Valuing the landscape benefits of rural policies actions in Veneto (Italy)

Aestimum

Volumn 70, Issue , 2017, Pages 7-30

  Tempesta, Tiziano ^a   Vecchiato, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Common agricultural policy; Rural development programme; Rural landscape; Valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028430488     PISSN: 15926117     EISSN: 17242118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.13128/Aestimum-21079     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Antonelli G., Falcioni L., Viganò E. and Viganò, L. (2006). Le politiche della regione Marche per il paesaggio. Valutazione e impatto nell'area del Montefeltro. In F. Marangon (Ed.), Gli interventi paesaggistico-ambientali nelle politiche regionali di sviluppo rurale. Milano: FrancoAngeli
2. Bateman I. and Great Britain. Dept. for Transport. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
3. Borresch R., Maas S., Schmitz K. and Schmitz M.P. (2009). Modelling the value of a multifunctional landscape-A discrete choice experiment. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 16-22, 2009 Beijing, China. http://ageconsearch. umn.edu/bitstream/51641/2/IAAE2009_692.pdf
4. Bottazzi C. and Mondini G. (2006). L'analisi della domanda turistica nei processi di gestione dei paesaggi culturali. Aestimum 49: 15-29
5. Broch S.W., Strange N., Jacobsen J.B. and Wilson K.A. (Forthcoming). Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecological Economics doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.017
6. Bullock C.H., Elston D.A. and Chalmers N.A. (1998). An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use-Deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. Journal of Environmental Management 52(4): 335-351
7. Campbell D. (2007). Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects model. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(3): 467-483. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x
8. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. and Scarpa R. (2009). Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environment and Planning A 41(1): 97-111. doi: 10.1068/a4038
9. Ciaian P., Kancs D.A. and Gomez y Paloma S. (2011). Distributional Effects of CAP Subsidies: Micro Evidence from the EU. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae11/114291.html
10. Cicia G. and Scarpa R. (1999). La disponibilità a pagare per il paesaggio rurale nel Cilento: paradigmi interpretativi del metodo della valutazione contingente. Rivista di Economia Agraria 54(1): 55-94
11. Colombo S., Hanley N. and Louviere J. (2009). Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: An analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics 40(3): 307-322. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00377.x
12. Davis J. (2004). Assessing Community Preferences for Development Projects: Are Willingness-to-Pay Studies Robust to Mode Effects? World Development 32(4): 655-672. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev. 2003.09.007
13. Garrod G., Ruto E., Willis K. and Powe N. (2014). Investigating Preferences for the Local Delivery of Agri-environment Benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(1): 177-190. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12040
14. Hanley N., Colombo S. and Mason P. (2007). The reform of support mechanisms for upland farming: Paying for public goods in the severely disadvantaged areas of England. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(3): 433-453. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00114.x
15. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D. and Crabtree B. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(1): 1-15. doi: 10.1111/ j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x
16. Hasund K.P., Kataria M. and Lagerkvist C.J. (2011). Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: A choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(1): 31-53. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.502753
17. Hauber A.B., González J.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn C.G.M., Prior T., Marshall D.A., Cunningham C., Bridges J.F.P. (2016). Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health 19(4): 300-315. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
18. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. and Greene W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
19. Hoyos D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 69(8): 1595-1603. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011
20. Huber R., Hunziker M. and Lehmann B. (2011). Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: A political market share approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(1): 93-113. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.502761
21. Hunziker M., Felber P., Gehring K., Buchecker M., Bauer N. and Kienast F. (2008). Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups: results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain research and development 28(2): 140-147. doi: 10.1659/mrd.0952
22. Hynes S. and Campbell D. (2011). Estimating the welfare impacts of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: A choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(8): 1019-1039. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.547691
23. Idda L., Pulina P., Madau F.A., Sini M.P., Orru E. and Benedetto G. (2006). Il paesaggio nelle politiche di sviluppo rurale della Sardegna. In: F. Marangon (Ed.), Gli interventi paesaggistico-ambientali nelle politiche regionali di sviluppo rurale. Milano: FrancoAngeli
24. Lancaster K.J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132. doi: 10.1086/259131
25. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press
26. Madau F.A. and Pulina P. (2013). Il valore monetario del paesaggio rurale in Gallura: un'applicazione della Choice Experiment. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 2
27. Manski C.F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8(3): 229-254
28. McFadden D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York,: Academic Press
29. McFadden D. and Train K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of applied Econometrics 15(5): 447-470
30. Rambonilaza M. and Dachary-Bernard J. (2007). Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landscape and Urban Planning 83(4): 318-326. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013
31. Randall A. (1987). Resource Economics. an Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons
32. Scarpa R., Campbell D. and Hutchinson W.G. (2007). Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Economics 83(4): 617-634. doi: 10.3368/le.83.4.617
33. Schmitz K., Schmitz P.M. and Wronka T.C. (2003). Valuation of landscape functions using choice experiments. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(8): 379-389
34. Signorello G., Pappalardo G. and Pulvirenti M. (2001). Il valore del paesaggio agrario nell'area settentrionale dell'Etna. In: T. Tempesta and F. Marangon (Eds.), La valutazione dei beni ambientali come supporto alle decisioni pubbliche. Una riflessione alla luce della normativa comunitaria e nazionale. Udine: Forum
35. Swait J. (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for crosssectional revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1(2): 77-89. doi: 10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7
36. Tempesta T. (1998). The Economic Value of Rural Landscape: An Application to the Area Between Isonzo and Tagliamento Rivers (Friuli-Venezia Giulia). In: R. Bishop & D. Romano (Eds.), Environmental Resource Valuation (Vol. 11, pp. 213-232): Springer US
37. Tempesta T. (2006). Il valore paesaggistico-ambientale degli interventi di riforestazione della pianura Veneta: il caso del bosco di Mestre (VE). In: T. Tempesta & M. Thiene (Eds.), Percezione e Valore del Paesaggio (pp. 189-208). Milano: Franco Angeli
38. Tempesta T. (2010). The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 97(4): 258-272. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010
39. Tempesta T. (2014). People's preferences and landscape evaluation in Italy: a review. New Medit 13(1): 50-59
40. Tempesta T. and Thiene, M. (2004). The willingness to pay for the conservation of mountain landscape in Cortina D'Ampezzo (Italy). Paper presented at the 90th EAAE Seminar "Multifunctional Agriculture, policies and markets: understanding the critical linkages", 28-29 October ANNO, Rennes, France
41. Tempesta T. and Vecchiato D. (2013). Riverscape and Groundwater Preservation: A Choice Experiment. Environmental Management 52(6): 1487-1502. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0163-0
42. Tisdell C. (1993). Environmental economics: policies for environmental management and sustainable development. Aldershot, Hants (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
43. Torquati B. and Musotti F. (2007). Valutazione monetaria del paesaggio agrario dell'Umbria e indicazioni per il futuro programma di sviluppo rurale. In: B. Torquati (Ed.), Agricoltura e paesaggio in Umbria e Lazio. Le politiche, gli strumenti di lettura e di valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli
44. Train K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Second ed.): Cambridge University Press
45. Vanslembrouck I. and Van Huylenbroeck G. (2005). Multifunctionality in a Theoretical Framework. In: I. Vanslembrouck & G. Van Huylenbroeck (Eds.), Landscape Amenities (Vol. 2, pp. 1-26): Springer Netherlands
46. Vecchiato D. and Tempesta T. (2013). Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a periurban area with choice experiments. Forest Policy and Economics 26: 111-120
47. Westerberg V., Jacobsen J.B. and Lifran R. (2013). The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean. Tourism Management 34: 172-183. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008
48. Westerberg V.H., Lifran R. and Olsen S.B. (2010). To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France. Ecological Economics 69(12): 2383-2393. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.005
49. Willis K.G. and Garrod G.D. (1992). Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 23(1): 17-32. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(92)90061-4
50. Yadav L., van Rensburg T.M. and Kelley H. (2013). A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(2): 405-422. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00375.x
51. Yellott J.I. (1977). The relationship between Luce's Choice Axiom, Thurstone's Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(2): 109-144