Clicca qui per scaricare

The monetary value of the rural landscape in Gallura (Italy): a choice experiment analysis
Titolo Rivista: RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA 
Autori/Curatori: Fabio A. Madau, Pietro Pulina 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2013 Fascicolo: 2  Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  19 P. 7-25 Dimensione file:  908 KB
DOI:  10.3280/REA2013-002001
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


La tutela e la valorizzazione del paesaggio rurale rappresentano temi di rilievo strategico all’interno della Politica Agricola Comunitaria (PAC). E evidente, infatti, che le caratteristiche di un paesaggio rurale possono mutare significativamente a seconda dei possibili cambiamenti di scenario che condizionano l’uso delle superfici destinate all’agricoltura. Tali effetti possono essere indotti dalle dinamiche dei prodotti agroalimentari e dalle scelte promosse dal decisore pubblico. Le aree forestali, in virtu della loro valenza ricreazionale e di conservazione del territorio, rivestono un ruolo importante nel caratterizzare i paesaggi rurali. Il presente studio e volto a valutare il contributo delle foreste e di altri usi alternativi a fini agricoli nel determinare il valore del paesaggio rurale in Gallura (Sardegna, Italia). La metodologia Choice Experiment (CE) e stata applicata a questo scopo, con l’obiettivo di stimare il valore attribuito a tre specifici attributi paesaggistici, che riflettono altrettanti usi del suolo diffusi in Gallura: presenza di foreste, di vigneti e di pascolo. La disponibilita a pagare stimata per la conservazione della foresta e risultata essere assai piu alta di quelle relative al pascolo e ai vigneti. Da questi risultati discendono alcune importanti implicazioni sul piano degli indirizzi di politica agraria.


Keywords: Choice Experiment, paesaggio rurale, politica rurale, politica ambientale, foreste
Jel Code: Q23, Q51, Q56

  1. Abello R.P., Bernaldez F.G. (1986). Landscape Preference and Personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, XIII: 19-28.
  2. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J.J., Williams M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, XXVI, 3: 271-292,, DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1017
  3. Appleton K., Lovett A. (2003). GIS-based Visualisation of Rural Landscapes: Defining ‘Sufficient’ Realism for Environmental Decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, LXV: 117-131.
  4. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., O˝ zdemirog˘lu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson S. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences Technique. Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA), Edward Elgar Publishing.
  5. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  6. Bennett J.J., Blamey R.K. (2001). The Choice of Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
  7. Birol A., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. (2006). Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece, Ecological Economics, LX, 1: 145-156,, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecdecon.2006.06.002
  8. Birol A., Koundouri P. (2008a). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
  9. Birol A., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. (2008b). Applications of the Choice Experiment Method in Europe: a Review, in A. Birol, P. Koundouri (eds.). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 12-57.
  10. Bullock C.H., Kay J. (1997). Preservation and Change in the Upland Landscape: the Public Benefits of Grazing Management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, XL, 3: 315-334,, DOI: 10.1080/09640569712119
  11. Bureau J.C., Mahe L.P. (2008). CAP Reform beyond 2013: An Idea for a Long View. Notre Europe Paper (Studies & Research 64), www.notre-europe.eu (10.04.2011, h.15.45).
  12. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. (2009). Using Choice Experiments to the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements. Environment and Planning, XLI, 1: 97-111,, DOI: 10.1068/a4038
  13. Carvalho-Ribeiro S.M., Lovett. A. (2001). Is an Attractive Forest also Considered Well Managed? Public Preferences for Forest Cover and Stand Structure across a Rural/Urban Gradient in Northern Portugal, Forest Policy and Economics, XIII, 1: 46-54.
  14. Colson F., Strenger-Letheux A. (1996). Evaluation contingente et paysages agricoles. Application au bocage de Loire-Atlantique. Cahiers d’economie et sociologie rurales, 39/40: 151-177.
  15. Dekker T., Rose J.M. (2011). Shape Shifters: Simple Asymmetric Mixing Density for Mixed Logit Models. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) Working Paper 11/01.
  16. Del Bono C. (1993). Il distretto del sughero in Gallura, Sassari: Gallizzi.
  17. Domon G. (2011). Landscape as Resource: Consequences, Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Development, Landscape and Urban Planning, C, pp. 338-340,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2001.02.014
  18. Foster V., Mourato S. (2000). Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, LI, 1: 1-21.
  19. Gobster P.H. (1999). An Ecological Aesthetic for Forest Landscape Management, Landscape Journal, XVIII, 1: 54-64.
  20. Greene W.H. (2008). Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall International.
  21. Hanemann W.M. (1984). Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand. Econometrica, LII, 3: 541-562,, DOI: 10.2307/1913464
  22. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamovicz V. (1998a). Use Choice Experiment to Value the Environment. Design Issue. Current Experience and Future Prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics, XI, 3/4: 413-428,, DOI: 10.1023/A:1008287310583
  23. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. (1998b). Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, IL, 1: 1-15,
  24. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamovicz V. (2002). Do the Choice Experiment Pass the Scope Test? A Test of Scope in Choice Experiment Examining the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements. EAERE/AERE World Conference, Monterey, http://weber.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/5009.doc (20.04.2011, h. 12.15).
  25. Hausman J., McFadden D. (1984). Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica, LII, 5: 1219-1240,, DOI: 10.2307/1910997
  26. Idda L., Madau F.A., Orru E., Pulina P., Sini M.P. (2005a). Efficacy of European Policies on Rural Landscape: the Case Study of Sardinia (Italy), XI EAAE Congress, Copenhagen, http://purl.umn.edu/24778 (12.03.2011, h. 17.30).
  27. Idda L., Benedetto G., Madau F.A., Orru E., Pulina P. (2005b). The Structure of Rural Landscape in Monetary Evaluation Studies: the Main Analytical Approaches in Literature, XI EAAE Congress, Copenhagen, http://purl.umn.edu/24549 (10.03.2011, h.15.35).
  28. Idda L., Pulina P., Benedetto G., Madau, F.A. (2007). Sviluppo rurale, capitale sociale e vitivinicoltura multifunzionale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Johns H., Hanley N., Colombo S., O˝ zdemirog˘lu E. (2008). Economic Valuation of Environmental Impacts in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas in England, in A. Birol, P. Koundouri (eds.). Choice Experiment Informing Environmental Policy. Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 82-105. Lancaster K. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economics, LXXIV, 2: 217-231.
  30. Lankoski J., Ollikainen M. (2003). Agri-Environmental Externalities: A Framework for Designing Targeted Policies. European Review of Agricultural Economics, XXX, 1: 51-75,, DOI: 10.1093/erae/30.1.51
  31. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait, J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Maddala G.S. (1986). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Manski C. (1977). The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision, VIII, 3: 229-254,, DOI: 10.1007/BF00133443
  34. Marangon F. (ed.) (2006). Gli interventi paesaggistico-ambientali nelle politiche regionali di sviluppo rurale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  35. McFadden D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in P. Zarembka (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
  36. Ode A., Fry G., Tviet M.S., Messager P., Miller D. (2009). Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference. Journal of Environmental Management, XC, 1: 375-383,, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
  37. Paracchini M.L., Capitani C., Schmidt A.M., Andersen E., Wascher D.M., Jones P.J., Simoncini R., Carvalho Ribeiro S., Griffiths G.H., Mortimer S.R., Madeira L., Loupa Ramos I., Pinto-Correia T. (2012). Measuring Societal Awareness of the Rural Agrarian Landscape: Indicators and Scale Issues. Scientific and Technical Research Series 25192, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
  38. European Union.
  39. Pinto-Correia T., Carvalho-Ribeiro S. (2012). The Index of Function Suitability (IFS): A New Tool for Assessing the Capacity of Landscapes to Provide Amenity Functions. Land Use Policy, XXIX, 1: 23-34.
  40. Rambonilaza M. (2004). Evaluation de la demande de paysage: etat de l’art et reflexions sur la methode du transfert des benefices. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales, 70: 78-101.
  41. Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulink H. (2007). Perception of Rural Landscapes in Flandres: Looking beyond Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, LXXXII: 159-173.
  42. Sayadi S., Gonzalez-Roa M.C., Calatrava-Requena J. (2009). Public Preferences for Landscape Features: the Case of Agricultural Landscape in Mountainous Mediterranean Areas. Land Use Policy, XXVI, 2: 334-344,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003
  43. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. (2008). Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: a Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, XC, 4: 994-1010,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01155.x
  44. Soliva R., Bolliger J., Hunziker M. (2010). Differences in Preferences towards Potential Future Landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Research, XXXV, 6: 671-696,, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436
  45. Southern A., Lovett A., O’Riordan T., Watkinson A. (2011). Sustainable Landscape Governance: Lessons from a Catchment Based Study in Whole Landscape Design. Landscape and Urban Planning, CI, pp. 179-189.
  46. Thurstone L. (1927). A Law of Comparative Judgement. Psychological Review, XXXIV, 4: 273-286,, DOI: 10.1037/h0070288
  47. Tips W.E.J., Vasdisara T. (1986). The Influence of the Socio-economic Background of Subjects on their Landscape Preference Evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, XIII: 225-230.
  48. Turpin N., Dupraz P., Thenail C., Joannon A., Baudry J., Herviou S., Verburg, P. (2009). Shaping the Landscape: Agricultural Policies and Local Biodiversity Schemes. Land Use Policy, XXVI, 2: 273-283,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.004
  49. Tveit M.S. (2009). Indicators of Visual Scale as Predictors of Landscape Preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, XC, 9: 2882-2888., DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021
  50. van Berkel D.B., Verburg P.H. (2011). Sensitising Rural Policy: Assessing Spatial Variation in Rural Development Options for Europe. Land Use Policy, XXVIII, 3: 447-459,, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.002
  51. van Rensburg T.M., Mill G.A., Common M., Lovett J. (2002). Preferences and Multiple Use Forest Management. Ecological Economics, XLIII, 2/3: 231-244,, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00214-8
  52. Winter C. (2005). Preferences and Values for Forests and Wetlands: a Comparison of Farmers, Environmentalists, and the General Public in Australia. Society & Natural Resources, XVIII, 6: 541-555,, DOI: 10.1080/08941920590947986

Fabio A. Madau, Pietro Pulina, Il valore monetario del paesaggio rurale in Gallura: un’applicazione della Choice Experiment in "RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA" 2/2013, pp. 7-25, DOI:10.3280/REA2013-002001

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche