Individuals' opinion on agricultural multifunctionality

  1. Vera Toscano, Esperanza
  2. Gómez-Limón Rodríguez, José Antonio
  3. Moyano Estrada, Eduardo
  4. Garrido Fernández, Fernando E.
Journal:
Spanish journal of agricultural research

ISSN: 1695-971X,  2171-9292

Year of publication: 2007

Issue: 3

Pages: 271-284

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5424/SJAR/2007053-248 SCOPUS: 2-s2.0-34548744564 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Spanish journal of agricultural research

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute further research on the conceptualization of agricultural multifunctionality through quantitative methods. The empirical analysis is based on a large dataset (Agrobarometre of Andalusia) consisting of self-reported measures of individual opinions on multifunctionality. Ordered probit models are proposed to analyze the extent to which individuals' perceptions of multifunctionality can be explained not only by individual and regional characteristics, but more importantly, by the preferences individuals have for a given type of agriculture. Results indicate that individuals are aware of the multi-dimensional nature of agriculture as a provider of private and public goods and services, although a big fraction of the population still focuses its demand on private goods production. It is not surprising that individuals' perceptions about the multifunctionality concept are site-specific, depending on the surrounding farming systems. Given their stated preference for a type of agricultural multifunctionality, the proposed quantitative method highlights those attributes of the concept which do not fully satisfy individuals' expectations. Overall, this manuscript provides a useful empirical tool for policy-makers concerned with improving satisfaction on the perception of multifunctionality in the agricultural sector.

Bibliographic References

  • ANDERSON K., 2000. Agriculture's multifunctionality and the WTO. Austral J Agric Resour Econ 44(3), 475-494.
  • ANDREONI J., 1989. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J Polit Econ 97(6), 1447-1458.
  • ANDREONI J., 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving? Econ J 100(401), 464-477.
  • BATIE S., 2003. The multifunctional attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: a research agenda. Agr Resour Econ Rev 32(1), 1-8.
  • BONNIEUX F., RAINELLI P., VERMERSCH D., 1998. Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture: a French case study. Environ Resour Econ 11(2), 135-151.
  • BOULANGER A., MEERT H., VAN HECKE E., 2004. The societal demand for public goods in peri-urban areas: a case from the Brussels urban region. Paper presented at the 90th Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economics, Rennes, October 28-29.
  • BROUWER F., 2004. Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment, governance, policy and multifunctionality. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar publishing.
  • BRUNSTAD R.J., GAASLAND I., VARDAL E., 1995. Agriculture as a provider of public goods: a case study for Norway. Agr Econ 13, 39-49.
  • CAHILL C., 2001. The multifunctionality of agriculture: what does mean? EuroChoices 1(1), 36-41.
  • CAP, 2004. Anuario de Estadísticas Agrarias y Pesqueras de Andalucía 2001. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca-Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla, Spain. [In Spanish].
  • CLARK A.E., 1997. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Econ 4(4), 341-372.
  • CLARK A.E., OSWALD A.J., 1994. Unhappiness and unemployment. Econ J 104(424), 648-659.
  • DELGADO M., RAMOS E., GALLARDO R., RAMOS F., 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: a necessary convergence. In: Multifunctionality: a new paradigm for European agriculture (Van Huylenbroeck G., Durand G., eds). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • DIENER E., LUCAS R.E., 1999. Personality and subjective well-being. In: Foundations of hedonic psychology: scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering (Kahneman D., Diener E., Schwarz N., eds). Russel Sage Foundation, NY.
  • DITELLA R., MCCULLOGH R.J., OSWALD A.J., 2001. Preferences over inflation and unemployment: evidence from surveys of subjective well-being. Am Econ Rev 91, 335-341.
  • EC, 1998. Contribution of the European Community on the multifunctional character of agriculture. DG Agriculture-European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
  • EC, 1999. Safeguarding the multifunctional role of agriculture: which instruments? DG Agriculture-European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
  • EC, 2000. Agriculture's contribution to environmentally and culturally related non-trade concerns. DG Agriculture-European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
  • GOETGELUK R., SCHOTTEN K., 2000. Rural land use in perspectives: the feasability of physical planning scenarios. In: Plurality and rurality: the role of the countryside in urbanised regions (Hillebrand J., Goetgeluk R., Hetsen H., eds). Den Haag: LEI.
  • GREENE W., 1990. Econometric analysis, MacMillan, NY.
  • GUYOMARD H., LE MOUËL C., GOHIN A., 2004. Impacts of alternative agricultural income support schemes on multiple policy goals. Eur Rev Agric Econ 31, 125-148.
  • HALL C., MCVITTIE A., MORAN D., 2004. What does public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. J Rural Stud 20, 211-225.
  • HARVEY D., 2003. Agri-environmental relationships and multi-functionality: further considerations. World Econ 26(5), 705-725.
  • HYYTIÄ N., KOLA J., 2005. Citizen's attitudes towards multifunctional agriculture. Dept Economics and Management, Helsinki Univ. Discussion Paper no 8.
  • IESA, 2004. Opinión pública, agricultura y sociedad rural en Andalucía. (Agrobarómetro-2003). Informe Síntesis, Informes y Monografías E-0304. Instituto de Estudios Sociales de Andalucía-CSIC. Córdoba, Spain. [In Spanish].
  • KNICKEL K., RENTING H., 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociol Ruralis 40(4), 512-528.
  • LANKOSKI J., OLLIKAINEN M., 2003. Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30, 51-75.
  • OECD, 2001a. Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD, Paris.
  • OECD, 2001b. Multifunctionality: applying the OECD analytical framework. Guiding policy design. OECD, Paris.
  • OECD, 2003. Multifunctionality: The policy implications. OECD, Paris.
  • PAARLBERG P.L., BREDAHL M., LEE J.G., 2002. Multifunctionality and agricultural trade negotiations. Rev Agr Econ 24(2), 322-335.
  • PETERSON J., BOISVERT R., DE GORTER H., 2002. Environmental policies for a multifunctional agricultural sector in open economies. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(4), 423-443.
  • PRETY J., 2003. The externalities and multifunctionality of agriculture. EuroChoices 2(3), 40-44.
  • RANDALL A., 2002. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(4), 289-307.
  • SANDVIK E., DIENER E., SEIDLITZ L., 1993. Subjective well-being: the convergence and stability of self and non self report measures. J Pers 61, 317-42.
  • VAN HUYLENBROECK G., DURAND G., 2003. Multifunctional agriculture, a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, London.
  • VAN PRAAG B.M.S., 1991. Ordinal and cardinal utility: an integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept. J Econometrics 50, 69-89.
  • VATN A., 2002. Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(3), 309-327.
  • YRJÖLÄ T., KOLA J., 2004. Consumer preferences regarding multifunctional agriculture. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 1, 78-90.
Data source: Dialnet