Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 801-821

  Villanueva, Anastasio J ^a   Glenk, Klaus ^b   Rodríguez Entrena, Macario ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

^b SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agri environmental schemes; choice experiment; olive farmers; payments for ecosystem services; protest response; Spain; willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL WORKER; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FRUIT PRODUCTION; INCENTIVE; POPULAR PROTEST; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SPAIN;

EID: 85013290462     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: 14779552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12211     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. and Louviere, J. ‘Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80, (1998) pp. 64–75.
2. Amigues, J. P., Boulatoff, C., Desaigues, B., Gauthier, C. and Keith, J. E. ‘The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 43, (2002) pp. 17–31.
3. Arrow, K.J., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contigent Valuation (London, UK: Federal Register, 1993).
4. Barnes, A. P., Willock, J., Toma, L. and Hall, C. ‘Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 54, (2011) pp. 477–494.
5. Barr, R. F. and Mourato, S. ‘Investigating fishers’ preferences for the design of marine payments for environmental services schemes’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 108, (2014) pp. 91–103.
6. Barranco, D., Fernández-Escobar, R. and Rallo, L. El cultivo del olivo (Madrid: Mundi-Prensa and Junta de Andalucía, 2008).
7. Barrio, M. and Loureiro, M. ‘The impact of protest responses in choice experiments: An application to a biosphere reserve management program’, Forest Systems, Vol. 22, (2013) pp. 94–105.
8. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, J. Economic valuation with stated preference surveys: A manual (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002).
9. Beharry-Borg, N., Smart, J. C. R., Termansen, M. and Hubacek, K. ‘Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands’, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 13, (2013) pp. 633–647.
10. Broch, S. W. and Vedel, S. E. ‘Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in farmer agri-environmental contract preferences’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 51, (2012) pp. 561–581.
11. Brouwer, R. and Martín-Ortega, J. ‘Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability’, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 34, (2012) pp. 151–166.
12. Burton, R. B. ‘Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective’, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 20, (2004) pp. 359–371.
13. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. ‘How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, context dependence and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 40, (2008) pp. 165–176.
14. Carson, R. T. and Groves, T. ‘Incentive and informational properties of preference questions’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 37, (2007) pp. 181–210.
15. CAyP (Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca). El sector del aceite de oliva y de la aceituna de mesa en Andalucía (Seville, Spain: Junta de Andalucía, 2008).
16. Chouinard, H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P. and Ohler, A. ‘Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection’, Land Economics, Vol. 84, (2008) pp. 66–82.
17. Christensen, T., Pedersen, A. B., Nielsen, H. O., Mørkbak, M. R., Hasler, B. and Denver, S. ‘Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones. A choice experiment study’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, (2011) pp. 1558–1564.
18. Cooper, J. C. ‘Combining actual and contingent behavior data to model farmer adoption of water quality protection practices’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 22, (1997) pp. 30–43.
19. Dziegielewska, D. and Mendelsohn, R. ‘Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 38, (2007) pp. 71–87.
20. Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurlé, J. and Ruto, E. ‘What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, (2010) pp. 259–273.
21. Falconer, K. ‘Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective’, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, (2000) pp. 379–394.
22. Ferreira, S. and Gallagher, L. ‘Protest responses and community attitudes toward accepting compensation to host waste disposal infrastructure’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 27, (2010) pp. 638–652.
23. Gasson, R. ‘Goals and values of farmers’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 24, (1973) pp. 521–542.
24. Gómez-Limón, J. A. and Arriaza, M. Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de las explotaciones de olivar en Andalucía (Málaga, Spain: Analistas Económicos de Andalucía, 2011).
25. Greene, W. H. Econometric Analysis (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003).
26. Groothuis, P. A. and Whitehead, J. C. ‘Does don't know mean no? Analysis of ‘don't know’ responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions’, Applied Economics, Vol. 34, (2002) pp. 1935–1940.
27. Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. and Stevens, T. H. ‘Protest bidders in contingent valuation’, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 21, (1992) pp. 160–169.
28. Hanemann, W. M. ‘Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, (1984) pp. 332–341.
29. Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W. and Wright, R. E. ‘Price vector effects in choice experiments: An empirical test’, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 27, (2005) pp. 227–234.
30. Horne, P. ‘Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation. A choice experiment based approach’, Silva Fennica, Vol. 40, (2006) pp. 169–178.
31. Hudson, D. and Lusk, J. ‘Risk and transactions cost in contracting: Results from a choice-based experiment’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, (2004) pp. 1–17.
32. Hynes, S. and Garvey, E. ‘Modelling farmers’ participation in an agri-environmental scheme using panel data: An application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 60, (2009) pp. 546–562.
33. Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J. and Nancarrow, B. E. ‘Protest responses in contingent valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 14, (1999) pp. 131–150.
34. Junta de Andalucía. programa de desarrollo rural de andalucía 2014–2020 (Seville, Spain: Junta de Andalucía, 2015).
35. Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S. and Hanley, N. ‘Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 43, (2016) pp. 609–636.
36. Layton, D. and Siikamäki, J. ‘Payments for ecosystem services programs: Predicting landowner enrollment and opportunity cost using a beta-binomial model’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 44, (2009) pp. 415–439.
37. Lienhoop, N. and Brouwer, R. ‘Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 42, (2015) pp. 568–577.
38. Lusk, J. L., Traill, W. B., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M. and Morrow, B. ‘Comparative advantage in demand: Experimental evidence of preferences for genetically modified food in the United States and European Union’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57, (2006) pp. 1–21.
39. Matta, J. R., Alavalapati, J. R. R. and Mercer, D. E. ‘Incentives for biodiversity conservation beyond the best management practices: Are forestland owners interested?’, Land Economics, Vol. 85, (2009) pp. 132–143.
40. Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. ‘Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 57, (2006) pp. 583–594.
41. Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. ‘Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, (2010) pp. 366–374.
42. Meyerhoff, J., Bartczak, A. and Liebe, U. ‘Protester or non-protester: A binary state? On the use (and non-use) of latent class models to analyse protesting in economic valuation’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 56, (2012) pp. 438–454.
43. Meyerhoff, J., Mørkbak, M. R. and Olsen, S. B. ‘A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 58, (2014) pp. 35–57.
44. Mørkbak, M. R., Christensen, T. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. ‘Choke price bias in choice experiments’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 45, (2010) pp. 537–551.
45. Mulatu, D. W., Van Der Veen, A. and van Oel, P. R. ‘Farm households’ preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya’, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 7, (2014) pp. 22–33.
46. Pannell, D. J. ‘Public benefits, private benefits, and policy mechanism choice for land-use change for environmental benefits’, Land Economics, Vol. 84, (2008) pp. 225–240.
47. Peterson, J. M., Smith, C. M., Leatherman, J. C., Hendricks, N. P. and Fox, J. A. ‘Transaction costs in payment for environmental service contracts’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 97, (2015) pp. 219–238.
48. Poe, G. L., Giraud, K. L. and Loomis, J. B. ‘Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 87, (2005) pp. 353–365.
49. Rodríguez-Lizana, A., Ordóñez-Fernández, R. and Gil-Ribes, J. Cubiertas vegetales en olivar (Seville, Spain: Junta de Andalucía, 2007).
50. Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S. and Willis, K.G. ‘Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments’ in: R. Scarpa and A. Alberini (eds.) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005).
51. Schilizzi, S. and Latacz-Lohmann, U. ‘Incentivizing and tendering conservation contracts: The trade-off between participation and effort provision’, Land Economics, Vol. 92, (2016) pp. 273–291.
52. Siebert, R., Toogood, M. and Knierim, A. ‘‘Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies’, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 46, (2006) pp. 318–340.
53. Söderberg, M. and Barton, D. N. ‘Marginal WTP and distance decay: The role of ‘protest’ and ‘true zero’ responses in the economic valuation of recreational water quality’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 59, (2014) pp. 389–405.
54. Stoate, C., Baldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G. R., Rakosy, L. and Ramwell, C. ‘Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – a review’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91, (2009) pp. 22–46.
55. Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R. and Hutchinson, G. ‘The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 25, (2003) pp. 461–476.
56. Street, D. J. and Burgess, L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2007).
57. Train, K. Discrete choice methods with simulation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
58. Train, K. and Weeks, M. ‘Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space’ in: R. Scarpa and A. Alberini (eds.) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005).
59. Uthes, S. and Matzdorf, B. ‘Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature’, Environmental Management, Vol. 51, (2013) pp. 251–266.
60. Villanueva, A. J., Gómez-Limón, J. A., Arriaza, M. and Nekhay, O. ‘Analysing the provision of agricultural public goods: The case of irrigated olive groves in southern Spain’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 38, (2014) pp. 300–313.
61. Villanueva, A. J., Gómez-Limón, J. A., Arriaza, M. and Rodríguez-Entrena, M. ‘The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 46, (2015) pp. 142–154.
62. Windle, J. and Rolfe, J. ‘Diversification choices in agriculture: A choice modelling case study of sugarcane growers’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 49, (2005) pp. 63–74.