Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach

Alcón, Francisco; Marín-Miñano, Cristina; Zabala, José A.; de-Miguel, María-Dolores; Martínez‐Paz, José Miguel

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106593

Cited by 63 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their estimate for the non-market benefits ranged from US$50 to US$1240 per hectare per year for conventional fields and from US$460 to US$5240 per hectare per year for organic fields. A recent European study of Alcon et al (2020) evaluated the non-market value of cropping diversification in fruit tree production in Murcia region in Spain using a similar kind of consumer survey but based on a choice experiment approach. However, the survey of Alcon et al (2020) was narrower and did not include as many attributes as our study, e.g., food tradition or rural jobs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent European study of Alcon et al (2020) evaluated the non-market value of cropping diversification in fruit tree production in Murcia region in Spain using a similar kind of consumer survey but based on a choice experiment approach. However, the survey of Alcon et al (2020) was narrower and did not include as many attributes as our study, e.g., food tradition or rural jobs. Mean WTP analysis shows that, on the average, respondents are willing to pay a total amount of €24.58/household/month in order to support diversified cropping.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Non-Market Values of Agroecological and Socio-Cultural Benefits of Diversified Cropping Systems

Latvala

Regina

Lehtonen

2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored how consumers value the ecological and socio-cultural benefits of diversified food production systems in Finland. We used a stated preference method and contingent valuation to quantify consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits of increased farm and regional scale diversity of cultivation practices and crop rotations. Three valuation scenarios were presented to a representative sample of consumers: the first one focused on agroecosystem services on cropland, the second on wider socio-cultural effects and the third was a combination of them. The results suggest that consumers are willing to pay on the average €228 per household annually for the suggested diversification. This is equal to €245 per hectare of cultivated cropland. The results also indicate that 21% of consumers were not willing to pay anything to support more diverse cropping systems. The relatively high WTP for both agroecological and socio-cultural benefits provide important messages for actors in the food chain and for policy makers on future targeting of economic resources within agri-environmental schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Non-Market Values of Agroecological and Socio-Cultural Benefits of Diversified Cropping Systems

Latvala

Regina

Lehtonen

2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most serious ecological security problem caused by grassland degradation is soil erosion [25,27]. Soil erosion leads to nutrient losses, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium [28], which can not only reduce soil productivity [6], but also easily block the river and cause ecological disasters after being deposited [29,30]. To reverse the degradation and ensure the sustainable use of resources, multiple eco-environmental protection policy initiatives have been implemented in various countries [31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reverse the degradation and ensure the sustainable use of resources, multiple eco-environmental protection policy initiatives have been implemented in various countries [31][32][33][34]. It is worth mentioning that Chinese central government launched two phases of Subsidy and Incentive System for Grassland Conservation (SISGC) (2011-2015 and 2016-2020) in 2011, which is the subsidy and incentive policy covering the widest area in the world [30]. According to the SISGC, the grasslands were divided into grazing exclusion and livestock-forage balance areas based on their conditions [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Soil Erosion Responses to Grassland Conversation Policy in Three-River Headwaters, China

Zhao

Lin

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil erosion in the Three-River Headwaters (TRH) region has continued to intensify in recent decades due to human activities and climate change. To reverse this situation, the Chinese central government has launched the Subsidy and Incentive System for Grassland Conservation (SISGC). As a sign of the effectiveness of SISGC implementation, the dynamic changes of soil erosion can provide timely feedback for decision makers and managers. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model was used to simulate the spatial distribution of soil erosion before and after SISGC implementation, and Mann–Kendall (MK) test to reveal the effect of policy implementation. The results showed that: (1) the soil erosion in the TRH was mainly mild (83.83% of the total eroded area), and the average soil erosion rate and the total erosion were 13.63 t ha−1 y−1 and 323.58 × 106 t y−1 respectively before SISGC implementation; (2) SISGC implementation has curbed soil erosion. After SISGC implementation, the total soil erosion decreased by 3.80%, which showed obvious differences between grassland types; (3) The influences of SISGC were mainly because it has increased vegetation cover, further decreasing soil erosion. However, soil erosion in Alpine grassland has deteriorated, indicating direct targeted policymaking should be on the agenda. Furthermore, SISGC should be continued and grassland-type-oriented to restore the grassland ecosystem.

show abstract

“…Alcon et al[67]; Bernués et al[68]; Chen et al[69]; Dupras et al[70]; Jung[71]; Kubíčková[72]; Mazzocchi and Sali[73]; Nambuge et al[74]; Novikova et al[75]; Ohe[76]; Ragkos and Theodoridis[77]; Sangkapitux et al[78]; Tagliafierro et al[79]; Torres-Miralles et al[80] 2017; van Zanten et al [81]; Vivithkeyoonvong and Jourdain [82] 2017; Sejati et al [83]; Zabala et al [84]; Zhao and Huang. Lecina-Diaz et al [94]; Lefcheck et al [95]; Liu et al [96]; Puig-Montserrat et al [97]; Rollin et al [98] InVEST model Bhagabati et al [99]; Dai et al [100]; Du and Rong [101]; Goldstein et al [102]; Ma et al [103]; Pham et al [104]; Polasky et al [105] Models based on biophysical character Belem and Saqalli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes

Song

Robinson

Bardsley

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) has attracted increased attention from academics and policymakers in recent years. Academic researchers have utilised various approaches to assess and measure the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural landscapes. This paper outlines the nature of MFA and key supporting policies, before reviewing the applied research approaches, drawing primarily from the European Union and China where specific policies on MFA have been implemented to support rural development and promote sustainable rural communities. Four distinct types of valuation of modern MFA are recognised: economic, biophysical, socio-cultural, and holistic. Following a search of both the recent and older MFA literature, evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods applications are provided using examples from a range of recent studies. The review illustrates the diversity of approaches to measure MFA. While noting that many studies operate at a landscape scale, the challenge remains that the lack of commonality in the research approaches applied means it is difficult to provide effective comparisons between studies or to compare findings. A future research agenda will need to emphasise the need for more consideration of the roles of MFA research to support decision-makers, especially policy makers, but also farmers who largely make decisions for individual farms but, if considered collectively, can transform production systems at a landscape scale.

show abstract

Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach

Cited by 63 publications

References 69 publications

Evaluating Non-Market Values of Agroecological and Socio-Cultural Benefits of Diversified Cropping Systems

Evaluating Non-Market Values of Agroecological and Socio-Cultural Benefits of Diversified Cropping Systems

Examining Soil Erosion Responses to Grassland Conversation Policy in Three-River Headwaters, China

Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About