Choice Experiment Approach on Evaluation of Non-Market Farming System Outputs: First Results from Lithuanian Case Study

Authors: A. Novikova, L. Rocchi, G. Startiene

Abstract:

Market and non-market outputs are produced jointly in agriculture. Their supply depends on the intensity and type of production. The role of agriculture as an economic activity and its effects are important for the Lithuanian case study, as agricultural land covers more than a half of country. Positive and negative externalities, created in agriculture are not considered in the market. Therefore, specific techniques such as stated preferences methods, in particular choice experiments (CE) are used for evaluation of non-market outputs in agriculture. The main aim of this paper is to present construction of the research path for evaluation of non-market farming system outputs in Lithuania. The conventional and organic farming, covering crops (including both cereal and industrial crops) and livestock (including dairy and cattle) production has been selected. The CE method and nested logit (NL) model were selected as appropriate for evaluation of non-market outputs of different farming systems in Lithuania. A pilot survey was implemented between October–November 2018, in order to test and improve the CE questionnaire. The results of the survey showed that the questionnaire is accepted and well understood by the respondents. The econometric modelling showed that the selected NL model could be used for the main survey. The understanding of the differences between organic and conventional farming by residents was identified. It was revealed that they are more willing to choose organic farming in comparison to conventional farming.

Keywords: Choice experiments, farming system, Lithuania market outputs, non-market outputs.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3298864

References:

[1] Aldanondo-Ochoa A. M., Almansa-Sáez C. The private provision of public environment: consumer preferences for organic production systems. Land Use Policy, vol. 26.pp. 669–682, 2009.
[2] Arriaza M., Gomez-Limon J. A., Kallas Z., Nekhay O. Demand for non-commodity outputs from mountain olive groves? Agricultural Economics Review., vol. 9 no.1, pp. 5–23. Jan. 2008
[3] Baskaran R., Cullen R., Colombo S. Estimating values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research., vol. 52 no.4. pp. 377–389, Apr. 2009a.
[4] Baskaran R., Cullen R., Takatsuka Y. Estimating the value of agricultural ecosystem services: a case study of New Zealand pastoral farming. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management., vol. 16 no. 2. pp. 103–112, Feb. 2009b.
[5] Bennett J., Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. 2001.
[6] Christensen,T., Pedersen, A. B., Nielsen,H. O., Mørkbak, M. R., Hasler,B., Denver,S. Primary Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones—A choice experiment study. Ecological Economics, vol. 70 no 8. pp. 1558-1564, Aug. 2011.
[7] Goibov M., Schmitz P. M., Bauer S., Ahmed M. N. Application of a choice experiment to estimate farmers preferences for different land use options in Northern Tajikistan. Journal of Sustainable Development. vol. 5 no. 5.pp. 2–16. May 2012.
[8] Hasund K. P., Kataria M., Lagerkvist C. J. Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management., vol. 54 no. 1, pp. 31–53. Jan. 2011.
[9] Hensher D. A., Greene W. H. Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalizations. Transportation Research Part B., vol. 36, pp. 1–17. 2002.
[10] Houessionon P, Fonta W. M., Bossa A. Y., Sanfo S., Thiombiano N., Zahonogo P., Thomas B. Yameogo T. B., Balana B. Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: A discrete choice experiment approach. Sustainability., vol. 9. pp. 1672. DOI: 10.3390/su9091672. 2017.
[11] Jespersen L. M., Baggesen D. L., Fog E., Halsnæs K., Hermansen J. E., Andreasen L., Strandberg B., Sørensen J. T., Halberg N. Contribution of organic farming to public goods in Denmark. Organic Agriculture., vol. 7. pp. 243–266. 2017.
[12] Jianjun J., Chong J., Thuy T. D., Lun L. Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling city, China: a choice experiment study. Land Use Policy., vol. 30 no. 1. pp. 337–343. Jan. 2013.
[13] Jianjun J., Rui H., Wenyu W., Haozhou G. Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China. Land Use Policy., vol. 74. pp. 214–219. 2018.
[14] Khanal U., Wilson C., Managi S., Lee B., Hoang V., Gifford R. Psychological influence on survey incentives: valuing climate change adaptation benefits in agriculture. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies,. vol. 4, pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.1007/s10018-017-0195-4. Aug. 2017.
[15] Lancaster K. J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy., vol. 74. pp. 132–157. 1966.
[16] Madureira L., Lima Santos J., Ferreira A., Guimarães H. Feasibility Study on the Valuation of Public Goods and Externalities in EU Agriculture. European Commission. 2013.
[17] McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: ed. P. Zarembka. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 105–142. 1974
[18] Nacionalinė žemės tarnyba prie Lietuvos žemės ūkio ministerijos. 2017. Lietuvos Respublikos žemės fondas, 2017 m. sausio 1 d. Vilnius (In Lithuanian).
[19] Novikova A., Rocchi L., Startienė G. Evaluation of farming system outputs in Lithuania: methodological proposal. Žemės Ūkio Mokslai. vol. 25 no 4. pp. 205–215. Lietuvos mokslų akademija, 2018.
[20] Takatsuka Y., Cullen R., Wilson M., Wratten S. Values of Ecosystem Services on Arable Land and the Role of Organic Farming. Paper prepared for the 3rd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists. Kyoto, Japan, 3–7 July 2006.
[21] Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review., vol. 34 no. 4. pp. 273–286. Apr. 1927.
[22] Wang, X., Bennett, J., Xie, C., Zhang, Z., Liang, D. Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program: A choice modelling approach. Ecological Economics, 63 no. 1, pp. 114-125. Jan. 2007.
[23] Williams H. C. W. L. On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment and Planning, Part A., vol. 9. pp. 285–344. 1977.
[24] Lietuvos Statistikos Departamento duomenų bazė. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize#/ (Accessed 28 November, 2018) (In Lithuanian).