Estimating the value of ecosystem goods and services for private and public decision making in agriculture
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The main objective of this research is to explore new economic methods to evaluate and promote ecosystem services from agriculture. The three studies present economic methods to assess and improve the sustainable development of the agricultural sector.The first study evaluates agricultural land as a source of natural capital in the province of Quebec using a geographic information system coupled with a spatial hedonic pricing model of agricultural land transactions during the period 1990-2010. The results show that although the total area has increased slightly, the average real value per hectare has decreased over time suggesting the average quality has decreased. This would suggest that the value of natural capital of agricultural land has decreased over time. The results support the existence of a law protecting agricultural land from other uses to protect the value of the natural capital. In addition, better land development planning could be implemented to avoid unrecoverable loss.The second study investigates the cost of supplying an ecosystem good, i.e. improved water quality, from an agricultural watershed by adopting beneficial management practices. The scale at which the environmental policy is implemented has an impact on the cost of supplying the improved water quality. Setting the policy at the watershed scale is a lower cost alternative than setting the policy at the individual farm level. The study also investigated the factors affecting the ability of the farms to reduce pollution. The most crucial factor was farm size because it is more expensive for smaller farms to reduce pollution emissions since they have fewer opportunities. Policies should take this into consideration when designing programs supporting environmental protection initiatives. The third study evaluates how price premiums on food items can be used as incentives for agricultural producers to provide additional ecosystem services. Milk is used as a case study and three evaluation methods were used. Contingent valuation, choice modelling, and hedonic pricing were used to evaluate the price premium for environmental and health attributes. The results show that the location of production and health attributes were the most valued attributes while environmental protection and animal welfare provided low or no price premiums. The results generated from the three methods also provide additional information about the preferences of consumers and their behaviour. The ecosystem services that generate private benefits such as health attributes induced a larger market price premium while those that were of a common-pool nature did not generate a price premium. The dissertation illustrates how the agricultural sector can play a major role in future sustainable development. Agricultural policies in sustainable development are more effective for common-goods while markets can support environmental initiatives that influence private well-being.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».