Private Provision of Environmental Public Goods: A Pilot Program for Agricultural Heritage Conservation

  • 1 Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 6-10-1Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka-shi 812-8581, Japan;
    2 Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 6-10-1Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka-shi 812-8581, Japan

Received date: 2014-09-17

  Revised date: 2014-11-20

  Online published: 2014-12-18


While the true value of environmental goods may be captured in a one-off payment, it may be easier to add a smaller amount to a private good by means of donation and collect the total environmental value over time. For that, however we need to ensure the smaller amount of a heritage conservation donation added to a private good is adequate so that we can find retailers to participate in such fund-raising activities. We test the contingent valuation method's criterion validity by comparing their stated purchasing behavior with their actual behavior. The price increase from the addition of the donation did not affect total sales of the commodity. Adding a donation to specialized private goods may be an effective way to collect landscape and agricultural heritage conservation donations. Furthermore, our findings suggest that funds can be collected without affecting commodity sales. This approach is effective in other environmental protection activities.

Cite this article

NOMURA Hisako, YABE Mitsuyasu . Private Provision of Environmental Public Goods: A Pilot Program for Agricultural Heritage Conservation[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014 , 5(4) : 341 -347 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.04.009


Chijimatsu H. Valuation Estimation of Tourists for the Rural Landscape (Nouson Keikan ni Taisuru Kankokyakuno Kachi Hyouka). Hokkaido University. (in Japanese)

Cummings R G, G W Harrison, E E Rutström. 1995. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentivecompatible? The American Economic Review, 85(1): 260-266.

Higuchi M, Yoshida K. 1998. Case analysis of the rural landscape policy Yufuin-cho — Cost benefit analysis of rural amenity policy (Nouson Amenity Seisaku no Hiyo Futan to Beneki Hyouka-Yufuin-cho Nouson Keikan no Jirei). In: Agricultural Economics Research (Special Volume), The Agricultural Economics Society of Japan, 210-212. (in Japanese)

Hiraoka A. 2001. Waterwheels and the natural features climate (Suisha to Fuudo). Tokyo: Kokin Shoin. (in Japanese)

Johannesson M. 1997. Some further experimental results on hypothetical versus real willingness to pay. Applied Economics Letters, 4(8): 535-536.

List J A, C A Gallet. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3): 241-254.

Loomis J, T Brown, B Lucero, G Peterson. 1996. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics, 72(4): 450-461.

Maeda K. 1992. Japanese waterwheels and culture (Nihon no Suisha to Bunka). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. (in Japanese)

Mitchell R C, R T Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation methos. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1989.

Neill H R, R G Cummings, P T Ganderton, et al. 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70(2): 145-154.

Yabe M. 2011. Formulation of regional development policy based on the use of three waterwheels and survey on agricultural water conservation in the water source area. Kyushu University, Fukuoka. (in Japanese)

Yoshida K. 1996. Economic evaluation of rural landscape by contingent valuation method (Contingent Valuation Method ni yoru Nouson Keikan no Keizaiteki Hyoka), Quautery Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2): 1-45. (in Japanese)