Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to elicit the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for the improved provision of public goods (PGs) by agriculture in a region of intensive agricultural production, embodying many of the environmental problems related to agriculture within and outside the European Union (EU). Our analysis was based on a participatory approach, combining the involvement of local stakeholders and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in the Marchfeld region in Austria. We estimated a random parameters logit model (RPL), including interactions with socio-demographic factors, to disentangle preference heterogeneity and find a positive MWTP of the local population for all three PGs analyzed: (i) groundwater quality; (ii) landscape quality; and (iii) soil functionality in connection with climate stability. Furthermore, MWTP varies considerably with respect to age, farmers/non-farmers and locals/incomers. Further research could combine the results of this demand-side valuation with those of a supply-side valuation, where the opportunity costs of different management options for farmers are estimated. Based on such a cost-benefit analysis and further participation of local stakeholders, new governance mechanisms for the smart and sustainable provision of PGs by agriculture could be developed for the Marchfeld region and for comparable European regions.

Research for Rural Development 2023 : annual 29th international scientific conference proceedings

“…Proxies for landscape value like willingness to pay or travel cost are frequently used to assess CES. Economical evaluation methods were mostly connected with other methods in the same research, for example, surveys (Mäntymaa et al, 2018;Martín-López et al, 2009;Niedermayr et al, 2018;Van Berkel et al, 2018) or mapping of geospatial data (Hatan, Fleischer, & Tchetchik, 2021). The willingness to pay method is directly connected with people's perception of landscape and their willingness to pay for the improvement or loss of some features in landscape (Niedermayr et al, 2018;Mäntymaa et al, 2021;Van Berkel & Verburg, 2014).…”

Research for Rural Development 2022 : annual 28th International scientific conference proceedings

“…are accumulating water runoff, controlling the erosion rates, etc. Gottero, Cassatella, & Larcher, 2021;Mäntymaa et al, 2018;Niedermayr et al, 2018;Senes et al, 2020).…”

“…2021; Mäntymaa et al, 2018;Niedermayr et al, 2018;Senes et al, 2020). Only two articles assessed the Provisioning ES section, both taking into account the presence of agricultural land as a source of food production (Gottero, Cassatella, & Larcher, 2021;Senes et al, 2020).…”

“…Equally the same amount of times method called willingness to pay was used. It economically expresses stakeholder, visitor, or local people's perception of the improvement of landscape quality in the monetary form, by stating how much they would be willing to pay for specific actions or plans to improve landscape quality (Mäntymaa et al, 2018;Niedermayr et al, 2018). Finland has presented Payments for Ecosystem Services system called Landscape and Recreation Value Trade that proposes that forest owners are compensated for voluntarily enhancing and maintaining the landscape value (Mäntymaa et al, 2021).…”

“…Figure 2. ES groups assessed by analysed articles, according to CICES V5.1, values in the graph depict the number of times ES were assessed, not the number of articles (several articles examine multiple ES, e.g Gottero, Cassatella, & Larcher, 2021;Mäntymaa et al, 2018;Niedermayr et al, 2018;Senes et al, 2020)…”