Advertisement

Paddy and Water Environment

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 217–222 | Cite as

Contingent valuation approach in measuring the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas in Japan

  • Hideo AizakiEmail author
  • Kazuo Sato
  • Hiroshi Osari
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to measure the economic value of the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas based on a more realistic assumption than that adopted in previous studies. Willingness to pay (WTP) for implementing a policy that would maintain a level of multifunctionality corresponding to a 20% decrease in the farmland area in Japan was measured by the double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation method (CVM). According to a country-wide survey, the overall median WTP was 4,144 yen per household annually. The multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas was classified into eight functions. The WTP for each of these functions was calculated taking into account the ratings assigned to the functions by the respondents. The WTP was 649 yen for flood prevention, 505 yen for recharging groundwater, 642 yen for water environment conservation, 445 yen for soil erosion prevention, 579 yen for organic resource utilization, 394 yen for the development of favorable landscapes, 290 yen for recreation and relaxation, and 641 yen for wildlife protection.

Keywords

CVM Economic value Environment Farmland WTP 

References

  1. Bennett RM, Blaney RJP (2003) Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agric Econ 29:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Halstead JM, Luloff IH, Stevens TH (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast J Agric Resour Econ 21(2):160–169Google Scholar
  3. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73:1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. OECD (1997) Environmental benefits from agriculture: Issues and policies, p 158Google Scholar
  6. OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework, p 159Google Scholar
  7. Randall A (2002) Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(3):289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Science Council of Japan (2001) Evaluating the multi-functions of agriculture and forests related to the global environment and human beings. http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/shimon-18-1.pdf (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  9. Stevens TH, Echeverria J, Glass RJ, Hager T, More TA (1991) Measuring the existence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show? Land Econ 67:390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Spash CL, Hanley N (1995) Preferences information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol Econ 12:191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. The Task Force for Evaluating the External Economies from Agriculture, National Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1998) An economic evaluation of external economies from agriculture by the replacement cost method. Q J Agric Econ 52(4):113–138 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  12. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 36:170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yoshida K, Kinoshita J, Goda M (1997) Valuing the environmental benefits of farmland and forests by the contingent valuation method. Q J Agric Econ 51(1):1–57 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  14. Yoshida K (1999) Contingent valuation approach to the environmental benefits from agriculture in the less-favored areas. Q J Agric Econ 53(1):45–87 (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Rural EngineeringTsukuba CityJapan
  2. 2.Rakuno Gakuen UniversityEbetsuJapan

Personalised recommendations