Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The benefit transfer approach is recognised as a valid technique for valuation of
agro-biodiversity only if the circumstances at the study site are very close to those
of the policy site, which is highly unlikely. This does not necessarily imply that
the application of benefit transfer should be restricted to transfers within one and
the same region. Ready and Navrud
(2006)
explore the issues that must be
addressed when conducting benefit transfers between different regions (namely
between countries). They also provide information about the benefit transfer of
landscape values (Navrud and Ready
2007)
.
Monetary Values of Changes in Agro-biodiversity:
Some Examples
The existing valuation studies of agro-biodiversity and agricultural landscape use
TCM, CVM, and CM. TCM is applied only to visitors to the site and as such, it
captures only the 'use value' arising from recreation and tourism. There are also
hedonic price studies valuing open space, but here it is more difficult to isolate the
economic value of agricultural landscape. Thus, contingent valuation and choice
modelling studies are most relevant for capturing the multiple values of agricultural
landscape. OECD
(2001
, Annex Table 2) provides an overview of results from
selected stated preference studies, mostly contingent valuation studies, of agricultural
landscape and biodiversity conservation (recall that stated preference methods use
'hypothetical markets', described by means of a survey to elicit directly from
individuals the monetary value they assign to non-marketed goods and services).
It appears that the stated preference methods of CVM and CM have been
successfully applied to value rural amenities, see e.g. Dubgaard et al.
(1994)
,
Pruckner
(1995)
, Bergland
(1998)
, Santos
(1998)
and Dachary-Bernard
(2004)
.
Below we describe three of these studies in more detail.
Pruckner
(1995)
estimated the economic benefits from agricultural landscape-
cultivating activities in Austria in 1991. Multifunctionality of agriculture was taken
into account, in terms of e.g. protection from avalanches and landslides, erosion, and
contribution to the maintenance of rural culture. Tourists were first asked to select
from a list of 26 items those that they rated to be important for them at the holiday
resort. Then they were asked whether the farmers or some other specialists should
provide landscape-related services. Finally, an open-ended contingent valuation
question was applied to elicit their willingness to pay for landscape-cultivating
services, i.e. mowing grassland, thinning of forests, and taking care of the rural
network of walking paths. The mean and median WTP for these services were 9.20
ATS and 3.50 ATS per person per day, respectively.
4
Individual WTP varied with
the different nationalities of tourists.
4
One ATS (Austrian Shilling) was equivalent to 0.07 ECU (European Currency United) in 1995.
This means that, in terms of euros, the mean and median WTP for landscape-cultivating services
in Austria were €0.67 and €0.25 per person per day, respectively.
