Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods

Abstract This paper compares two methods for determining policy priorities for reform of Scottish agricultural support. Multifunctional agriculture attempts to establish a new balance between traditional commodity support and payment for the production of non-market goods and services that are increasingly demanded by the public. Supplying non-market goods presents particular problems for optimal policy design, not least the elicitation of consumer demand for those goods. From public focus groups, a range of attributes was derived as central to the Scottish public’s preferences for future agri-environmental reform. This information was then combined in two separate survey methods using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and choice experiments (CE). Both applications suggest that the public has defined preferences and a willingness to pay (using general income taxation) to affect changes beyond the status quo, and that policy payments should be targeted towards both environmental and social benefits. The divergent preference orderings derived from the alternative methods can be considered in the light of previous methodological debates on question framing, bounded rationality and respondent uncertainty. We speculate about the validity of alternative methodologies for informing particular policy questions.

[1]  Joshua M. Duke,et al.  Public Support For Land Preservation: Measuring Relative Preferences In Delaware , 2002 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[3]  P. Nijkamp,et al.  Advances in Environmental Economics , 2002 .

[4]  E. Brubaker Eliciting the Public's Budgetary Preferences: Insights from Contingent Valuation , 2004 .

[5]  J. Duke,et al.  Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process , 2002 .

[6]  D. Kahneman MAPS OF BOUNDED RATIONALITY: A PERSPECTIVE ON INTUITIVE JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 2003 .

[7]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Citizens' Juries: An Aid to Environmental Valuation? , 2001 .

[8]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[9]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland , 2008 .

[10]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation , 2003 .

[11]  Michael A. Toman,et al.  Sustainable Decisionmaking: The State of the Art from an Economics Perspective , 1998 .

[12]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .

[13]  J. Foster,et al.  Valuing Nature?: Economics, ethics and environment , 1997 .

[14]  C. Spash Investigating Individual Motives for Environmental Action: Lexicographic Preferences, Beliefs and Attitudes , 1998 .

[15]  Robert Goodland,et al.  Ecological sustainability and integrity : concepts and approaches , 1998 .

[16]  J. Burgess,et al.  "I struggled with this money business”: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation , 2000 .

[17]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION, DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING INSTITUTIONS , 1997 .

[18]  D. Moran,et al.  What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods , 2004 .

[19]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[20]  Hans-Jürgen Zimmermann,et al.  Multi-Criteria Analyse , 1991 .

[21]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues , 1996 .