Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection: Survey
2.2. Data Collection: Questionnaire
2.2.1. Background Information
2.2.2. Willingness to Pay (WTP) Questions
2.2.3. Protest Answers
2.2.4. Views on Sustainable Agricultural Practice Benefits
2.2.5. Views on How Concerned Participants Are about Soil Quality Decline
2.2.6. Trust
2.2.7. Risk Attitudes
2.2.8. Time Preferences
2.2.9. Ambiguity Tolerance
2.2.10. Pro-Social Behavior
2.2.11. Socio-Demographics
2.3. Conceptualization of the Analysis
2.4. Data Analysis: Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation
2.5. Data Analysis: Model Estimation
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Willingness to Pay: Control and Treatment Models
3.2.1. UK—Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Improvement
3.2.2. Spain—Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Improvement
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; COM(2020)381; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
- Hessel, R.; Wyseure, G.; Panagea, I.S.; Alaoui, A.; Reed, M.S.; van Delden, H.; Muro, M.; Mills, J.; Oenema, O.; Areal, F.; et al. Soil-Improving Cropping Systems for Sustainable and Profitable Farming in Europe. Land 2022, 11, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veerman, C.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Bastioli, C.; Biro, B.; Bouma, J.; Cienciala, E.; Emmett, B.; Frion, E.; Grand, A.; Filchew, L.; et al. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life—Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, S.K.; Srivastava, A.K. On probability limits in snowball sampling. Biom. J. 1980, 22, 87–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Environment Agency. The State of the Evironmnet: Soil; Environment Agency: London, UK, 2019.
- Potter, C.; Goodwin, P. Agricultural liberalization in the European union: An analysis of the implications for nature conservation. J. Rural Stud. 1998, 14, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattison, E.H.A.; Norris, K. Bridging the gaps between agricultural policy, land-use and biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 610–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donald, P.F.; Green, R.; Heath, M. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 2001, 268, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.D.; Morris, A.J.; Arroyo, B.E.; Clark, S.C.; Bradbury, R.B. A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 75, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasso, V.; Sørensen, C.A.G.; Oudshoorn, F.W.; Green, O. Controlled traffic farming: A review of the environmental impacts. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 48, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batey, T. Soil compaction and soil management—A review. Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swinbank, A. Capping the CAP? Implementation of the Uruguay round agreement by the European union. Food Policy 1996, 21, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, S.; Farrelly, N.; Murphy, E.; O’Donoghue, C. Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutter, T.; Louwagie, G.; Schuler, J.; Zander, P.; Helming, K.; Hecker, J.-M. Policy measures for agricultural soil conservation in the European Union and its member states: Policy review and classification. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011, 22, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law); COM(2023) 4162023/0232 (COD); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2023.
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024; DEFRA: London, UK, 2020.
- European Commission. Common Agricultural Policy for 2023–2027: 28 CAP Strategic Plans at a Glance; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
- European Court of Auditors. EU Efforts for Sustainable Soil Management: Unambitious Standards and Limited Targeting; European Court of Auditors: Luxembourg, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Glenk, K.; Colombo, S. Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: An assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects. Clim. Chang. 2011, 105, 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franceschinis, C.; McBratney, A.; Eusse-Villa, L.; Field, D.; Thiene, M.; Meyerhoff, J. Society’s willingness to pay its way to soil security. Soil Secur. 2023, 13, 100122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.H.; Yang, J.; Hao, N. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice from Remediated Soil: Potential from the Public in Sustainable Soil Pollution Treatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimal, M.O.R.; Jetten, V. Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 1323–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eusse-Villa, L.F.; Franceschinis, C.; Thiene, M.; Meyerhoff, J.; McBratney, A.; Field, D. Attitudes and Preferences towards Soil-Based Ecosystem Services: How Do They Vary across Space? Sustainability 2021, 13, 8722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Entrena, M.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Espinosa-Goded, M.; Castro-Rodríguez, J. Evaluating the demand for carbon sequestration in olive grove soils as a strategy toward mitigating climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombo, S.; Hanley, N.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Designing Policy for Reducing the Off-farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 56, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombo, S.; Calatrava-Requena, J.; Hanley, N. Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almansa, C.; Calatrava, J.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. Extending the framework of the economic evaluation of erosion control actions in Mediterranean basins. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartkowski, B.; Massenberg, J.R.; Lienhoop, N. Investigating preferences for soil-based ecosystem services. Q Open 2022, 2, qoac035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Salvo, M.; Signorello, G.; Cucuzza, G.; Begalli, D.; Agnoli, L. Estimating preferences for controlling beach erosion in Sicily. Aestimum 2018, 72, 27. [Google Scholar]
- Holt, C.A.; Laury, S.K. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rieger, M.O.; He-Ulbricht, Y. German and Chinese dataset on attitudes regarding COVID-19 policies, perception of the crisis, and belief in conspiracy theories. Data Brief 2020, 33, 106384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Rieger, M.O.; Hens, T. How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016, 52, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGowan, F.P.; Denny, E.; Lunn, P.D. Looking beyond time preference: Testing potential causes of low willingness to pay for fuel economy improvements. Resour. Energy Econ. 2023, 75, 101404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Julia Ihli, H.; Chiputwa, B.; Winter, E.; Gassner, A. Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda. World Dev. 2022, 150, 105713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellsberg, D. Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Q. J. Econ. 1961, 75, 643–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLain, D.L. Evidence of the Properties of an Ambiguity Tolerance Measure: The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale–II (MSTAT–II). Psychol. Rep. 2009, 105, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorge, E.; Lopez-Valeiras, E.; Gonzalez-Sanchez, M.B. The role of attitudes and tolerance of ambiguity in explaining consumers’ willingness to pay for organic wine. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapert, M.I.; Thyroff, A.; Grace, S.C. The generous consumer: Interpersonal generosity and pro-social dispositions as antecedents to cause-related purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 838–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ONS. Employee Earnings in the UK: 2023. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/latest (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- ONS. Population Estimates for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland: Mid-2022. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2022 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- ONS. Education, England and Wales: Census 2021; Office for National Statistics: Newport, UK, 2023.
- INE. Encuesta de Estructura Salarial (EES)—National Salary Structure Survey. Available online: https://www.ine.es/dyngs/Prensa/avEES2022.htm (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- INE. Nivel de Formación Alcanzado por la Población Adulta—Level of Education attained by the Adult Population. Available online: https://www.ine.es/ss/Satellite?L=es_ES&c=INESeccion_C&cid=1259944520019&p=1254735110672&pagename=ProductosYServicios%2FPYSLayout¶m1=PYSDetalleFichaIndicador¶m3=1259937499084#:~:text=En%20el%20conjunto%20de%20la,%25%20el%20nivel%205%2D8 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- INE. Indicadores de Estructura de la Población—Population Structure Indicators. Available online: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=3198 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
- INE. Estadística Continua de Población (ECP)—Continuous Population Statistics. Available online: https://www.ine.es/dyngs/Prensa/ECP4T23.htm (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Shee, A.; Azzarri, C.; Haile, B. Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farsi, M. Risk aversion and willingness to pay for energy efficient systems in rental apartments. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3078–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elabed, G.; Carter, M.R. Compound-risk aversion, ambiguity and the willingness to pay for microinsurance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 118, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, S.; Xia, X.; Huang, L.; Cao, Y.; Fu, H.; Ren, Y. Does risk preference matter to consumers’ willingness to pay for functional food: Evidence from lab experiments using the eye-tracking technology. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 119, 105197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 689–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Langford, I.H.; Jones, A.P.; Kerr, G.N. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2001, 23, 191–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- List, J.A.; Gallet, C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 20, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, J.J.; Stevens, T.H. Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2004, 32, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, J.J.; Allen, P.G.; Stevens, T.H.; Weatherhead, D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ. 2005, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, M.; Grewal, R.; Liechty, J. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J. Mark. Res.. 2005, 42, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, M.; Loomis, J.; Kanninen, B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73, 1255–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C.; Hanemann, M.; Kopp, R.J.; Presser, S.; Ruud, P.A. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25, 257–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soil Improving Cropping System Component | Description |
---|---|
Cover crops, green manures, and intercropping | Help keep ground covered over winter when rain and winds can cause erosion; can reduce need for fertilizer and supply organic N if leguminous; create habitat for insects and therefore food for birds. |
Crop rotation | Rotating crops with a diverse mix of crops as well as livestock can increase soil health infiltration through different root lengths by adding a range of nutrients, therefore reducing the need for chemical inputs, improving soil structure and reducing the need for chemical pest and weed control. |
Fertilization/soil amendments | Adding compost, mulch, woodchips (fresh or composted), and animal manure reduces the need for chemical fertilizers. |
Soil cultivation | Reducing or eliminating the amount of plowing or tillage of the soil can improve soil health by reducing organic matter decline, keeping soil microbiology intact, and reduce compaction through less machine passes across fields as well as reducing fuel use and related emissions. |
Compact alleviation | Sub-soiling can be used to alleviate compaction (increasing infiltration and soil health), as well as using diverse cover crops (the roots of which can help aerate soil and improve structure), and reducing machinery passes across fields, e.g., reducing tillage. |
Controlled drainage | Re-use of water on farms; ditches, etc., to allow run-off; afforestation to reduce waterlogging. Improves crop productivity and resource use efficiency; minimizes the risk of waterlogging. |
Integrated landscape management | Mixed farming and rotations across farms; hedgerows and corridors for wildlife and beneficial predators; water harvesting, e.g., through dams and reservoirs. Improves biodiversity, pest management, and cropping system sustainability on a landscape-scale. |
Statement | |
---|---|
1 | I cannot pay. I do not have enough income |
2 | I will need to have more information about this policy |
3 | I am skeptical the money will go to farmers |
4 | I am already paying tax and I think the government has to use that money to support farmers |
5 | It is unfair for me to pay |
6 | I object to the way the question is asked |
7 | The money collected will not make a difference |
8 | My employment is temporary, uncertain; therefore, my commitment cannot be long term |
9 | Other, please state |
Statement | |
---|---|
1 | Creating habitat for insects and therefore food for birds |
2 | Improving soil health and structure |
3 | Reducing the need for chemical pest and weed control |
4 | Reducing fuel use and related emissions |
5 | Improving water use efficiency |
6 | Minimizing risks of salinization and desertification |
7 | Improving crop productivity |
8 | Minimizing the risk of waterlogging |
9 | Improving biodiversity |
10 | Improving cropping system sustainability |
Option A | Option B | Expected Payoff Difference |
---|---|---|
10% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 90% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 10% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 90% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | GBP/EUR 1.17 |
20% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 80% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 20% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 80% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | GBP/EUR 0.83 |
30% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 70% winning GBP/EUR/1.60 | 30% chance winning GBP/EUR/EUR 3.85 and 70% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | GBP/EUR 0.50 |
40% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 60% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 40% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 60% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | GBP/EUR 0.16 |
50% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 50% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 50% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 50% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 0.18 |
60% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 40% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 60% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 40% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 0.51 |
70% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 30% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 70% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 30% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 0.85 |
80% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 20% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 80% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 20% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 1.18 |
90% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 10% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 90% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 10% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 1.52 |
100% chance winning GBP/EUR 2.00 and 0% winning GBP/EUR 1.60 | 100% chance winning GBP/EUR 3.85 and 0% winning GBP/EUR 0.10 | −GBP/EUR 1.85 |
Statement | |
---|---|
1 | I don’t tolerate ambiguous situations well |
2 | I would rather avoid solving a problem that must be viewed from several different perspectives |
3 | I try to avoid situations that are ambiguous |
4 | I prefer familiar situations to new ones |
5 | Problems that cannot be considered from just one point of view are a little threatening |
6 | I avoid situations that are too complicated for me to easily understand |
7 | I am tolerant of ambiguous situations |
8 | I enjoy tackling problems that are complex enough to be ambiguous |
9 | I try to avoid problems that don’t seem to have only one “best” solution |
10 | I generally prefer novelty over familiarity |
11 | I dislike ambiguous situations |
12 | I find it hard to make a choice when the outcome is uncertain |
13 | I prefer a situation in which there is some ambiguity |
Statement | |
---|---|
1 | I would feel less bothered about leaving litter in a dirty park than in a clean one |
2 | Depending on what a person has done, there may be an excuse for taking advantage of them |
3 | With the pressure of grades and the widespread cheating in school nowadays, the individual who cheats occasionally is not really as much at fault |
4 | It doesn’t make much sense to be very concerned about how we act when we are sick and feeling miserable |
5 | If I broke a machine through mishandling, I would feel less guilty if it was already damaged before I used it |
6 | When you have a job to do, it is impossible to look out for everyone’s best interest |
7 | When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them |
8 | Other people’s misfortunes usually disturb me a great deal |
9 | When I see someone being treated unfairly, I usually feel pity for them |
10 | I am often quite touched by things that I see happen |
11 | I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me |
12 | I often feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems |
13 | I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person |
14 | My decisions are usually based on my concern for other people |
15 | I choose a course of action that maximizes the help other people receive |
16 | My decisions are usually based on concern for the welfare of others |
17 | I choose alternatives that minimize the negative consequences to other people |
18 | I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (e.g., books, packages, groceries, etc.) |
19 | I have let a neighbor whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value (e.g., tools, a dish, etc.) |
20 | I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid for it |
21 | I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger (e.g., to cross a street, to lift something, etc.) |
22 | When one of my loved ones needs my attention, I really try to slow down and give them the time and help they need |
23 | I am known by family and friends as someone who makes time to pay attention to others’ problems |
24 | I’m the kind of person who is willing to go the “extra mile” to help take care of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances |
25 | When friends or family members experience something upsetting or discouraging, I make a special point of being kind to them |
26 | It makes me very happy to give to other people in ways that meet their needs |
27 | I make it a point to let my friends and family know how much I love and appreciate them |
UK—Control (n = 449) | UK—Treatment (n = 433) | ESP—Control (n = 462) | ESP—Treatment (n = 448) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Mean (Std Dev) | Mean (Std Dev) | Mean (Std Dev) | Mean (Std Dev) |
SAP benefits | 7.993 (1.530) | 8.031 (1.654) | 8.404 (1.381) | 8.375 (1.375) |
Soil quality concern | 0.744 (0.437) | 0.736 (0.442) | 0.907 (0.291) | 0.920 (0.272) |
Ambiguity tolerance | 0.492 (0.500) | 0.416 (0.493) | 0.444 (0.497) | 0.426 (0.495) |
Pro-social behavior—high | 0.565 (0.497) | 0.515 (0.500) | 0.584 (0.493) | 0.581 (0.494) |
Pro-social behavior—low | 0.437 (0.497) | 0.485 (0.500) | 0.419 (0.493) | 0.420 (0.494) |
Risk aversion | 6.933 (2.305) | 6.952 (2.370) | 6.394 (2.487) | 6.469 (2.383) |
Time preference | 0.759 (0.428) | 0.733 (0.443) | 0.571 (0.495) | 0.583 (0.494) |
Trust in governance | 2.874 (2.030) | 3.145 (2.313) | 2.524 (2.010) | 2.641 (2.199) |
Trust in stewardship | 4.606 (1.830) | 4.962 (1.873) | 5.124 (1.859) | 5.452 (2.030) |
Age | 46.909 (15.816) | 45.951 (15.642) | 42.982 (13.619) | 42.728 (13.317) |
Gender | 0.508 (0.500) | 0.494 (0.501) | 0.487 (0.500) | 0.520 (0.500) |
Education level—primary/secondary/professional | 0.256 (0.437) | 0.296 (0.457) | 0.297 (0.457) | 0.261 (0.440) |
Education level—college | 0.254 (0.436) | 0.233 (0.423) | 0.271 (0.445) | 0.277 (0.448) |
Education level—university/post-graduate degree | 0.490 (0.500) | 0.471 (0.500) | 0.433 (0.496) | 0.462 (0.499) |
Income | 37,895 (23,262) | 40,471 (26,185) | 29,437 (20,535) | 29,218 (20,482) |
UK—Control | UK—Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Coeff. (Std Dev) | p-Value | Coeff. (Std Dev) | p-Value |
Constant | 12.686 (6.006) | 0.035 ** | 6.836 (6.735) | 0.310 |
SAP benefits | 1.485 (0.545) | 0.006 *** | 1.570 (0.577) | 0.007 *** |
Soil quality concern | 6.698 (1.778) | 0.000 *** | 3.524 (2.089) | 0.092 * |
Ambiguity tolerance | −3.331 (1.415) | 0.019 ** | −2.631 (1.609) | 0.102 |
Pro-social behavior—high | 2.436 (1.565) | 0.120 | 0.067 (1.725) | 0.699 |
Risk aversion | −0.284 (0.316) | 0.320 | −0.660 (0.348) | 0.058 * |
Time preference | −2.021 (1.566) | 0.197 | −4.615 (1.850) | 0.013 ** |
Trust in governance | 0.397 (0.399) | 0.320 | 0.462 (0.466) | 0.322 |
Trust in stewardship | 0.147 (0.472) | 0.755 | 0.794 (0.588) | 0.177 |
Age | −0.149 (0.046) | 0.001 *** | −0.102 (0.055) | 0.064 * |
Gender | −2.076 (1.489) | 0.046 ** | −0.641 (1.651) | 0.698 |
Education level—college | 0.691 (1.943) | 0.722 | 1.834 (2.194) | 0.403 |
Education level—university/post-graduate degree | 1.718 (1.759) | 0.329 | 2.557 (1.938) | 0.187 |
Income | 9.3 × 10−5 (3.2 × 10−5) | 0.004 *** | 7.3 × 10−5 (3.4 × 10−5) | 0.030 ** |
n | 449 | 433 | ||
Log-likelihood | −631.628 | −682.096 | ||
LR chi2 | 85.85 | 68.72 |
Spain—Control | Spain—Treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Coeff. (Std Dev) | p-Value | Coeff. (Std Dev) | p-Value |
Constant | 9.887 (6.429) | 0.124 | −2.034 (6.899) | 0.768 |
SAP benefits | 1.483 (0.695) | 0.033 ** | 1.898 (0.714) | 0.008 *** |
Soil quality concern | 5.432 (3.054) | 0.075 * | 3.571 (3.180) | 0.261 |
Ambiguity tolerance | 0.340 (1.657) | 0.837 | 2.096 (1.639) | 0.201 |
Pro-social behavior—high | 4.287 (1.779) | 0.016 ** | 1.732 (1.815) | 0.340 |
Risk aversion | 0.185 (0.327) | 0.572 | −0.023 (0.346) | 0.947 |
Time preference | −0.376 (1.637) | 0.818 | −0.661 (1.654) | 0.689 |
Trust in governance | 1.075 (0.446) | 0.016 ** | 0.958 (0.414) | 0.021 ** |
Trust in stewardship | 0.569 (0.485) | 0.209 | 0.617 (0.451) | 0.182 |
Age | −0.235 (0.063) | 0.000 *** | −0.084 (0.063) | 0.182 |
Gender | −2.124 (1.691) | 0.217 | −0.617 (1.708) | 0.720 |
Education level—college | −0.628 (2.151) | 0.770 | −0.474 (2.218) | 0.831 |
Education level—university/post-graduate degree | −0.080 (2.019) | 0.968 | 2.083 (2.004) | 0.299 |
Income | 5.5 × 10−5 (4.4 × 10−5) | 0.182 | 10 × 10−5 (4.3 × 10−5) | 0.013 ** |
n | 462 | 433 | ||
Log-likelihood | −619.963 | −586.911 | ||
LR chi2 | 50.47 | 46.97 |
Country and Group | Monthly Average WTP | Monthly Median WTP | Annual Average WTP | Annual Median WTP |
---|---|---|---|---|
UK—control (GBP) | 18.33 | 18.59 | 220 | 223 |
UK—treatment (GBP) | 20.26 | 19.72 | 243 | 237 |
Spain—control (EUR) | 24.37 | 24.40 | 292 | 293 |
Spain—treatment (EUR) | 23.82 | 23.89 | 286 | 287 |
SAP Benefits | Soil Quality Concern | Pro-Social Behavior | Trust in Governance | Average WTP Control | Average WTP Treatment | Diff. (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 5 | Low | 5 | 41.84 | 31.45 | −10.39 (−24.83) |
5 | 5 | High | 5 | 44.27 | 31.38 | −12.88 (−29.10) |
1 | 1 | Low | 1 | 7.52 | 9.38 | 1.86 (24.73) |
1 | 1 | Low | 10 | 11.09 | 13.70 | 2.61 (23.53) |
1 | 1 | High | 1 | 9.96 | 9.44 | −0.52 (−5.22) |
1 | 1 | High | 10 | 13.53 | 13.77 | 0.24 (1.77) |
1 | 10 | Low | 1 | 67.80 | 40.82 | −26.98 (−39.79) |
1 | 10 | Low | 10 | 71.37 | 45.15 | −26.22 (−36.74) |
1 | 10 | High | 1 | 70.24 | 40.89 | −29.35 (−41.79) |
1 | 10 | High | 10 | 73.81 | 45.22 | −28.59 (−38.73) |
10 | 1 | Low | 1 | 20.88 | 23.12 | 2.24 (10.73) |
10 | 1 | Low | 10 | 24.45 | 27.45 | 3.00 (12.27) |
10 | 1 | High | 1 | 23.32 | 23.19 | −0.13 (−0.56) |
10 | 1 | High | 10 | 26.89 | 27.51 | 0.62 (2.31) |
10 | 10 | Low | 1 | 81.16 | 54.57 | −26.59 (−32.76) |
10 | 10 | Low | 10 | 84.73 | 58.90 | −25.83 (−30.49) |
10 | 10 | High | 1 | 83.60 | 54.64 | −28.96 (−34.64) |
10 | 10 | High | 10 | 87.17 | 58.96 | −28.21 (−32.36) |
SAP Benefits | Soil Quality Concern | Pro-Social Behavior | Trust in Governance | Average WTP Control | Average WTP Treatment | Diff. (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 5 | Low | 5 | 41.93 | 33.22 | −6.98 (−20.77) |
5 | 5 | High | 5 | 45.57 | 34.95 | −12.35 (−23.30) |
1 | 1 | Low | 1 | 9.60 | 7.51 | −2.09 (21.77) |
1 | 1 | Low | 10 | 19.50 | 16.13 | −3.37 (−17.28) |
1 | 1 | High | 1 | 13.23 | 9.25 | −3.98 (−30.08) |
1 | 1 | High | 10 | 23.15 | 17.86 | −5.29 (−22.85) |
1 | 10 | Low | 1 | 58.59 | 39.65 | −18.94 (−32.33) |
1 | 10 | Low | 10 | 68.50 | 48.27 | −20.23 (−29.53) |
1 | 10 | High | 1 | 62.23 | 41.39 | −20.84 (−33.49) |
1 | 10 | High | 10 | 72.14 | 50.01 | −22.13 (−30.68) |
10 | 1 | Low | 1 | 23.45 | 24.60 | 1.15 (4.90) |
10 | 1 | Low | 10 | 33.36 | 33.22 | −0.14 (−0.42) |
10 | 1 | High | 1 | 27.09 | 26.33 | −0.76 (−2.81) |
10 | 1 | High | 10 | 37.00 | 34.95 | −2.05 (−5.54) |
10 | 10 | Low | 1 | 72.44 | 56.74 | −15.70 (−21.67) |
10 | 10 | Low | 10 | 82.35 | 65.36 | −16.99 (−20.63) |
10 | 10 | High | 1 | 76.08 | 58.47 | −17.61 (−23.15) |
10 | 10 | High | 10 | 85.99 | 67.09 | −18.90 (−21.98) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Areal, F.J. Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement. Land 2024, 13, 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081118
Areal FJ. Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement. Land. 2024; 13(8):1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081118
Chicago/Turabian StyleAreal, Francisco José. 2024. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement" Land 13, no. 8: 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081118
APA StyleAreal, F. J. (2024). Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement. Land, 13(8), 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081118