IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gewipr/262081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing Farmers’ Preferences fo Collaborative Arrangements: An Experimental Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Feil, J.-H.
  • Anastassiadis, F.
  • Mußhoff, O.
  • Kasten, P.

Abstract

This paper analyses farmers' preferences for farm-level collaborative arrangements (CAs) based upon a discrete choice experiment conducted in Germany. A mixed logit and a generalized multinominal logit model are used to determine whether farmers' decisions to establish a CA with a potential partner are influenced by non-monetary attributes like the age of the partner, the years of acquaintance with the partner or the production activities of the partner. Moreover, a monetary attribute is included to calculate the average individual's willingness-to-pay or 'implicit price' for a change in each of the non-monetary attributes. The results show that farmers' preferences for CAs increase, the closer their age is, the more years of (positive) acquaintance between them exist and the more similar their production activities are.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Kasten, P., 2016. "Analysing Farmers’ Preferences fo Collaborative Arrangements: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 51, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewipr:262081
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.262081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/262081/files/Bd51Nr26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/262081/files/Bd51Nr26.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.262081?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    3. Artz, Georgeanne & Colson, Gregory & Ginder, Roger, 2010. "A Return of the Threshing Ring? A Case Study of Machinery and Labor-Sharing in Midwestern Farms," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 805-819, November.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    5. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    6. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Helena Hansson, 2012. "Machinery-sharing in the presence of strategic uncertainty: evidence from Sweden," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43, pages 113-123, November.
    7. Allen, Douglas W & Lueck, Dean, 1998. "The Nature of the Farm," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 343-386, October.
    8. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    9. Matthias Benz, "undated". "Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity," IEW - Working Papers 243, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    11. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    12. Derek Byerlee & Klaus Deininger, 2013. "The Rise of Large Farms in Land-Abundant Countries: Do They Have a Future?," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Stein T. Holden & Keijiro Otsuka & Klaus Deininger (ed.), Land Tenure Reform in Asia and Africa, chapter 14, pages 333-353, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Johnson, Nancy L. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 1994. "Why are farms so small?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 691-706, May.
    14. Wolfley, Jared L. & Mjelde, James W. & Klinefelter, Danny A. & Salin, Victoria, 2011. "Machinery-Sharing Contractual Issues and Impacts on Cash Flows of Agribusinesses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Jochen Meyer & Stephan von Cramon‐Taubadel, 2004. "Asymmetric Price Transmission: A Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 581-611, November.
    16. Artz, Georgeanne M. & Colson, Gregory & Ginder, Roger G., 2010. "A Return of the Threshing Ring? A Case Study of Machinery and Labor-Sharing in Midwestern Farms," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1-15, November.
    17. Holderness, Clifford G., 2003. "Joint ownership and alienability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 75-100, March.
    18. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Gunnar Breustedt & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 237-256, June.
    20. Craig, Steven & Sumberg, James, 1997. "Machinery Rings in UK Agriculture: An Example of Opportunistic Cooperation," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 25(1).
    21. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2007. "Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 55-69, April.
    22. McBride, William D., 2012. "Production Costs Critical to Farming Decisions," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-8, July.
    23. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    2. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Simon Cornée & Madeg Le Guernic & Damien Rousselière, 2020. "Governing Common-Property Assets: Theory and Evidence from Agriculture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(4), pages 691-710, November.
    4. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    5. Irani, Alexandra & Chalak, Ali, 2015. "Harnessing motorists’ potential demand for hybrid-electric vehicles in Lebanon: Policy options, CO2 emissions reduction and welfare gains," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 144-155.
    6. 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).
    7. Arne Risa Hole & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(5), pages 997-1013, November.
    8. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Shall I Open the Window? An Experiment on Effort and Habits in Thermal-Comfort Adjustment Practices," FCN Working Papers 19/2016, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    9. Gerhardt, Michaela V. & Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "The Relevance of Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Vehicle Purchase Decisions: A Stated Choice Experiment for Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277675, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Michaela V. Gerhardt & Elke D. Kanberger & Andreas Ziegler, 2023. "The Relevance of Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Vehicle Purchase Decisions: A Stated Choice Experiment for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202305, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    13. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    15. Denzil G. Fiebig & Rosalie Viney & Stephanie Knox & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street & Arne R. Hole & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2017. "Consideration Sets and Their Role in Modelling Doctor Recommendations About Contraceptives," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 54-73, January.
    16. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    17. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    18. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.

    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:gewipr:262081. 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/gewisea.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.