IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/csdawp/108719.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Kipperberg, Gorm
  • Bond, Craig A.
  • Hoag, Dana L.

Abstract

This paper analyzes Colorado Corn producers’ preferences over both private- and environmental public-good production system attributes. Current production practices are characterized by intensive water and chemical use, resulting in non-point source pollution to water bodies as well as soil erosion problems. Data from a stated preference survey are employed to analyze key attributes of experimentally configured irrigation systems, proposed as alternatives to current practices. Panel mixed logit estimations find positive preferences for profit, risk reduction, and, importantly, systems with less environmental impact in terms of nitrate leaching and soil erosion. The results also find presence of significant preference heterogeneity and a complementary relationship between the two environmental attributes. Analysis of this kind can be used by policy makers to predict behavioral responses associated with introduction of new technologies, or to assess welfare implications of agricultural policy changes and stricter environmental regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kipperberg, Gorm & Bond, Craig A. & Hoag, Dana L., 2008. "An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences," Working Papers 108719, Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:csdawp:108719
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.108719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/108719/files/wp004-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.108719?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nyborg, Karine & Rege, Mari, 2003. "Does Public Policy Crowd Out Private Contributions to Public Goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 115(3-4), pages 397-418, June.
    2. Navarro, Peter, 1988. "Why Do Corporations Give to Charity?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(1), pages 65-93, January.
    3. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    4. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    5. G. C. Van Kooten & Ward P. Weisensel & Duangdao Chinthammit, 1990. "Valuing Trade-Offs between Net Returns and Stewardship Practices: The Case of Soil Conservation in Saskatchewan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(1), pages 104-113.
    6. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    8. José Moraga-González & Noemi Padrón-Fumero, 2002. "Environmental Policy in a Green Market," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 419-447, July.
    9. Robert Innes, 2006. "A Theory of Consumer Boycotts under Symmetric Information and Imperfect Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(511), pages 355-381, April.
    10. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    11. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    12. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
    13. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    14. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    15. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    16. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kverndokk, Snorre & Nyborg, Karine, 2003. "An economic model of moral motivation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 1967-1983, September.
    17. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    18. John C. Foltz & John G. Lee & Marshall A. Martin & Paul V. Preckel, 1995. "Multiattribute Assessment of Alternative Cropping Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 408-420.
    19. Ekin Birol & Melinda Smale & Ágnes Gyovai, 2006. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate Farmers’ Valuation of Agrobiodiversity on Hungarian Small Farms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(4), pages 439-469, August.
    20. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    21. William Lin & G. W. Dean & C. V. Moore, 1974. "An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(3), pages 497-508.
    22. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    23. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    24. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    25. Court, R H & Woods, Marry J, 1970. "Testing for Profit Maximization in an Empirical Situation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 11(3), pages 412-426, October.
    26. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    27. Furubotn, Eirik G & Pejovich, Svetozar, 1972. "Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1137-1162, December.
    28. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    29. Rehman, T. & Romero, C., 1993. "The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems: Some basic considerations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-255.
    30. Aydin Basarir & Jeffrey M. Gillespie, 2006. "Multidimensional goals of beef and dairy producers: an inter‐industry comparison," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(1), pages 103-114, July.
    31. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    32. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Youssef M Aboutaleb & Mazen Danaf & Yifei Xie & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2020. "Sparse Covariance Estimation in Logit Mixture Models," Papers 2001.05034, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    2. Gutsche, Gunnar & Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "Which private investors are willing to pay for sustainable investments? Empirical evidence from stated choice experiments," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 193-214.
    3. Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Are private investors willing to pay for sustainable investments? A stated choice experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201640, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    5. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    7. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    9. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Longzhong Shi & Xuan Chen & Bo Chen, 2023. "Covid‐19‐tested food labels," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 203-230, June.
    12. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    13. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.
    14. Jensen Jørgen Dejgaard & Mørkbak Morten Raun & Nordström Jonas, 2012. "Economic Costs and Benefits of Promoting Healthy Takeaway Meals at Workplace Canteens," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 1-29, December.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    17. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    18. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 29-37.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:csdawp:108719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dacsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.