Using choice experiments to improve the design of weed decision support tools
AbstractThe potential for computer-based decision support tools (DSTs) to better inform farm management decisions is well-recognised. However, despite considerable investment in a wide range of tools, the uptake by advisers and farmers remains low. Greater understanding of the demand and the most valued features of decision support tools has been proposed as an important step in improving the impact of DSTs. Using a choice experiment, we estimated the values that Australian farm advisers attach to specific attributes of decision support tools, in this case relating to weed and herbicide resistance management. The surveys were administered during dedicated workshops with participants who give weed management advice to grain growers. Results from various discrete choice models showed that advisers’ preferences differ between private fee-charging consultants, those attached to retail outlets for cropping inputs, and advisers from the public sector. Reliably accurate results were valued, but advisers placed a consistently high value on models with an initial input time of three hours or less, compared to models that are more time demanding. Results from latent class models revealed a large degree of personal preference heterogeneity across advisers. Although the majority of advisers attributed some value to the capacity for DST output that is specific to individual paddocks, approximately one quarter of respondents preferred generic predictions for the district rather than greater specificity. The use of a novel non-market valuation approach can help to inform development of decision support tools with attributes valued by potential users.
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 University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 147031.
Date of creation: 29 Mar 2013
Date of revision:
Decision support; Weed management; Herbicide resistance; Adoption; Agriculture; Choice Modelling; Agribusiness; Farm Management; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies; Q19; Q51;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q19 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Other
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2013-04-20 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-20 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2013-04-20 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-DCM-2013-04-20 (Discrete Choice Models)
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.:
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, October.
- Ian J. Bateman & Roy Brouwer & Helen Davies & Brett H. Day & Amelie Deflandre & Salvatore Di Falco & Stavros Georgiou & David Hadley & Michael Hutchins & Andrew P. Jones & David Kay & Graham Leeks & M, 2006. "Analysing the Agricultural Costs and Non-market Benefits of Implementing the Water Framework Directive," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 221-237, 07.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
- Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
- Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
- David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
- McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
- Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
- Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-48, June.
- Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, 04.
- Hochman, Z. & Carberry, P.S., 2011. "Emerging consensus on desirable characteristics of tools to support farmers' management of climate risk in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(6), pages 441-450, July.
- Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J., 2010. "A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 675-682, November.
- Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
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.