., Termansen M. Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Final Report to DEFRA 2007, (Released in 2008. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/agrlandval/Mainrep.pdf (Last accessed 08/08/2010)).
90. Tagliafierro C., Longo A., Van Eetvelde V., Antrop M., Hutchinson W.G. Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2013, 32:26-36.
91. Tait P., Baskaran R., Cullen R., Bicknell K. Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 75:15-21.
92. Tempesta T. The perception of agrarian hostorical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97:258-272.
93. Thiene M., Scarpa R. Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:379-395.
94. Train K. Discrete Choice Models With Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
95. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Springer, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
96. Tveit M., Ode A., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31(3):229-255.
97. United Nations United Nations Convention To Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (Available at: www.unccd.int (Last accessed 06/11/2015)).
98. Van Eetvelde V., Antrop M. A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterization for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91(3):160-170.
99. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., Saunders C.M. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 1995, 44:105-125.