Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-v9bzm Total loading time: 0.609 Render date: 2023-02-05T02:46:42.324Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

22 - Assessing the private value of agro-biodiversity in Hungarian home gardens using the data enrichment method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Ekin Birol
Affiliation:
Research Fellow Homerton College and Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK
Andreas Kontoleon
Affiliation:
University Lecturer in the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge
Melinda Smale
Affiliation:
Senior Economist International Plant Genetic Resources Institute and International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
Andreas Kontoleon
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Unai Pascual
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Timothy Swanson
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Hungarian agriculture today has a dual structure consisting of large-scale, mechanised farms alongside semi-subsistence, small-scale farms managed with family labour and traditional practices. Dualism has persisted in some form throughout Hungarian history. From 1955 to 1989, during the socialist period of collectivised agriculture, families were permitted to produce for their own needs on small tracts adjacent to their dwellings, commonly known as ‘home gardens’ (Szelényi 1998; Kovách 1999; Swain 2000; Szép 2000; Meurs 2001; Cros Kárpáti et al. 2004). These small-scale farms became refuges for a range of local varieties of trees, crops and livestock breeds, as well as soil micro-organisms. Agricultural scientists describe home gardens as micro-agro-ecosystems that are rich in several components of agro-biodiversity (Már and Juhász 2002; Csizmadia 2004).

Despite the changes engendered by transition to market economy during the past decade, the structure of agriculture remains dualistic, in part because incomplete food markets persist. In addition to lower agricultural incomes, high inflation and unemployment rates, consumers have difficulties obtaining reliable product information and predicting product availability (Feick et al. 1993). Search costs and transport costs to the nearest food market remain high. The number of hypermarkets in Hungary has grown from only 5 in 1996 to 63 in 2003 (Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO) 2003). A study by the World Health Organisation (WHO 2005) found that these have contributed to the disappearance of the few extant local shops and markets.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biodiversity Economics
Principles, Methods and Applications
, pp. 594 - 622
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. 1997. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 32 (1). 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W. L., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. 1994. Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26. 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, S. 2003. Guidelines for the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for the Valuation of Preferences for Non-market Goods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. R. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis, Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boxall, P. C., Englin, J. and Adamowicz, W. L. 2002. Valuing undiscovered attributes: a combined revealed-stated preference analysis of North America Aboriginal artifacts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 45. 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookfield, H. and Stocking, M. 1999. Agrodiversity: definition, description and design. Global Environmental Change. 9. 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T. A. 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Economics. 68 (3). 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G. and Scarpa, R. 2006. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. FEEM Working Paper No. 26.2006.
Chattopadhyay, S. 2000. The effectiveness of McFadden's nested logit model in valuing amenity improvements. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 30. 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropper, M., Deck, L., Kishor, N. and McConnell, K., 1993. Valuing product attributes using single market data: comparison of hedonic and discrete choice approaches. Review of Economics and Statistics. 75 (2). 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kárpáti, Cros Z., Gubicza, C., and Ónodi, G. 2004. Kertségek és kertmÛvelõk: Urbanizáció vagy vidékfejlesztés?Budapest: Mezõgazda.Google Scholar
Csizmadia, G. 2004. Analysis of Small Farm Useful Soil Nutritive Matter from Dévaványa, Örség-Vend and Szatmár-Bereg Regions of Hungary. Tápiószele: Institute of Agrobotany Working Paper.
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S. and Schulze, W. D. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Dalton, T. A. 2004. Household hedonic model of rice traits: economic values from farmers in West Africa. Agricultural Economics. 31. 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research. 24. 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earnhart, D. 2001. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics. 77 (1). 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earnhart, D. 2002. Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions using discrete choice analysis. Journal of Urban Economics. 5 (1). 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECOGEN. 2005. Economic Literature on Crop and Livestock Genetic Resources. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute and Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
Edmeades, S. 2006. A Hedonic Approach to Estimating the Supply of Variety Attributes of a Subsistence Crop. Environment and Production Technology Discussion paper No 148. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Englin, J. and Cameron, T. A. 1996. Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behaviour data: Poisson regression analyses with individual panel data. Environmental and Resource Economics. 7. 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO. 1999. Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. Maastricht: Conference Background Paper No. 1.
Feick, L. F., Higie, R. A. and Price, L. L. 1993. Consumer search and decision problems in a transitional economy: Hungary 1989–1992. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 93–113.Google Scholar
Fertü, I., Fogács, Cs. , Juhász, A. Kürhty, G, . 2004. Regoverning Markets.Budapest: Country report. http://www.regoverningmarkets.org/docs/country_study_ Hungary_new2005.pdf
Freeman, M. A. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Gyovai, Á. 2002. Site and sample selection for analysis of crop diversity on Hungarian small farms. In Smale, M., Már, I. and Jarvis, D. I. (eds.). The Economics of Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity on-Farm: Research methods developed from IPGRI's Global Project ‘Strengthening the Scientific Basis of In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity’. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Haab, T. C., and McConnell, K. E. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haener, M., Boxall, P. C. and Adamowicz, W. L. 2001. Modeling recreation site choice: Do hypothetical choices reflect actual behavior?AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics. 83 (3). 629–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R. E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. and Crabtree, B. 1998. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 49. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcsa, I., Kovách, I. and Szelényi, I. 1994. A posztszocialista átalakulási válság a mezügazdaságban és a falusi társadalomban. (Postsocialist Transitional Crisis in Agriculture and Rural Society). Szociológiai Szemle. 3. 15–43.Google Scholar
HCSO. 2001 2003. http://www.ksh.hu/pls/ksh/docs/index_eng.html. Budapest.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M. and Greene, W. H. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D. A. and Bradley, M. 1993. Using stated choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Marketing Letters. 4. 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, W., Hünnemeyer, A., Veeman, M., Adamowicz, W. and Srivastava, L. 2004. Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 31. 389–408.Google Scholar
Huber, J and Pinnell, J. 1994. The impact of set quality and choice difficulty on the decision to defer purchase. Working paper, Durham, NC: Duke University: The Fuqua School of Business.Google Scholar
Jabbar, M., Swallow, B., Iteran, d’ G. and Busari, A. 1998. Farmer preferences and market values of cattle breeds of west and central Africa. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 12. 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabbar, M. A. and Diedhiou, M. L. 2003. Does breed matter to cattle farmers and buyers? Evidence from West Africa. Ecological Economics. 45 (3). 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhász, I., Ángyán, J., FésÛs, I., Podmaniczky, L., Tar, F. and Madarassy, A. 2000. National Agri-Environment Programme: For the Support of Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Production Methods Ensuring the Protection of the Nature and the Preservation of the Landscape. Budapest: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Agri-Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Juhász, P. 2001. Mezügazdaságunk és az uniós kihivás (Hungarian Agriculture and the EU Challenge). Beszélü. April.Google Scholar
Kling, C. L. 1997. The gains from combining travel cost and contingent valuation data to value nonmarket goods. Land Economics. 73 (3). 428–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovách, I. 1999. Hungary: cooperative farms and household plots. In Meurs, M. (ed.). Many Shades of Red: State Policy and Collective Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Langyintuo, A., Ntoukam, G, Murdock, L., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. and Miller, D. 2004. Consumer preferences for cowpea in Cameroon and Ghana. Agricultural Economics. 30. 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankoski, J. (ed.). 2000. Multifunctional character of agriculture. Helsinki: Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Research Report No. 241.Google Scholar
Louviere, J. J. 1988. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D. and Adamowicz, W. L. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, D. 1959. Individual Choice Behaviour. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lupwayi, N., Rick, W. and Clayton, G. 1997. Zillions of Lives Underground. APGC Newsletter. http://www.pulse.ab.ca/newsletter/97fall/zillion.html.Google Scholar
Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 296. 1694–1697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Már, I. 2002. Safeguarding agricultural biodiversity on-farms in Hungary. In Smale, M., Már, I. and Jarvis, D. I. (eds.). The Economics of Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity On-farm: Research Methods Developed from IPGRI's Global Project ‘Strengthening the Scientific Basis of In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity’. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Már, I. and Juhász, A. 2002. A tájtermesztésben hasznosítható bab (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) egyensúlyi populációk agrobotanikai vizsgálata (Agrobotanical analysis of bean – Phaseolus vulgaris L. – equilibrium populations suitable for regional land cultivation). Debrecen, Hungary.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka, P. (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1978. Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In Karlqvist, A., L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars and J. W. Weibull (eds.). Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Meurs, M. 2001. The Evolution of Agrarian Institutions: A Comparative Study of Post Socialist Hungary and Bulgaria. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
National Labour Centre. 2000. http://www.ikm.iif.hu/english/economy/labour.htmBudapest.
Ndjeunga, J. and Nelson, C. H. 2005. Toward understanding household preference for consumption characteristics of millet varieties: a case study from western Niger. Agricultural Economics. 32 (2). 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, G. and Kealy, M. J. 1992. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics. 68. 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, T. and Jeffrey, S. 1995. Hedonic pricing of dairy bulls – an alternative index of genetic merit, Department of Rural Economy. Project Report 95-04. Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics. University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada.
Romstad, E., Vatn, A., R⊘rstad, P. K. and S⊘yland, V. 2000. Multifunctional Agriculture: Implications for Policy Design. Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Report No. 21.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R. S. and Loomis, J. B. 1999. The value of ranch open space to tourists: Combining observed and contingent behavior data. Growth and Change. 30 (3). 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruto, E. 2005. Valuing Animal Genetic Resources: A Choice Modelling Application to Indigenous Cattle in Kenya. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual BIOECON Conference “Economics and the Analysis of Biology and Biodiversity”. Kings College, Cambridge. 20–21 September.
Sarris, A. H., Doucha, T. and Mathijs, E. 1999. Agricultural restructuring in central and eastern Europe: implications for competitiveness and rural development. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 26. 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarpa, R., Drucker, A., Anderson, S., Ferraes-Ehuan, N., Gomez, V., Risopatron, C. R. and Rubio-Leonel, O. 2003a. Valuing animal genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of the box keken creole pig in Yucatan. Ecological Economics. 45 (3). 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarpa, R., Ruto, E. S. K., Kristjanson, P., Radeny, M., Drucker, A. G. and Rege, J. E. O. 2003b. Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: An empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecological Economics. 45 (3). 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeth, H. T., Chachnov, S., Surinov, A. and Braun, J. v. 1998. Russian poverty: muddling through economic transition with garden plots. World Development. 26 (9). 1611–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, N. 2000. Post-Socialist Rural Economy and Society in the CEECs: the Socio-Economic Contest for SAPARD and EU Enlargement. Paper presented at the International Conference: European Rural Policy at the Crossroads, The Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
, Swait J. and Louviere, J. 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research. 30. 305–314.Google Scholar
Swait, J., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. 1994. A sequential approach to exploiting the combined strengths of SP and RP data: application to freight shipper choice. Transportation. 21. 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szelényi, I. (ed.). 1998. Privatising the Land. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szép, K. 2000. The chance of agricultural work in the competition for time: case of household plots in Hungary. Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe. 22 (4). 95–106.Google Scholar
Szivós, P. and Tóth, I. G. 2003. Stabilization of the structure of society (Stabilizálódó társadalomszerkezet). Budapest: TÁRKI MONITOR Reports.Google Scholar
Unnevehr, L. 1986. Consumer demand for rice grain quality and returns to research for quality improvement in Southeast Asia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 68. 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vajda, L. 2003. The view from Central and Eastern Europe, Agricultural outlook forum 2003, Washington, DC: USDA. http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/ oc2003/speeches/vajda.pdf.Google Scholar
Weingarten, P., Baum, S., Frohberg, K., Hartmann, M. and Matthews, A. 2004. The future of rural areas in the CEE new member states. Network of Independent Agricultural Experts in the CEE Candidate Countries. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/ccrurdev/text_en.pdf
WHO. 2005. The Impact of Food and Nutrition on Public Health: The case for a Food and Nutrition Policy and an Action Plan for the European Region of WHO 2000–2005 and the Draft Urban Food and Nutrition Action Plan. http://www.hospitalitywales.demon.co.uk/nyfaweb/fap4fnp/fap_26.htm
Wyzan, M. 1996. Increased inequality, poverty accompany economic transition. Transition. 2 (20). 24–27.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×