Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes

The identification and treatment of protest responses in stated preference surveys has long been subject to debate. We analyse protest responses while investigating ecosystem services providers’ preferences for incentive‐based schemes. We use a choice experiment for olive farmers’ preferences for agri‐environmental scheme participation in southern Spain. Our two main objectives are: first, to identify and discuss a range of possible motives for protest responses that emerge in a WTA context; second, we analyse the impact on WTA estimates of censoring serial non‐participation linked to protest or high compensation requirements (very high takers). Using a random parameter logit model in WTA space, we find that the inclusion or exclusion of serial non‐participants in the analysis can have a significant impact on marginal and total WTA estimates. Based on the findings, the paper makes recommendations on how to reduce the incidence of protest responses through survey design, regarding the identification of protesters as opposed to very high takers, and regarding the treatment of both groups of respondents for WTA estimation.

[1]  R. Gasson.  GOALS AND VALUES OF FARMERS , 1973 .

[2]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[3]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .

[4]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[5]  J. Cooper,et al.  COMBINING ACTUAL AND CONTINGENT BEHAVIOR DATA TO MODEL FARMER ADOPTION OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PRACTICES , 1997 .

[6]  Brian Bishop,et al.  Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation , 1999 .

[7]  K. Falconer.  Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. , 2000 .

[8]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[9]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions , 2002 .

[10]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites , 2002 .

[11]  John E. Keith,et al.  The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach , 2002 .

[12]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[13]  P. Horne.  Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation - A choice experiment based approach , 2004 .

[14]  Rob J.F. Burton,et al.  Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective , 2004 .

[15]  J. Lusk,et al.  Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment , 2004 .

[16]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[17]  Elisabetta Strazzera,et al.  Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach , 2005 .

[18]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test , 2005 .

[19]  John Rolfe,et al.  Diversification Choices in Agriculture: A Choice Modelling Case Study of Sugarcane Growers , 2005 .

[20]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[21]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments , 2005 .

[22]  Sara R. Jaeger,et al.  Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union , 2006 .

[23]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation , 2006 .

[24]  Mark Toogood,et al.  Factors Affecting European Farmers' Participation in Biodiversity Policies , 2006 .

[25]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology , 2007 .

[26]  Deborah J. Street,et al.  The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments , 2007 .

[27]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  How Much is Too Much? , 2008 .

[28]  Angela M. Dean,et al.  The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods , 2008 .

[29]  D. Pannell.  Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits , 2008, Land Economics.

[30]  Hayley H. Chouinard,et al.  Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection , 2008, Land Economics.

[31]  D. Mercer,et al.  Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation Beyond the Best Management Practices: Are Forestland Owners Interested? , 2009, Land Economics.

[32]  S. Hynes,et al.  Modelling farmers' participation in an agri-environmental scheme using panel data: an application to the rural environment protection scheme in Ireland. , 2009 .

[33]  N. Boatman,et al.  Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe--a review. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[34]  Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs: Predicting Landowner Enrollment and Opportunity Cost Using a Beta-Binomial Model , 2009 .

[35]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[36]  Louise Gallagher,et al.  Protest responses and community attitudes toward accepting compensation to host waste disposal infrastructure , 2010 .

[37]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study , 2010 .

[38]  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen,et al.  Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[39]  Eric Ruto,et al.  What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach , 2010 .

[40]  L. Toma,et al.  Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland , 2011 .

[41]  Anders Branth Pedersen,et al.  Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones—A choice experiment study , 2011 .

[42]  B. Matzdorf,et al.  Studies on Agri-environmental Measures: A Survey of the Literature , 2012, Environmental Management.

[43]  Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences , 2012 .

[44]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability , 2012 .

[45]  Mette Termansen,et al.  Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands , 2013, Regional Environmental Change.

[46]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protester or Non‐Protester: A Binary State? On the Use (and Non‐Use) of Latent Class Models to Analyse Protesting in Economic Valuation , 2012 .

[47]  M. Loureiro,et al.  The impact of protest responses in choice experiments: an application to a Biosphere Reserve Management Program , 2013 .

[48]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys , 2013, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[49]  M. Arriaza,et al.  Analysing the provision of agricultural public goods: The case of irrigated olive groves in Southern Spain , 2014 .

[50]  D. W. Mulatu,et al.  Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya , 2014 .

[51]  Magnus Söderberg,et al.  Marginal WTP and Distance Decay: The Role of ‘Protest’ and ‘True Zero’ Responses in the Economic Valuation of Recreational Water Quality , 2014 .

[52]  S. Mourato,et al.  Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine payments for environmental services schemes , 2014 .

[53]  M. Arriaza,et al.  The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain , 2015 .

[54]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes , 2015 .

[55]  J. M. Peterson,et al.  Transaction Costs in Payment for Environmental Service Contracts , 2015 .

[56]  S. Thoyer,et al.  Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus , 2016 .

[57]  Florian Heiss,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[58]  U. Latacz-Lohmann,et al.  Incentivizing and Tendering Conservation Contracts: The Trade-off between Participation and Effort Provision , 2016, Land Economics.