An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences
AbstractThis 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 108719.
Date of creation: Dec 2008
Date of revision:
Agricultural production; profit-maximization; environment; mixed logit; stated preference; attribute part-worth; nitrate leaching; soil erosion; risk; Crop Production/Industries; C10; D62; Q12; Q15; Q51;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
- D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
- Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
- Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics And Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753, August.
- Brock, William A & Durlauf, Steven N, 2001.
"Discrete Choice with Social Interactions,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 235-60, April.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Nyborg, Karine & Rege, Mari, 2003.
" Does Public Policy Crowd Out Private Contributions to Public Goods,"
Springer, vol. 115(3-4), pages 397-418, June.
- Karine Nyborg & Mari Rege, 2001. "Does Public Policy Crowd Out Private Contributions to Public Goods?," Discussion Papers 300, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
- Navarro, Peter, 1988. "Why Do Corporations Give to Charity?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(1), pages 65-93, January.
- Ekin Birol & Melinda Smale & Ágnes Gyovai, 2006. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate Farmers’ Valuation of Agrobiodiversity on Hungarian Small Farms," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(4), pages 439-469, August.
- David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
- 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 715-19, November.
- 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.
- 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, 07.
- 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 1137-62, December.
- José Moraga-González & Noemi Padrón-Fumero, 2002. "Environmental Policy in a Green Market," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 419-447, July.
- 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.
- 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 412-26, October.
- 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, 04.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.