Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US

This study used contingent valuation method to shed light on public preferences on the multifunctional roles of the US agriculture and to present a holistic estimate of the economic value of the nonmarket goods and services of US agriculture. Contingent valuation survey instrument was administered to a sample composed from the Ipsos web-based panel. Fishbein's model of reasoned behavior and mediation hypothesis were combined to model the relationship between WTP (behavioral intentions) and sets of explanatory variables including attitudes, perceived attributes (about family farms, farmland preservation programs, government involvement in agricultural markets, and ecological state of our world), and socio-demographic profiles. Results show that, while exerting a highly significant impact on WTP, attitudes mediate the effects of the attribute variables on WTP: i.e., the attributes influence WTP directly as well as indirectly through attitudes. The estimated mean WTP was $515 per taxpayer annually. Aggregating individual WTPs across the US taxpayers above 20Â years old produces $105 billion, representing a crude estimate of the economic value that the US consumers place on the multifunctional roles of US agriculture.

[1]  L. Tweeten.  Farm Commodity Programs: Essential Safety Net or Corporate Welfare? , 2008 .

[2]  Dennis Wichelns,et al.  Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland , 1994 .

[3]  R. Ready,et al.  What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America , 2009 .

[4]  A. Tegene,et al.  Farmland Protection: The Role of Public Preferences for Rural Amenities , 2002 .

[5]  Edward P. Lazear,et al.  A Jobs-Based Analysis of Labor Markets , 1995 .

[6]  D. Vanzetti,et al.  The "multifunctionality" of agriculture and its implications for policy. , 2004 .

[7]  F. Brouwer,et al.  Multifunctionality as an agricultural and rural policy concept. , 2004 .

[8]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates , 1994 .

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

[10]  F. Brouwer.  Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment , 2004 .

[11]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[12]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .

[13]  P. Paarlberg,et al.  Multifunctionality and Agricultural Trade Negotiations , 2002 .

[14]  J. Ruhl.  Farms and Ecosystem Services , 2008 .

[15]  P. Rosset.  The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations , 2000 .

[16]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[17]  L. Tweeten,et al.  Agricultural policy for the 21st century. , 2002 .

[18]  Roberto O. Valdivia,et al.  Modelling the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture: A Minimum-Data Approach , 2006 .

[19]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS : EVIDENCE FROM VOTING PATTERNS ON CALIFORNIA INITIATIVES * , 2008 .

[20]  A. Randall.  Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture , 2002 .

[21]  A. Burrell.  Multifunctionality and agricultural trade liberalisation , 2001 .

[22]  J. Bennett,et al.  Estimating Society's Willingness to Pay to Maintain Viable Rural Communities , 2004 .

[23]  J. Bennett,et al.  Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1999 .

[24]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Estimating Willingness to Pay from Survey Data: An Alternative Pre-Test-Market Evaluation Procedure , 1987 .

[25]  Alan Randall,et al.  Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit-Cost Test: Reply , 1989 .

[26]  S. Kraft.  Ecosystem Services: A 21st Century Policy Challenge , 2008 .

[27]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  J. A. Gómez-Limón,et al.  Decomposing the Value of Agricultural Multifunctionality: Combining Contingent Valuation and the Analytical Hierarchy Process , 2007 .

[29]  John P. Hoehn,et al.  Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods , 1991 .

[30]  J. A. Gómez-Limón,et al.  Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality , 2007 .

[31]  T. Dobbs.  Agricultural, Resource, And Ecological Economics With A "Multifunctionality" Perspective , 2002 .

[32]  Arild Vatn,et al.  Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes , 2002 .

[33]  S. Batie.  The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda , 2003, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[34]  J. Variyam,et al.  Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey , 1990 .

[35]  J. Kola,et al.  Finnish Citizens' Attitudes towards Multifunctional Agriculture , 2006 .

[36]  J. Pretty,et al.  Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and “Multifunctionality” , 2004 .

[37]  Matthew J. Kotchen,et al.  Random effects analysis , 2003 .

[38]  R. Dunlap,et al.  The “New Environmental Paradigm” , 1978 .

[39]  John M. Antle,et al.  Predicting the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture , 2006 .

[40]  W. Moon,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage , 2004 .

[41]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible? , 1995 .

[42]  L. Drake.  The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape , 1992 .

[43]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Contingent valuation of the public benefits of agricultural wildlife management: the case of Dutch peat meadow land. , 1998 .