Monetary and non-monetary valuation of Mediterranean agricultural landscapes: The case of oak savannah and sloping olive groves
Abstract
Aim of study: This study aims to evaluate the public’s monetary and non-monetary preferences for agricultural landscapes, focusing on the role of landscape features, especially those influenced by farm management, and respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics, attitudes, and opinions about environmental sustainability.
Area of study: Andalusia, southern Spain.
Materials and methods: The study centers on Mediterranean oak savannah (dehesa) and sloping olive groves (SOG), using an online survey administered to a representative sample (N=1931) of the population in southern Spain. Photographic representations of the experimental plots were shown to respondents through best-worst scaling choice experiments to elicit their non-monetary preferences. The analysis is complemented with a contingent valuation question to assess the respondents’ willingness to pay for improving agricultural landscapes.
Main results: The results show that preferences regarding the visual quality of agricultural landscapes are significantly influenced by: (i) farm management, with environmentally sustainable farming practices found to be particularly aesthetically appealing; (ii) biotic elements, such as lush green vegetation, dense trees (especially in dehesa landscapes), and diverse tree species, the positive effects of which contrast with the negative effects of the presence of abiotic elements (inert cover, rocks, negative human-made elements); (iii) the alignment of trees, although only in olive groves; (iv) ephemeral elements, especially those related to seasonality and cloud cover; and (v) environmental attitudes and use values (e.g., frequency of visits to agricultural landscapes).
Research highlights: The findings can help inform the design of actions to improve the aesthetic performance of agricultural landscapes. Specifically, the use of an agri-system-specific approach is recommended, focusing on key scenery and ecological elements and certain areas displaying higher use values. This will enable both public (e.g., policy schemes) and private initiatives (e.g., economic diversification and sustainability labeling) to enhance the welfare contribution of agricultural landscapes.
Downloads
References
Albaladejo-García JA, Zabala JA, Alcon F, Dallimer M, Martínez-Paz JM, 2023. Integrating socio-spatial preference heterogeneity into the assessment of the aesthetic quality of a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 239: 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104846
Antrop M, 2000. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77(1-2): 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00089-4
Appleton J, 1975. The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons, London, UK. 296 pp.
Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega JF, Cañas-Madueño JA, Ruiz-Aviles P, 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 69(1): 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
Arriaza M, Gomez-Limon JA, Kallas Z, Nekhay O, 2009. Demand for non-commodity outputs from mountain olive groves. Agric Econ Rev 9(1): 5-23.
Bateman IJ, Willis KG (ed), 2001. Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 668 pp.
Burton N, Burton M, Fisher C, Peña PG, Rhodes G, Ewing L, 2021. Beyond Likert ratings: Improving the robustness of developmental research measurement using best–worst scaling. Behav Res Methods 53: 2273-2279. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01566-w
Byg A, Martin-Ortega J, Glenk K, Novo P, 2017. Conservation in the face of ambivalent public perceptions–The case of peatlands as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’. Biol Conserv 206: 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.022
Campbell D, 2007. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58(3): 467-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x
CAPADR, Consejería de Agricultura Pesca y Desarrollo Rural, 2023. The agrarian and fisheries sector in Andalusia. CAPADR, Sevilla.
Carmona-Torres C, Parra-López C, Sayadi S, Reina-Usuga L, 2023. Abandonment factors and alternatives in sloping olive growing: The case of Andalusia, Spain. Land Use Policy 132: 106836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106836
Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF, 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19: 173-210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
Chen CC, Wu JH, Wu CC, 2011. Reduction of image complexity explains aesthetic preference for symmetry. Symmetry 3(3): 443-456. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym3030443
Cheng CK, 2007. Understanding visual preferences for landscapes: An examination of the relationship between aesthetics and emotional bonding. Doctoral thesis. Texas A&M University.
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention. European Treaty Series No. 176. Council of Europe, Florence, Italy.
Emmerson M, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Batary P, Berendse F, Liira J, Aavik T, Guerrero I, Bommarco R, Eggers S et al., 2016. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. Adv Ecol Res 55: 43-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2016.08.001
Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Plieninger T, Pulido F, Moreno G, 2017. Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60: 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.022
Glenk K, Johnston RJ, Meyerhoff J, Sagebiel J, 2020. Spatial dimensions of stated preference valuation in environmental and resource economics: Methods, trends and challenges. Environ Resour Econ 75: 215-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-00311-w
Grammatikopoulou I, Pouta E, Salmiovirta M, Soini K, 2012. Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landsc Urban Plan 107(2): 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001
Granado-Díaz R, Colombo S, Romero-Varo M, Villanueva AJ, 2024. Farmers’ attitudes toward the use of digital technologies in the context of agri-environmental policies. Agri Syst 221: 104129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104129
Granado-Díaz R, Gómez-Limón JA, Rodríguez-Entrena M, Villanueva AJ, 2020. Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches. Eur Rev Agric Econ 47(2): 752-784. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz036
Granado-Díaz R, Gómez-Limón JA, Villanueva AJ, 2022. Spatial discounting in food products from high natural-value agroecosystems. Span J Agric Res 20(4): e0106. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2022204-18480
Granado-Díaz R, Villanueva AJ, Gómez-Limón JA, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2018. Análisis de la heterogeneidad de la demanda de bienes públicos procedentes del olivar de montaña en Andalucía. ITEA-Inf Tec Econ Agrar 114(2): 158-182. https://doi.org/10.12706/itea.2018.011
Hanemann WM, 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
Häfner K, Zasada I, van Zanten BT, Ungaro F, Koetse M, Piorr A, 2018. Assessing landscape preferences: A visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landsc Res 43(6): 846-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289
Howley P, Hynes S, Donoghue CO, 2012. Countryside preferences: Exploring individuals’ willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape. Landsc Res 37(6): 703-719. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.637619
Huber R, Finger R, 2020. A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for cultural services from grasslands in Europe. J Agric Econ 71(2): 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12361
Junge X, Lindemann-Matthies P, Hunziker M, Schüpbach B, 2011. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol Conserv 144(5): 1430-1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012
Junge X, Schüpbach B, Walter T, Schmid B, Lindemann-Matthies P, 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 133: 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T, 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 59(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2
Kaplan R, Kaplan S, 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 368 pp.
Klein LR, Hendrix WG, Lohr VI, Kaytes JB, Sayler RD, Swanson ME, Elliot WJ, Reganold JP, 2015. Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: Lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, U.S.A. Landsc Urban Plan 134: 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.019
Landis DA, 2017. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.005
LaRiviere J, Czajkowski M, Hanley N, Aanesen M, Falk-Petersen J, Tinch D, 2014. The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. J Environ Econ Manag 68(2): 376-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.07.004
Lasanta T, Nadal-Romero E, Arnáez J, 2015. Managing abandoned farmland to control the impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 52: 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.012
Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, Paracchini ML, Piorr A, Zasada I, 2015. Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ Plan Manag 58(12): 2088-2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.891975
Louviere J, Lings I, Islam T, Gudergan S, Flynn T, 2013. An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research. Int J Res Mark 30(3): 292-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.10.002
Lyons E, 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ Behav 15(4): 487-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583154005
Marley AA, Louviere JJ, 2005. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J Math Psychol 49(6): 464-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003
Martínez-García V, Zabala JA, Albaladejo-García JA, López-Becerra EI, Sánchez-Navarro V, Sánchez-Navarro JL, Boix-Fayos C, Martínez-Paz JM, Alcon F, 2024. Selection of incentives for a business strategy based on crop diversification. Span J Agric Res 22(3): e0104. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2024223-20967
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 155 pp.
Nekhay O, Arriaza M, 2016. How attractive is upland olive groves landscape? Application of the analytic hierarchy process and GIS in southern Spain. Sustainability 8(11): 1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111160
Parron L, Villanueva AJ, Glenk K, 2022. Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case. Ecosyst Serv 57: 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101476
Plieninger T, Flinzberger L, Hetman M, Horstmannshoff I, Reinhard-Kolempas M, Topp E, Moreno G, Huntsinger L, 2021. Dehesas as high nature value farming systems: A social-ecological synthesis of drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses. Ecol Soc 26(3): 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12647-260323
Rodríguez-Entrena M, Colombo S, Arriaza M, 2017. The landscape of olive groves as a driver of the rural economy. Land Use Policy 65: 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.017
Sayadi S, González-Roa MC, Calatrava-Requena J, 2009. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 26(2): 334-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003
Schaller L, Targetti S, Villanueva AJ, Zasada I, Kantelhardt J, Arriaza M, Bal T, Fedrigotti VB, Giray FH, Häfner K, et al., 2018. Agricultural landscapes, ecosystem services and regional competitiveness – Assessing drivers and mechanisms in nine European case study areas. Land Use Policy 76: 735-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.001
Schüpbach B, Weiß SB, Jeanneret P, Zalai M, Szalai M, Frör O, 2021. What determines preferences for semi-natural habitats in agrarian landscapes? A choice-modelling approach across two countries using attributes characterising vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan 206: 103954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103954
Serée L, Legras S, Chiron F, Valantin-Morison M, Gardarin A, 2023. People prefer arable fields and flower strips with continuous soil cover and diversified vegetation. Ecol Soc 28(2): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14098-280209
Targetti S, Marconi V, Raggi M, Piorr A, Villanueva AJ, Häfner K, Kurttila M, Letki N, Mihai C, Nikolov D, et al., 2022. Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry. An analysis of stakeholders’ perception of factors, issues and mechanisms. Bio-based Appl Econ 11(4): 351-371. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-12843
Tasser E, Lavdas AA, Schirpke U, 2023. Assessing landscape aesthetic values: Do clouds in photographs influence people’s preferences? PLOS ONE 18(7): e0288424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288424
Torres-Miralles M, Grammatikopoulou I, Rescia AJ, 2017. Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain). Ecosyst Serv 26: 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.002
van Zanten BT, Verburg PH, Espinosa M, Gomez-y-Paloma S, Galimberti G, Kantelhardt J, Kapfer M, Lefebvre M, Manrique R, Piorr A, et al., 2014. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: A review. Agron Sustain Dev 34: 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4
van Zanten BT, Koetse MJ, Verburg PH, 2016. Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study. Ecosyst Serv 22: 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.003
Viaggi D, Raggi M, Villanueva AJ, Kantelhardt J, 2021. Provision of public goods by agriculture and forestry: Economics, policy and the way ahead. Land Use Policy 107: 105273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105273
Villanueva AJ, Granado-Díaz R, Gómez-Limón JA, 2018. La producción de bienes públicos por parte de los sistemas agrarios. UCO Press, Córdoba, Spain. 276 pp.
Villanueva AJ, Salazar-Ordoñez M, Granado-Díaz R, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2021. Consumers’ preferences for traditional meat products: Production system and objective quality cues in Iberian ham. Ital J Anim Sci 20(1): 1987-2001. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1982419
Villanueva AJ, Granado-Díaz R, Salazar-Ordóñez S, 2025. Consumer preferences toward new circular bioeconomy agri-food products. Sustain Dev 33(2): 2614-2633. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3239
Wilson EO, 1986. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, London. 157 pp.
Wolpert F, Quintas-Soriano C, Plieninger T, 2020. Exploring land-use histories of tree-crop landscapes: a cross-site comparison in the Mediterranean Basin. Sustain Sci 15(5): 1267-1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00806-w
Copyright (c) 2025 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
Funding data
-
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Grant numbers PID2019-107693RR-C21/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033
