Click here to download

The monetary value of the rural landscape in Gallura (Italy): a choice experiment analysis
Author/s: Fabio A. Madau, Pietro Pulina 
Year:  2013 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  19 Pg. 7-25 FullText PDF:  908 KB
DOI:  10.3280/REA2013-002001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

Landscape preservation is an important issue of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) today. Deeply rooted characteristics of land use in rural areas can be affected by food and land-market changes as well as by specific policy decisions. Forests are an important part of rural landscape: their role in environment preservation as well as in supply of space for recreation and in economic development is well appreciated. This study aims to assess the contribution of forests in the monetary evaluation of the rural landscape. A Choice Experiment (CE) model is applied in order to estimate the value of each landscape attribute (presence of vineyards, grazing and forests) in Gallura, which is located in the north-eastern side of Sardinia (Italy). The estimated median willingness to pay (WTP) for preserving the forest is significantly higher than the amounts recorded for vineyards and grazing lands. Some policy arguments suggested by these findings are discussed.
Keywords: Choice Experiment, rural landscape, rural and environmental policies, forestry economics and estimation
Jel Code: Q23, Q51, Q56

  1. Abello R.P., Bernaldez F.G. (1986). Landscape Preference and Personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, XIII: 19-28.
  2. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J.J., Williams M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, XXVI, 3: 271-292,, DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1017
  3. Appleton K., Lovett A. (2003). GIS-based Visualisation of Rural Landscapes: Defining ‘Sufficient’ Realism for Environmental Decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, LXV: 117-131.
  4. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., O˝ zdemirog˘lu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson S. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences Technique. Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA), Edward Elgar Publishing.
  5. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  6. Bennett J.J., Blamey R.K. (2001). The Choice of Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
  7. Birol A., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. (2006). Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece, Ecological Economics, LX, 1: 145-156,, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecdecon.2006.06.002
  8. Birol A., Koundouri P. (2008a). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
  9. Birol A., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. (2008b). Applications of the Choice Experiment Method in Europe: a Review, in A. Birol, P. Koundouri (eds.). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 12-57.
  10. Bullock C.H., Kay J. (1997). Preservation and Change in the Upland Landscape: the Public Benefits of Grazing Management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, XL, 3: 315-334,, DOI: 10.1080/09640569712119
  11. Bureau J.C., Mahe L.P. (2008). CAP Reform beyond 2013: An Idea for a Long View. Notre Europe Paper (Studies & Research 64), (10.04.2011, h.15.45).
  12. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. (2009). Using Choice Experiments to the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements. Environment and Planning, XLI, 1: 97-111,, DOI: 10.1068/a4038
  13. Carvalho-Ribeiro S.M., Lovett. A. (2001). Is an Attractive Forest also Considered Well Managed? Public Preferences for Forest Cover and Stand Structure across a Rural/Urban Gradient in Northern Portugal, Forest Policy and Economics, XIII, 1: 46-54.
  14. Colson F., Strenger-Letheux A. (1996). Evaluation contingente et paysages agricoles. Application au bocage de Loire-Atlantique. Cahiers d’economie et sociologie rurales, 39/40: 151-177.
  15. Dekker T., Rose J.M. (2011). Shape Shifters: Simple Asymmetric Mixing Density for Mixed Logit Models. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) Working Paper 11/01.
  16. Del Bono C. (1993). Il distretto del sughero in Gallura, Sassari: Gallizzi.
  17. Domon G. (2011). Landscape as Resource: Consequences, Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Development, Landscape and Urban Planning, C, pp. 338-340,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2001.02.014
  18. Foster V., Mourato S. (2000). Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, LI, 1: 1-21.
  19. Gobster P.H. (1999). An Ecological Aesthetic for Forest Landscape Management, Landscape Journal, XVIII, 1: 54-64.
  20. Greene W.H. (2008). Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall International.
  21. Hanemann W.M. (1984). Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand. Econometrica, LII, 3: 541-562,, DOI: 10.2307/1913464
  22. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamovicz V. (1998a). Use Choice Experiment to Value the Environment. Design Issue. Current Experience and Future Prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics, XI, 3/4: 413-428,, DOI: 10.1023/A:1008287310583
  23. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. (1998b). Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, IL, 1: 1-15,
  24. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamovicz V. (2002). Do the Choice Experiment Pass the Scope Test? A Test of Scope in Choice Experiment Examining the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements. EAERE/AERE World Conference, Monterey, (20.04.2011, h. 12.15).
  25. Hausman J., McFadden D. (1984). Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica, LII, 5: 1219-1240,, DOI: 10.2307/1910997
  26. Idda L., Madau F.A., Orru E., Pulina P., Sini M.P. (2005a). Efficacy of European Policies on Rural Landscape: the Case Study of Sardinia (Italy), XI EAAE Congress, Copenhagen, (12.03.2011, h. 17.30).
  27. Idda L., Benedetto G., Madau F.A., Orru E., Pulina P. (2005b). The Structure of Rural Landscape in Monetary Evaluation Studies: the Main Analytical Approaches in Literature, XI EAAE Congress, Copenhagen, (10.03.2011, h.15.35).
  28. Idda L., Pulina P., Benedetto G., Madau, F.A. (2007). Sviluppo rurale, capitale sociale e vitivinicoltura multifunzionale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Johns H., Hanley N., Colombo S., O˝ zdemirog˘lu E. (2008). Economic Valuation of Environmental Impacts in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas in England, in A. Birol, P. Koundouri (eds.). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy. Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 82-105. Lancaster K. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economics, LXXIV, 2: 217-231.
  30. Lankoski J., Ollikainen M. (2003). Agri-Environmental Externalities: A Framework for Designing Targeted Policies. European Review of Agricultural Economics, XXX, 1: 51-75,, DOI: 10.1093/erae/30.1.51
  31. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait, J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Maddala G.S. (1986). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Manski C. (1977). The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision, VIII, 3: 229-254,, DOI: 10.1007/BF00133443
  34. Marangon F. (ed.) (2006). Gli interventi paesaggistico-ambientali nelle politiche regionali di sviluppo rurale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  35. McFadden D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in P. Zarembka (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
  36. Ode A., Fry G., Tviet M.S., Messager P., Miller D. (2009). Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference. Journal of Environmental Management, XC, 1: 375-383,, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
  37. Paracchini M.L., Capitani C., Schmidt A.M., Andersen E., Wascher D.M., Jones P.J., Simoncini R., Carvalho Ribeiro S., Griffiths G.H., Mortimer S.R., Madeira L., Loupa Ramos I., Pinto-Correia T. (2012). Measuring Societal Awareness of the Rural Agrarian Landscape: Indicators and Scale Issues. Scientific and Technical Research Series 25192, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
  38. European Union.
  39. Pinto-Correia T., Carvalho-Ribeiro S. (2012). The Index of Function Suitability (IFS): A New Tool for Assessing the Capacity of Landscapes to Provide Amenity Functions. Land Use Policy, XXIX, 1: 23-34.
  40. Rambonilaza M. (2004). Evaluation de la demande de paysage: etat de l’art et reflexions sur la methode du transfert des benefices. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales, 70: 78-101.
  41. Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulink H. (2007). Perception of Rural Landscapes in Flandres: Looking beyond Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, LXXXII: 159-173.
  42. Sayadi S., Gonzalez-Roa M.C., Calatrava-Requena J. (2009). Public Preferences for Landscape Features: the Case of Agricultural Landscape in Mountainous Mediterranean Areas. Land Use Policy, XXVI, 2: 334-344,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003
  43. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. (2008). Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: a Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, XC, 4: 994-1010,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01155.x
  44. Soliva R., Bolliger J., Hunziker M. (2010). Differences in Preferences towards Potential Future Landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Research, XXXV, 6: 671-696,, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436
  45. Southern A., Lovett A., O’Riordan T., Watkinson A. (2011). Sustainable Landscape Governance: Lessons from a Catchment Based Study in Whole Landscape Design. Landscape and Urban Planning, CI, pp. 179-189.
  46. Thurstone L. (1927). A Law of Comparative Judgement. Psychological Review, XXXIV, 4: 273-286,, DOI: 10.1037/h0070288
  47. Tips W.E.J., Vasdisara T. (1986). The Influence of the Socio-economic Background of Subjects on their Landscape Preference Evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, XIII: 225-230.
  48. Turpin N., Dupraz P., Thenail C., Joannon A., Baudry J., Herviou S., Verburg, P. (2009). Shaping the Landscape: Agricultural Policies and Local Biodiversity Schemes. Land Use Policy, XXVI, 2: 273-283,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.004
  49. Tveit M.S. (2009). Indicators of Visual Scale as Predictors of Landscape Preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, XC, 9: 2882-2888., DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021
  50. van Berkel D.B., Verburg P.H. (2011). Sensitising Rural Policy: Assessing Spatial Variation in Rural Development Options for Europe. Land Use Policy, XXVIII, 3: 447-459,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.002
  51. van Rensburg T.M., Mill G.A., Common M., Lovett J. (2002). Preferences and Multiple Use Forest Management. Ecological Economics, XLIII, 2/3: 231-244,, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00214-8
  52. Winter C. (2005). Preferences and Values for Forests and Wetlands: a Comparison of Farmers, Environmentalists, and the General Public in Australia. Society & Natural Resources, XVIII, 6: 541-555,, DOI: 10.1080/08941920590947986

Fabio A. Madau, Pietro Pulina, in "RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA" 2/2013, pp. 7-25, DOI:10.3280/REA2013-002001


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content