Keywords
Economic Valuation
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP);
Choice Experiments;
direct Use Value;
Economic Efficiency
Environmental Awareness
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper explores innovative methodologies for valuating soil ecosystems, employing the willingness-to-pay (WTP) method and choice experiments to assess their economic significance comprehensively. Through these approaches, the study underscores the vital role of identifying specific land services, elucidating their indirect use value, and enhancing economic efficiency. A meticulous analysis incorporates various key determinants, such as the geographic location of respondents, their sociodemographic profiles, education levels, income brackets, and the degree of environmental consciousness. The findings offer insightful metrics for quantifying the indirect use value of land ecosystems, furnishing policymakers and stakeholders with evidence-based strategies to bolster economic efficiency. This research is pivotal in advancing sustainable development goals, safeguarding natural resources, and refining strategies for sustainable management. The implications extend beyond academic discourse, providing a practical framework for enhancing the stewardship of soil ecosystems in line with global sustainability efforts.
References
Claessens, L.A. (2021). A method for evaluating climate change adaptation strategies for small‐scale farmers using survey, experimental and modeled data. Agricultural Systems, 111, 85‐95. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X12000753
Costanza, R.D. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253‐260.
Diego Azqueta, D.S. (2007). Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 22‐30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.029.
Баутин, В.М., Козлов, В.В., & Мерзлов, А.В. (2007). Организация инновационного развития сельского бизнеса в регионе. – М.: ФГНУ «Росинформагротех».
Блауг, М. (1994). Теория благосостояния Пигу. // Экономическая мысль в ретроспективе = Economic Theory in Retrospect. (Vols. I‐II). – М.: Дело.
El Hage Scialabba, N., & Hattam, C. (2002). Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security Environment and natural resources series. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization.
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation. (2022 йил 06‐08). FAOSTAT. From fao.org: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL
Reganold, J.P., & Wachter, J.M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty‐first century. Nature plants, 1‐8.
Willer, H., & Kilcher, L. (2011). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2011. Bonn: IFOAM.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J.A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. *Nature*, 485(7397), 229-232.
Reganold, J.P., & Wachter, J.M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2, 15221.
Organic Trade Association. (2018). Organic cotton facts.
Боинчан, Б.П. (1999). Экологическое земледелие в республике Молдова. – Кишинев: Chisinau.
Падель, C. (1995). Основы и цели органно‐биологического земледелия. In C. Падель, & В. Нойербург, Земледелатель. – Тула: Филин.
Прижуков, Ф.Б. (1991). Альтернативное земледелие: опыт и проблемы. In Ф.Б.Прижуков, & Г.Г.Черепанов. – М.: НИИИТЭИ, Агропромиздат.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Economics and education