Societal Demand for Commodity and Non-commodity Outputs – A Regional Perspective

  • Christian Schader
  • Heidrun Moschitz
  • Chris Kjeldsen
  • Jakub Wasilewski
  • Matthias Stolze
Chapter

Abstract

Societal demand for the multifunctionality of agriculture was analysed in four case-study regions by studying stakeholders’ perceptions of regional priorities. We used the Stakeholder Delphi Approach, which is a qualitative, two-step procedure, based on revealed preferences of a principal consisting of stakeholders and experts from the regions. The results of our case studies imply that demand for functions of agriculture is generally strong. Comparing the priorities among the case studies, we found different demand patterns in each region. Further discussion of the Wielkopolska case study, with a production-focussed demand pattern, and the River Gudenå case study, with a post-productivist pattern, illustrates the regional characteristics that have shaped the distinct demand pattern in these regions.

Keywords

budget exercise multifunctionality regional demand Stakeholder Delphi Approach 

References

  1. Belletti G, Brunori G, Marescotti A, Rossi A (2002) Individual and Collective Levels in Multifunctional Agriculture. University of Florence, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Casini L, Ferrari S, Lombardi G, Rambonilaza M, Sattler C, Waarts Y (2004) Research Report on the Analytic Multifunctionality Framework (AMF), MEA-Scope. www.bordeaux.cemagref.fr/public/documentation/publisAdbx/Casini2004.pdf. Cited 28 June 2007
  3. Central Statistical Office (2007) Warunki życia ludności Polski w latach 2004–2005. Centralny Urząd Statystyczny w WarszawieGoogle Scholar
  4. EC (2007) Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy. Special Eurobarometer 276 / Wave 66.3 – TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission (EC), Eurobarometer, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_276_en.pdf. Cited 13 August 2008
  5. EUROSTAT (2007) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. Cited 8 November 2007
  6. Henseleit M (2006) Möglichkeiten der Berücksichtigung der Nachfrage der Bevölkerung nach Biodiversität am Beispiel von Grünland in Nordrhein-Westfalen bei der Ausgestaltung eines ergebnisorientierten Honorierungskonzepts im Rahmen des Vertragsnaturschutzes. Dissertation at the Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Universität Bonn. Cuvillier Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Huber R, Haller T, Weber M, Lehmann B (2007) Land(wirt)schaft 2020: Was erwartet die Gesellschaft? Agrarforschung 14(9): 406–411Google Scholar
  8. Kędziora A (1995) Podstawy agrometeorologii (Fundamentals of agrometeorology; in polish). PWRiL, PoznańGoogle Scholar
  9. Loibl E (1997) Der Weg entsteht im Gehen – Bäuerliche Initiativen im ländlichen Raum – Forschungsbericht Nr. 39, Wien. www.berggebiete.eu. Cited 12 June 2006
  10. Lee JG, Paarlberg PL, Bredahl M (2005) Implementing multi-functionality. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4(3–4): 216–231Google Scholar
  11. Mann S (2004) The expert valuation method for assessing agro-environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(4): 541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Navrud S (2000) Valuation Techniques and Benefit Transfer Methods: Strengths, Weaknesses and Policy Utility. Valuing Rural Amenities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Schader C, Stolze M, Moschitz H (2007) Case Study on Regional Differences in Social Demand for Commodity and Non-Commodity Concerns. EU-MEA-Scope Public Deliverable 6.3. Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), FrickGoogle Scholar
  14. Surawska M, Kołodziejczyk R (2006) Zużycie środków ochrony roślin w Polsce (Consumption of pesticides In Poland; in Polish). Progress in Plant Protection 46(1): 470–483Google Scholar
  15. von Ziehlberg R (1999) Präferenzen für Naturschutz in der Agrarlandschaft – Eine Analyse der Ziele kommunaler Entscheidungsträger mit Hilfe von Budgetspielen. Heydorn, KielGoogle Scholar
  16. Waarts Y (2007) Indicators for agricultural policy impact assessment the case of multifunctional beef production. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional Land Use, Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. Ziglio E (1996) The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In: Adler M, Ziglio E (eds) Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and Its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. Jessica Kingsley, London, pp. 34–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Schader
    • 1
  • Heidrun Moschitz
    • 1
  • Chris Kjeldsen
    • 2
  • Jakub Wasilewski
    • 3
  • Matthias Stolze
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)FrickSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF)University of AarhusTjeleDenmark
  3. 3.Research Centre for Agricultural and Forest Environment (RCAFE), Polish Academy of SciencesPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations