|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|92883||160096||2016||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Macro-regional patterns of public good provision by EU agriculture are revealed.
• Landscape and agricultural diversity explain patterns of public good provision.
• Context-rich scenarios are developed to value public goods of EU agriculture.
Agricultural landscapes deliver multiple, highly valued goods such as cultural amenities, biodiversity conservation and climate stability. These goods are often delivered as side-effects of farmers' production decisions driven by broad-scale, supranational changes in agricultural, trade or other policies. Human well-being is thus affected in ways not taken into account in these macro-policy decisions. To avoid this policy failure, there is a growing demand for the valuation of broad-scale changes in public goods by the general public. For this purpose, context-rich valuation scenarios at this broad scale need to be developed which are empirically-based, policy-relevant and understandable by the general public. In this way, respondents are focused on actual trade-offs rather than invited to give symbolic reactions. This paper presents and discusses a valuation framework developed to fulfil these criteria. The approach is based on a typology of Macro-Regional Agri-Environmental Problems (MRAEP). Each MRAEP is defined by: (1) prevailing farming systems and agricultural landscapes; (2) current levels of public-good delivery; (3) expected direction of land-use change; and (4) expected effects of such change on public-good provision in each macro-region. Multivariate analysis of EU-wide data on agricultural landscapes and farming-systems led to identify thirteen macro-regions in the EU. Current public-good provision was described using public-good indicators. Only those public goods that are expected to change or could be improved by available policy options (core public goods) were used to generate choice alternatives for survey respondents. The paper ends by discussing innovative elements in the proposed approach, achievements, shortcomings and possible policy uses.
Journal: Land Use Policy - Volume 53, May 2016, Pages 56–70