Abstract
On Sado Island in central Japan, wildlife-friendly farming is widely practiced, using the crested ibis (Nipponia nippon) as an icon. On the basis of farmer preferences, we applied the best–worst scaling (BWS) approach to evaluate the difficulty of implementing seven representative wildlife-friendly farming practices on Sado Island. Typical wildlife-friendly farming practices include reduced inputs of agrochemicals (50 % or 80 % agrochemical reduction), organic (agrochemical-free) cultivation, winter flooding, installation of diversion ditches, installation of fishways, and installation of biotopes (fallow flooding). We conducted a questionnaire survey of 5,010 farmers on Sado Island who distributed rice to Japan Agricultural Cooperatives (JA) at the time of the survey. We employed two approaches to analyze the BWS data: counting analysis and econometric analysis. The results of both analyses showed that organic cultivation was the most difficult of all types of farming practices and that 50 % agrochemical reduction was the least difficult. As expected, the burden of implementing the various farming practices differed. When a farming practice can produce a certain amount of biodiversity with less burden, the practice is considered more efficient. The results of our analysis can be utilized to evaluate each farming practice by quantifying its cost-effectiveness. Our study approach may be an effective assessment tool for disseminating wildlife-friendly farming practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amano T, Kusumoto Y, Okamura H, Baba YG, Hamasaki K, Tanaka K, Yamamoto S (2011) A macro-scale perspective on within-farm management: how climate and topography alter the effect of farming practices. Ecol Lett 14(12):1263–1272
Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ (2007) Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J Bus Ethics 70(3):299–326
Bang H-S, Han M-S, Na Y-E, Kim M-H, Kang K-K, Lee J-T (2012) Biodiversity of inhabitants of animals and vascular plants in Korean paddy field ecosystem. In: Nakano S, Yahara T, Nakashizuka T (eds) The biodiversity observation network in the Asia-Pacific region: toward further development of monitoring. Ecological research monographs. Springer, Tokyo, pp 387–402
Bardi A, Lee JA, Hofmann-Towfigh N, Soutar G (2009) The structure of intra-individual value change. J Pers Soc Psychol 97(5):913–929
Buckley PJ, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ (2007) Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision making. J Int Bus Stud 38(7):1069–1095
Casini L, Corsi AM, Goodman S (2009) Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying best-worst scaling. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(1):64–78
Chrzan K, Golovashkina N (2006) An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Mark Res 48(6):717–740
Cohen SH (2003) Maximum difference scaling: improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. In Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sawtooth Software, Inc. 530:61–74
Cohen E (2009) Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(1):8–23
Daly TM, Lee JA, Soutar GN, Rasmi S (2010) Conflict-handling style measurement: a best-worst scaling application. Int J Confl Manag 21(3):281–308
Donald PF (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conserv Biol 18(1):17–37
Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Pub Policy Mark 11(1):12–25
Flynn TN (2010) Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10:259–267
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J (2007) Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26(1):171–189
Garver MS (2009) A maximum difference scaling application for customer satisfaction researchers. Int J Mark Res 51(4):481–500
Goodman S (2009) An international comparison of retail wine consumer choice. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(1):41–49
Hein KA, Jaeger SR, Carr BT, Delahunty CM (2008) Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Qual Prefer 19(7):651–661
Jaeger SR, Cardello AV (2009) Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: a comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worst scaling. Food Qual Prefer 20(3):249–258
Jaeger SR, Jorgensen AS, Aaslyng MD, Bredie WLP (2008) Best-worst scaling: an introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Qual Prefer 19(6):579–588
Kato M (2015) Endangered species in Japan: ex situ conservation approaches and reintroduction in the wild. In: Usio N, Miyashita T (eds) Social-ecological restoration in paddy-dominated landscapes. Ecological research monographs, Springer, Tokyo. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_6
Lane SJ, Fujioka M (1998) The impact of changes in irrigation practices on the distribution of foraging egrets and herons (Ardeidae) in the rice fields of central Japan. Biol Conserv 83(2):221–230
Lawler SP (2001) Rice fields as temporary wetlands: a review. Israel J Zool 47:513–528
Lee JA, Soutar GN, Louviere JJ (2007) Measuring values using best-worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol Mark 24(12):1043–1058
Lee JA, Soutar G, Louviere JJ (2008) The best-worst scaling approach: an alternative to Schwartz’s Values Survey. J Pers Assess 90(4):335–347
Louviere JJ, Islam T (2008) A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best–worst scaling. J Bus Res 61(9):903–911
Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ (2008) Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 1(1):128–163
Lusk JL, Briggeman BC (2009) Food values. Am J Agric Econ 91(1):184–196
Lusk JL, Parker N (2009) Consumer preferences for amount and type of fat in ground beef. J Agric Appl Econ 41(1):75–90
Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 49(6):464–480
McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142
Miyashita T, Yamanaka M, Tsutsui MH (2015) Distribution and abundance of organisms in paddy-dominated landscapes with implications for wildlife-friendly farming. In: Usio N, Miyashita T (eds) Social-ecological restoration in paddy-dominated landscapes. Ecological research monographs, Springer, Tokyo. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_4
Mueller S, Rungie C (2009) Is there more information in best-worst choice data? Using the attitude heterogeneity structure to identify consumer segments. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(1):24–40
Mueller S, Francis IL, Lockshin L (2009) Comparison of best-worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of consumer wine preferences. Aust J Grape Wine Res 15(3):205–215
Nakamura S, Tsuge T, Okubo S, Takeuchi K, Usio N (2014) Exploring factors affecting farmers’ implementation of wildlife-friendly farming on Sado Island, Japan. J Resour Ecol 5(4):370–380. doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.04.013
Natuhara Y (2013) Ecosystem services by paddy fields as substitutes of natural wetlands in Japan. Ecol Eng 56:97–106
Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573–582
Remaud H, Lockshin L (2009) Building brand salience for commodity-based wine regions. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(1):79–92
Saito S (2015) In search of biodiversity-oriented farming. In: Usio N, Miyashita T (eds) Social-ecological restoration in paddy-dominated landscapes. Ecological research monographs, Springer, Tokyo. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_16
Scarpa R, Notaro S, Louviere JJ, Raffaelli R (2011) Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):813–828
Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34(4):273–286
Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Usio N, Saito R, Akanuma H, Watanabe R (2015) Effectiveness of wildlife-friendly farming on aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity on Sado Island in Japan. In: Usio N, Miyashita T (eds) Social-ecological restoration in paddy-dominated landscapes. Ecological research monographs, Springer, Tokyo. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_7
Yu Y, Sun H, Goodman S, Chen S, Ma H (2009) Chinese choices: a survey of wine consumers in Beijing. Int J Wine Bus Res 21(2):155–168
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Ecological Restoration Programme (a donated program from Sado City) at CTER. The authors thank the respondents of the questionnaire survey as well as JA Sado and JA Hamochi for their cooperation and support in conducting the questionnaire survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsuge, T., Nakamura, S., Usio, N. (2014). Assessing the Difficulty of Implementing Wildlife-Friendly Farming Practices by Using the Best–Worst Scaling Approach. In: Usio, N., Miyashita, T. (eds) Social-Ecological Restoration in Paddy-Dominated Landscapes. Ecological Research Monographs. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55330-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55329-8
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55330-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)