IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i11p3044-d235450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Efficiency of Organic and Conventional Cotton in Benin

Author

Listed:
  • Régina D.C. Bonou-zin

    () (Département d’économie et de sociologie appliquée à l’agriculture, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Madinat Al Irfane, B.P. 6202, Rabat 10101, Morocco
    Département d’économie et de sociologie rurales, Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou BP 123, Bénin)

  • Khalil Allali

    () (Département d’économie et de sociologie appliquée à l’agriculture, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Madinat Al Irfane, B.P. 6202, Rabat 10101, Morocco
    Ecole Nationale d’Agriculture de Meknès (Morocco), Département d’Economie Rurale, B.P. S/40, Meknès 50001, Morocco)

  • Aziz Fadlaoui

    () (Department of Management of Natural Resources, Economics and Sociology and Quality, Regional Agricultural Research Center, Meknes, BP 578 (VN), Meknès 50000, Morocco)

Abstract

Recent years have seen an increasing awareness of the relative advantage of organic and conventional agriculture. This study aims to analyze the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional cotton in Benin. A Translog hyperbolic distance function which allows us to consider the joint production of desirable and undesirable output is used to analyze the environmental efficiency among organic and conventional cotton production farmers. The model includes factors that affect environmental efficiency. Greenhouse gas (GHG) was used as an indicator of undesirable output. Data were collected from 355 cotton producers (180 organics and 175 conventional) randomly selected in the cotton belt of Northern Benin. The results show that although organic cotton producers contribute less to GHG emission, they are environmentally inefficient compared to their conventional counterparts. Producers could improve the quantity of cotton produced by 27% and 17% while reducing emissions by 21% and 14% respectively for both organic and conventional cotton to achieve better environmental performance. However, the analysis of the shadow price revealed that organic cotton producers face lower opportunity cost than conventional producers. These results suggest that there is a need for more technical support and environmental education to improve the environmental efficiency of organic cotton in Benin.

Suggested Citation

  • Régina D.C. Bonou-zin & Khalil Allali & Aziz Fadlaoui, 2019. "Environmental Efficiency of Organic and Conventional Cotton in Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3044-:d:235450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3044/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3044/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epiphane Sodjinou & Laurent Glin & Gian Nicolay & Silvère Tovignan & Jonas Hinvi, 2015. "Socioeconomic determinants of organic cotton adoption in Benin, West Africa," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Cuesta, Rafael A. & Lovell, C.A. Knox & Zofío, José L., 2009. "Environmental efficiency measurement with translog distance functions: A parametric approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2232-2242, June.
    3. Teresa Serra & Barry Goodwin, 2009. "The efficiency of Spanish arable crop organic farms, a local maximum likelihood approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 113-124, April.
    4. MARCHAND, Sébastien & GUO, Huanxiu, 2014. "The environmental efficiency of non-certified organic farming in China: A case study of paddy rice production," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 201-216.
    5. Njuki, Eric & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Mukherjee, Deep, 2016. "The Good and the Bad: Environmental Efficiency in Northeastern U.S. Dairy Farming," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 22-43, April.
    6. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Noh, Dong-Woon & Weber, William, 2005. "Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 469-492, June.
    7. Kumbhakar,Subal C. & Wang,Hung-Jen & Horncastle,Alan P., 2015. "A Practitioner's Guide to Stochastic Frontier Analysis Using Stata," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107029514, June.
    8. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Ghosh, Soumendra & McGuckin, J Thomas, 1991. "A Generalized Production Frontier Approach for Estimating Determinants of Inefficiency in U.S. Dairy Farms," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 9(3), pages 279-286, July.
    9. Kodde, David A & Palm, Franz C, 1986. "Wald Criteria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequality Restriction s," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(5), pages 1243-1248, September.
    10. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    11. Subal Kumbhakar & Luis Orea & Ana Rodríguez-Álvarez & Efthymios Tsionas, 2007. "Do we estimate an input or an output distance function? An application of the mixture approach to European railways," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 87-100, April.
    12. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    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. Huang, Wei & Bruemmer, Bernhard & Huntsinger, Lynn, 2016. "Incorporating measures of grassland productivity into efficiency estimates for livestock grazing on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Yung-Hsiang Lu & Ku-Hsieh Chen & Jen-Chi Cheng & Chih-Chun Chen & Sian-Yuan Li, 2019. "Analysis of Environmental Productivity on Fossil Fuel Power Plants in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(24), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Dipanwita Sarkar & Trevor C. Collier, 2019. "Does host-country education mitigate immigrant inefficiency? Evidence from earnings of Australian university graduates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 81-106, January.
    4. Tom Kompas & Tuong Nhu Che & R. Quentin Grafton, 2004. "Technical efficiency effects of input controls: evidence from Australia's banana prawn fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15), pages 1631-1641.
    5. Daniel Solís & Boris E. Bravo‐Ureta & Ricardo E. Quiroga, 2009. "Technical Efficiency among Peasant Farmers Participating in Natural Resource Management Programmes in Central America," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 202-219, February.
    6. Roy, Manish & Mazumder, Ritwik, 2016. "Technical Efficiency of Fish Catch in Traditional Fishing: A Study in Southern Assam," Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Rajarshi Majumder, vol. 5(1), pages 55-68.
    7. Roberto Furesi & Fabio Madau & Pietro Pulina, 2013. "Technical efficiency in the sheep dairy industry: an application on the Sardinian (Italy) sector," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Rahman, Sanzidur, 2003. "Profit efficiency among Bangladeshi rice farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 487-503.
    9. Mastromarco, Camilla & Ghosh, Sucharita, 2009. "Foreign Capital, Human Capital, and Efficiency: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis for Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 489-502, February.
    10. Emir Malikov & Raushan Bokusheva & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2018. "A hedonic-output-index-based approach to modeling polluting technologies," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 287-308, February.
    11. Tzouvelekas, Vangelis & Pantzios, Christos J. & Fotopoulos, Christos, 2001. "Technical efficiency of alternative farming systems: the case of Greek organic and conventional olive-growing farms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 549-569, December.
    12. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-479 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kounetas, Konstantinos & Zervopoulos, Panagiotis D., 2019. "A cross-country evaluation of environmental performance: Is there a convergence-divergence pattern in technology gaps?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1136-1148.
    14. Madau, Fabio A., 2005. "Technical Efficiency in Organic Farming: An Application on Italian Cereal Farms Using a Parametric Approach," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24545, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Michael Danquah & Bazoumana Ouattara & Peter Quartey, 2018. "Technology Transfer and National Efficiency: Does Absorptive Capacity Matter?," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 30(2), pages 162-174, June.
    17. Ivonne Lindlbauer & Jonas Schreyögg, 2014. "The relationship between hospital specialization and hospital efficiency: do different measures of specialization lead to different results?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 365-378, December.
    18. Gralka, Sabine, 2018. "Stochastic frontier analysis in higher education: A systematic review," CEPIE Working Papers 05/18, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    19. Tom Kompas & Tuong Nhu Che, 2004. "Production and Technical Efficiency on Australian Dairy Farms," International and Development Economics Working Papers idec04-1, International and Development Economics.
    20. Madau, Fabio A., 2011. "Parametric Estimation of Technical and Scale Efficiencies in Italian Citrus Farming," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(1).
    21. Arbelo-Pérez, Marta & Arbelo, Antonio & Pérez-Gómez, Pilar, 2017. "Impact of quality on estimations of hotel efficiency," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 200-208.
    22. Huang, Tai-Hsin & Chiang, Dien-Lin & Tsai, Chao-Min, 2015. "Applying the New Metafrontier Directional Distance Function to Compare Banking Efficiencies in Central and Eastern European Countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 188-199.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental efficiency; organic; conventional; cotton; shadow price; undesirable output; Benin;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3044-:d:235450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.