Click here to download

Measuring the Value of Rural Landscape in Support of Preservation Policies
Author/s: Ruggiero Sardaro, Vincenzo Fucilli, Claudio Acciani 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  14 Pg. 125-138 FullText PDF:  201 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SCRE2015-002005
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

The study focuses on the ancient olive tree landscape in Apulia, Italy, a regional symbol of historical, cultural and economic importance. Because of the recent crisis caused by rising farm costs, farmers are replacing ancient olive trees with more remunerative crops. After verifying the economic unsustainability of both a regional law (2006) that forbids the eradication of ancient olive trees and a EU subsidy, we assess the value of the benefits furnished by the rural landscape through the contingent valuation method. The results reveal a significant value of landscape benefits, suggesting taxation strategies for an effective preservation policy.
Keywords: Rural landscape; contingent valuation; preservation policy.
Jel Code: C34, C51, Q15.

  1. Abler D., 2005, ≪Multifunctionality, Land Use and Agricultural Policy≫. In: Goetz S., Shortle J., Bergstrom J. (eds.), Land Use Problems and Conflicts – Causes, Consequences and Solutions. New York: Routledge: 241-253.
  2. Altaf M., DeShazo J., 1994, Bid Elicitation in the Contingent Valuation Method: The Double Referendum Format and Induced Strategic Behaviour. Harvard University, Arts and Sciences, Urban Planning Committee, March.
  3. Arrow K. J., Solow R., Portney P. R., Leamer E. E., Radner R., Schuman H., 1993, ≪Report on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa) Panel on Contingent Valuation≫. Federal Register, 58, 10: 4601-4614., DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.01424.x
  4. Bergstrom J., Ready R., 2009, ≪What have we Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?≫. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 1: 21-49., DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.01424.x
  5. Cameron T. A., Quiggin J., 1994, ≪Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire≫. Journal of Environmental economics and Management, 27, 3: 218-234., DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1035
  6. Carson R.T., 1991, ≪Constructed Markets≫. In: Braden J. B., Kolstad C.D. (eds.), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
  7. Cooper J. C., Hanemann M., Signorello G., 2002, ≪One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation≫. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 4: 742-750., DOI: 10.1162/003465302760556549
  8. Council of Europe, 2000, European Landscape Convention. Florence, Italy. DeShazo J.R., 2000, Designing Transactions Without Framing Effects in Iterative
  9. Question Formats. Mimeograph, Los Angeles: University of California, School of Public Policy and Social Research.
  10. Duffield J.W., Patterson D.A., 1991, ≪Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation≫. Land Economics, 67, 2: 225-239., DOI: 10.2307/3146413
  11. Duke J.M., Johnston R.J., 2010, ≪Nonmarket Valuation to Urban Fringe Farm and Forest Preservation≫. In: Goetz S., Brouwer F. (eds.), New Perspectives on Agri-Environmental Policies - A Multidisciplinary and Transatlantic Approach.
  12. Oxford, UK: Routledge Publishers: 124-142. Franco D., Franco D., Mannino I., Zanetto G., 2001, ≪The Role of Agroforestry Networks in Landscape Socioeconomic Processes: the Potential and Limits of the Contingent Valuation Method≫. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55, 4: 239-256., DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00158-X
  13. Freeman III A.M., 2003, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
  14. Haab T., McConnel K.E., 2002, Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. UK: Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham.
  15. Hanemann W.M., Loomis J., Kanninen B.J., 1991, ≪Statistical Efficiency of Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation≫. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 4: 1255-1263., DOI: 10.2307/1242453
  16. Hanley N., Barbier E., 2010, Pricing Nature, Cost–Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. UK: Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham.
  17. Herriges J., Shogren J., 1996, ≪Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning≫. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 1: 112-131., DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0008
  18. Jianjun J., Chong J., Lun L., 2013, ≪The Economic Valuation of Cultivated Land Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study in Wenling City, China≫. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119: 158-164., DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.010
  19. Just R.E., Hueth D.L., Schmitz A., 2004, The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: a Practical Guide to Policy and Project Evaluation. UK: Edward Elgar Press, Cheltenham.
  20. Kanninen B.J., 1995, ≪Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation≫. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 1: 114-125., DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1008
  21. Madureira L., Nunes L.C., Borges J.G., Falcao A.O., 2011, ≪Assessing Forest Management Strategies Using a Contingent Valuation Approach and Advanced Visualisation Techniques: a Portuguese Case Study≫. Journal of Forest Economics, 17, 4: 399-414., DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2011.04.001
  22. McFadden D., Leonard G., 1993, ≪Issues in Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis≫. In: Hausman J.A. (eds.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 165-216.
  23. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T., 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
  24. Moons E., 2003, The Development and Application of Economic Valuation Techniques and their Use in Environmental Policy: A Survey. Leuven: Faculty of Economics and Applied Economic Sciences, Working Paper n. 7.
  25. Moore C.C, Holmes T.P., Bell K.P., 2011, ≪An Attribute-Based Approach to Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection Programs≫. Journal of Forest Economics, 17, 1: 35-52., DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2010.09.001
  26. 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, 26, 2: 334-344., DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003
  27. Schlapfer F., 2006, ≪Survey Protocol and Income Effects in the Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: A Meta-Analysis≫. Ecological Economics, 57, 3:
  28. 415-429., DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.019.VenkatachalamL.,2004,≪TheContingentValuationMethod:AReview≫.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview,24,1:89-124.Doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0
  29. Verbič M., Slabe-Erker R., 2009, ≪An Econometric Analysis of Willingness-to-Pay for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Volčji Potok
  30. Landscape Area≫. Ecological Economics, 68, 5: 1316-1328., DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.002
  31. Waltert F., Schulz T., Schlapfer F., 2011, ≪The Role of Landscape Amenities in Regional Development: Evidence from Swiss Municipality Data≫. Land Use Policy, 28, 4: 748-776., DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.002
  32. Willig R.D., 1976, ≪Consumer Surplus Without Apology≫. American Economic Review, 66, 4: 587-597.
  33. Willis K.G., 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

Ruggiero Sardaro, Vincenzo Fucilli, Claudio Acciani, in "SCIENZE REGIONALI " 2/2015, pp. 125-138, DOI:10.3280/SCRE2015-002005


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