Title: Metodyczne aspekty wyceny dóbr publicznych na obszarach wiejskich: koncepcja waloryzacji endogenicznej = Methodical aspects of public goods valuation in rural areas: the concept of endogenous valuation


Studia Obszarów Wiejskich = Rural Studies, t. 52


Czyżewski, Bazyli : Autor ; Matuszczak, Anna : Autor ; Przekota, Grzegorz : Autor



Place of publishing:



24 cm


The aim of the study is to create a conceptual framework for the valuation of the endogenous influence of public goods in rural areas using the new approach: the economic surplus valuation method (ESV), which implements the concept of producer and consumer rent. A distinctive feature of the ESV, compared to other market-based valuation methods is the assumption that public goods exert an endogenous impact upon resources and their productivity, but do not act in the model as exogenous variables (as it is in the case of hedonic pricing methods; the HPM). The authors’ approach limits the issues related to the specification bias within the HPM. Moreover, this manner reduces the problems associated with model specification errors in the HPM. The authors argue that ignoring the endogenous impact of public goods on resources and their productivity can lead to distorted results.


1. Barnard C.H., 2000, Agriculture and the Rural Economy: Urbanization Affects a Large Share of Farmland, Rural Conditions and Trends, 10 (2), s. 57-63.
2. Bartik T.J., 1987, The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price Models, Journal of Political Economy, 95 (1), s. 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1086/261442
3. Bateman I. (1993), Evaluation of the Environment: A Survey of Revealed Preference Techniques, GEC Working Paper 93-06, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, s. 15-20.
4. Bateman I., 1993, Valuation of the Environment, Methods and Techniques: Revealed Preference Methods, [w:] R.K. Turner (red.), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management, Principles and Practice, Belhaven Press, London, s. 192-265.
5. Bennett J.W., 1999, Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling, Choice Modelling Research Report No. 11, November, published by the School of Economics and Management, s. 5-27.
6. Bilbao-Terol C., Cañal-Fernández V., Valdés L., Del Valle E., 2017, Rural Tourism Accommodation Prices by Land Use-Based Hedonic Approach: First Results from the Case Study of the Self-Catering Cottages in Asturias, Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 9 (10), s. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101688
7. Bishop R.L., 1943, Consumer's Surplus and Cardinal Utility, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 57, s. 421-449. https://doi.org/10.2307/1881755
8. Bonnieux F., Desaigues B., 1998, Economie et Politiques de l'environnement, Dalloz, Paris.
9. Bórawski P., Brelik A., Czyżewski B. (red.), 2014, Rural development in Poland: the role of policy, tourism and human capital, Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Ekonomiczno-Społecznej w Ostrołęce, Ostrołęka.
10. Borresch R., Maas S., Schmitz K., Schmitz P.M., 2009, Modeling the Value of a Multifunctional Landscape: A Discrete Choice Experiment, Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economics Conference, Beijing, China, s. 3-10.
11. Brooke G.T.F., 2010, Uncertainty, Profit and Entrepreneurial Action, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 32, 2, s. 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837210000179
12. Buchanan J.M., 1968, The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, Rand McNally, Chicago.
13. Carson R.M., Bergstrom J.C., 2003, A Review of Ecosystem Valuation Techniques, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens.
14. Catliono A.H., Lizardo M., 2004, Agriculture, Environmental Services and Agro-Tourism in the Dominican Republic, electronic, Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, 1, 1, s. 87-116.
15. Chiueh Y.W., Chen M.C., 2008, Environmental multifunctionality of paddy fieldsin Taiwan: an application of contingent valuation method, Paddy Water Environ, 6, s. 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-008-0110-5
16. Currie J.M., Murphy J.A., Schmitz A., 1971, The Concept of Economic Surplus and its Use In Economic Analysis, Economic Journal, 81, 324, s. 741-799. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230317
17. Czyżewski B., Hnatyszyn A., Polcyn J., 2016, Problems of Quantifying Public Goods in the Healthcare Sector, Gospodarka Narodowa, 283, s. 105-125. https://doi.org/10.33119/GN/100785
18. Czyżewski B., Matuszczak A., 2016, Interwencjonizm rolny: pogoń za rentą a wybór publiczny lub korygowanie rynku, Ekonomista, 5, s. 674-703.
19. Czyżewski B., Matuszczak A., 2016, A new land rent theory for sustainable agriculture, Land Use Policy 55, 1-8, s. 222-229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.002
20. Czyżewski B., Matuszczak A., 2018, Towards measuring political rents in agriculture: case studies of different agrarian structures in the EU, Agricultural Economics (AGRICECON), 64, s. 101-114. https://doi.org/10.17221/286/2016-AGRICECON
21. Delbecq B.A., Kuethe T.H., Borchers A.M., 2014, Identifying the Extent of the Urban Fringe and Its Impact on Agricultural Land Values, Land Economics, 90, 4, s. 587-600. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.4.587
22. Dudu H., Kristkova Z., 2017, Impact of CAP Pillar II Payments on Agricultural Productivity, Contribution presented at the XV EAAE Congress, "Towards Sustainable Agri-food Systems: Balancing Between Markets and Society", 29.08-1.09.2017, Parma, Italy, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261171/files/Dudu%20H%20and%20Smeets%20Kristkova%20Z%20%282017%29%20Impact%20Of%20CAP%20Pillar%20II%20Payments%20On%20Agricultural%20Productivity.pdf
23. Flanders A., White F.C., Escalante C.L., 2004, Comparing Land Values and Capitalization of Cash Rents for Cropland and Pasture in Georgia, Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 14-18 February, s. 6-12.
24. Freeman A.M., Herriges J.A., Kling C.L., 1993, The Measurement of Environmental Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future, Washington.
25. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G., 1992, Goods' Characteristics: an Application of the Hedonic Price Method to Environmental Attributes, Journal of Environmental Management, 34, s. 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80110-0
26. Geoghegan J., Wainger L.A., Bockstael N.E., 1997, Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS, Ecological Economics, 23, 3, s. 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00583-1
27. Gopal M.H., 1939, Consumer's Surplus: A Reply, Indian Journal of Economics, 20, 2, s. 161-172.
28. Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J., 2002, A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services, Special issue: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating, Economic and Ecological Perspectives, Ecological Economics 41, s. 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
29. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E., 2002, Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
30. Henderson A., 1941, Consumer's Surplus and the Compensating Variation, Review of Economic Studies, 8, 2, 117-121. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967468
31. Hicks J. R., 1941, The Rehabilitation of Consumers' Surplus, Review of Economic Studies, 8, 2, s. 108-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967467
32. Huhtala A., 2004, What Price Recreation in Finland? - A Contingent Valuation Study of Non-Market Benefits of Public Outdoor Recreation Areas, Journal of Leisure Research, 36 (1), s. 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950009
33. Hvid A., 2015, Increasing Natural Resource Rents from Farmland: A Curse or a Blessing for the Rural Poor?, Peace Econ. Peace Sci. Pub. Pol., 21, 1, s. 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2014-0004
34. Koetse M.J., Brouwer R., Van Beukering P.J.H., 2015, Economic valuation methods for ecosystem services, [w:] J.A. Bouma, P.J.H. van Beukering (red.), Ecosystem Services: From Concept to Practice, Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, s. 108-131. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477612.009
35. Le Goffe P., 1996, La méthode des prix hédonistes: principes et application à l'évaluation des biens environnementaux, Cahiers d'économie et sociologie Rurales, 39-40, s. 179-198.
36. Little I.M.D., 1960, A Critique of Welfare Economics, Oxford University Press; 2nd edition, Oxford.
37. Maddison D., 2001, The Amenity Value of the Global Climate, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
38. Marshall A., 1893, On Rent, Economic Journal, vol. III, London. https://doi.org/10.2307/2956039
39. Marshall A., 1930, Principles of Economics, Macmillan and Co, London.
40. Mishan E.J., 1959, Rent as a Measure of Welfare Change, American Economic Review, 49, s. 386-395. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228031
41. Mishan E.J., 1968, What is Producer's Surplus?, American Economic Review, 58, 5, s. 1269-1282.
42. Mishan E.J., 1969, Rent and Producer's Surplus: Reply, American Economic Review, 59, 4, s. 635-637.
43. Mullainathan S., Gruber J., 2005, Do Cigarette Taxes Make Smokers Happier? The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 5, 1, s. 1-45. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1412
44. Munby D.L., 1968, Transport: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
45. Nilsson P., Johansson S., 2013, Location determinants of agricultural land prices, Review of Regional Research, 33, s. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-012-0071-4
46. Palmquist R.B., 1991, Hedonic Methods, [w:] J.B. Braden, C.D. Kolstad (red.), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, s. 77-119.
47. Pareto V., 1896, Cours d'Economie Politique, vol. 2, F. Rouge, Lausanne.
48. Pfouts R. W. 1953, A Critique of Some Recent Contributions to the Theory of Consumer's Surplus, Southern Economic Journal, 19, 3, s. 315-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/1054354
49. Plantinga A.J., Miller D., 2001, Agricultural land values and future development, Land Economics, 77, 1, s. 56-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146980
50. Poczta-Wajda A., Poczta J., 2016, The role of natural conditions in qualified agritourism - case of Poland, Agric. Econ. - Czech, 62, 4, s. 167-180. https://doi.org/10.17221/97/2015-AGRICECON
51. Rosen S., 1974, Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition, Journal of Political Economy, 82, s. 34-55. https://doi.org/10.1086/260169
52. Rutherford T.F., Whalley J., Wigle R.M., 1990, Capitalization, conditionality, and dilution: land prices and the US wheat program, J Policy Model, 12, 3, s. 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/0161-8938(90)90015-7
53. Samuelson P. A., 1951, Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
54. Samuelson P. A., 1967, Economics: An Introductory Analysis, McGraw-Hill, seventh edn., New York.
55. Santos J.L. i in. 2016, Building an empirically-based framework to value multiple publicgoods of agriculture at broad supranational scales, Land Use Policy, 53, s. 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.001
56. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson G., 2007, Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment, Land Economics, 83, s. 617-634. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.83.4.617
57. Schläpfer F., Waltert F., Segura L., Kienast F., 2015, Valuation of landscape amenities: A hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, s. 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.007
58. Shepherd A.R., 1970, Economic Rent and the Industry Supply Curve, Southern Economic Journal, 37, 2, s. 209-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1056131
59. Shi Y.J., Phipps T.T., Colyer D., 1997, Agricultural Land Values under Urbanizing Influences, Land Economics, 73, 1, s. 90-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147079
60. Tharakan K.J.M., 1939, The Theory of Consumer's Surplus: A Defense, Indian Journal of Economics, 19, 2, s. 413-420.
61. Ulbrich H., 2003, Public finance in theory and practice, South-Western Educational Publishing, Cincinnati.
62. Vanslembrouck I. i in., 2005, Impact of Agriculture on Rural Tourism: A Hedonic Pricing Approach, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 1, s. 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00120.x
63. Wasson J.R., McLeod D.M., Bastian C.T., Rashford B.S., 2013, The Effects of Environmental Amenities on Agricultural Land Values, Land Economics, 89, 3, s. 466-478. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.466
64. Wessel R.H., 1969, What is Producer's Surplus? Comment, American Economic Review, 59, 4, s. 634-635.
65. Żylicz T., 2007, Wycena dóbr nierynkowych, Czasopismo Aura, sierpień, http://sigma-not.pl/zeszyt-1452-aura-2007-8.html
66. Żylicz T., Bateman I., Georgiou S., Markowska A., Dziegielewska D., Turner R.K., Graham A., Langford I., 1995, Contingent valuation of eutrophication damage in the Baltic Sea region, CSERGE Working Paper GEC, 95-03, s. 38-49.


Studia Obszarów Wiejskich



Start page:


End page:


Detailed Resource Type:



File size 0,7 MB ; application/octet-stream

Resource Identifier:

oai:rcin.org.pl:76834 ; 1642-4689 ; 10.7163/SOW.52.1


CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, call no. Cz.4488 ; CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, call no. Cz.4489 ; click here to follow the link



Language of abstract:



Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 4.0] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Operational Program Digital Poland, 2014-2020, Measure 2.3: Digital accessibility and usefulness of public sector information; funds from the European Regional Development Fund and national co-financing from the state budget.






Citation style:

This page uses 'cookies'. More information