IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v86y2019icp189-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Danne, M.
  • Musshoff, O.
  • Schulte, M.

Abstract

The use of glyphosate plays an important role in farmers’ strategic decisions for reducing weed pressure and yield losses. In this paper, the use of glyphosate is analyzed as part of a complete agronomic strategy in which the farmer has to choose between the use of a combination of mechanical and chemical weed control. A special aim was to analyze the trade-off in the farmers’ preferences between a cultivation strategy with or without glyphosate. The empirical analysis is based on a discrete choice experiment with 328 German farmers. It was found that after the harvest of rapeseed, farmers have no clear preference for the use of glyphosate in a mulch seeding strategy. However, the preference for glyphosate use is affected by the weed pressure and the presence of specific weeds. While the farmers’ risk attitude has no influence on the decision to use glyphosate, we observed an increasing preference for its use on larger farms. Furthermore, our results reveal that farmers prefer mechanical weed control in pre-sowing instead of the use of selective herbicides in pre- or post-emergence. This preference increases if weed resistance is an issue on the farm. Potential yield impacts caused by glyphosate use show that yield losses have a higher impact on the farmers’ decision than yield gains. We conclude that farmers prefer the use of glyphosate to other alternatives as it is an important part of their agronomic strategy to prevent weed infestation and save work and labour costs, especially on large farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Danne, M. & Musshoff, O. & Schulte, M., 2019. "Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 189-207.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:86:y:2019:i:c:p:189-207
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718304137
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.023?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Maertens, Miet & Isabirye, Moses & Vanderhpydonks, Filip & Poesen, Jean & Deckers, Jozef & Vranken, Liesbet, 2015. "Coping with landslide risk through preventive resettlement. Designing optimal strategies through choice experiments for the Mount Elgon region, Uganda," Working Papers 232715, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Abhijit Sharma & Alastair Bailey & Iain Fraser, 2011. "Technology Adoption and Pest Control Strategies Among UK Cereal Farmers: Evidence from Parametric and Nonparametric Count Data Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 73-92, February.
    4. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    5. J. K. Horowitz & E. Lichtenberg, 1994. "Risk‐Reducing And Risk‐Increasing Effects Of Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 82-89, January.
    6. Schneider, Thea & Hartmann, Laura & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Luxusmarketing bei Lebensmitteln: Eine empirische Studie zu Dimensionen des Luxuskonsums in Deutschland," DARE Discussion Papers 1502, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Thomas Böcker & Robert Finger, 2016. "European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    8. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    9. 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.
    10. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    11. Ali Chalak & Kelvin Balcombe & Alastair Bailey & Iain Fraser, 2008. "Pesticides, Preference Heterogeneity and Environmental Taxes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 537-554, September.
    12. Yudelman, Montague & Ratta, Annu & Nygaard, David, 1998. "Pest management and food production: looking to the future," 2020 vision discussion papers 25, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Heß, Sebastian & Bergmann, Holger & Sudmann, Lüder, 2006. "Die Förderung alternativer Energien - eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187446, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    15. Schulte, Michael Clemens & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Wiese, Armin & Steinmann, Horst-Henning, 2016. "Die Ökonomische Bewertung Von Glyphosat Im Deutschen Ackerbau," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244761, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, September.
    17. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    18. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Daberkow, Stan G. & McBride, William D., 2001. "Decomposing The Size Effect On The Adoption Of Innovations: Agrobiotechnology And Precision Farming," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20527, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Theodoros Skevas & Spiro E. Stefanou & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2012. "Can economic incentives encourage actual reductions in pesticide use and environmental spillovers?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 267-276, May.
    20. Böcker, Thomas & Britz, Wolfgang & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Modelling the Effects of a Glyphosate Ban on Weed Management in Silage Maize Production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 182-193.
    21. Mußhoff, Oliver & Tegtmeier, André & Hirschauer, Norbert, 2012. "Attraktivität einer landwirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit: Einflussfaktoren und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten," DARE Discussion Papers 1213, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    22. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    23. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. Norbert Schulz & Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept “Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 26-48, January.
    27. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    28. Thomas G. Böcker & Robert Finger, 2017. "A Meta-Analysis on the Elasticity of Demand for Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 518-533, June.
    29. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    30. 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.
    31. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    32. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    33. 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.
    34. Kudsk, Per & Jørgensen, Lise Nistrup & Ørum, Jens Erik, 2018. "Pesticide Load—A new Danish pesticide risk indicator with multiple applications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 384-393.
    35. Jordan J. Louviere & Towhidul Islam & Nada Wasi & Deborah Street & Leonie Burgess, 2008. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 360-375, March.
    36. Hess, Sebastian & Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von & Sperlich, Stefan, 2010. "Numbers for Pascal: explaining differences in the estimated benefits of the Doha Development Agenda," DARE Discussion Papers 1001, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    37. Busse, Stefan & Brümmer, Bernard & Ihle, Rico, 2010. "Interdependencies between fossil fuel and renewable energy markets: the German biodiesel market," DARE Discussion Papers 1010, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    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. Amalie Bjørnåvold & Maia David & Vincent Mermet-Bijon & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes Dit Sourd & Steven van Passel & Vincent Martinet, 2023. "To tax or to ban? A discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences for phasing out glyphosate use in agriculture [Taxer ou interdire ? Une expérience de choix discret pour obtenir les préf," Post-Print hal-04057671, HAL.
    2. Clémentine Antier & Per Kudsk & Xavier Reboud & Lena Ulber & Philippe V. Baret & Antoine Messéan, 2020. "Glyphosate Use in the European Agricultural Sector and a Framework for Its Further Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Koppenberg, Maximilian & Hirsch, Stefan & Finger, Robert, 2023. "Effects of the debate on glyphosate's carcinogenic risk on pesticide producers' share prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Böcker, Thomas & Möhring, Niklas & Finger, Robert, 2019. "Herbicide free agriculture? A bio-economic modelling application to Swiss wheat production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 378-392.

    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. Fecke, Wilm & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "E-commerce in agriculture: The case of crop protection product purchases in a discrete choice experiment," DARE Discussion Papers 1803, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    6. 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.
    7. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    8. 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.
    9. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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).
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    13. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    14. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Societal attitudes in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," DARE Discussion Papers 1906, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! - The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," DARE Discussion Papers 1907, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    16. Bilal, Muhammad & Barkmann, Jan & Jaghdani, Tinoush Jamali, 2017. "To analyse the suitability of a set of soical and economic indicators that assesses the impact on SI enhancing advanced technological inputs by farming households in Punjab Pakistan," DARE Discussion Papers 1708, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    17. Buchholz, Matthias & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "An experimental analysis of German farmers’ decisions to buy or rent farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    19. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    20. Fanus Asefaw Aregay & Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao, 2016. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity for Integrated River Basin Management: The Case of the Shiyang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Glyphosate; Mulch seeding; Rapeseed; Agronomic strategy; Discrete choice experiment; Farmers’ preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:eee:lauspo:v:86:y:2019:i:c:p:189-207. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.