IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i12p3291-d239897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Technical Efficiency Affected by Farmers’ Preference for Mitigation and Adaptation Actions against Climate Change? A Case Study in Northwest Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel Angel Orduño Torres

    (Institute for Research in Sustainability Science and Technology (IS-UPC), Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Zein Kallas

    (Institute for Research in Sustainability Science and Technology (IS-UPC), Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Selene Ivette Ornelas Herrera

    (Institute for Research in Sustainability Science and Technology (IS-UPC), Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Bouali Guesmi

    (Center for Research in Agrofood Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology, 08860 Castelldefels, Spain
    University of Carthage, Mograne Higher School of Agriculture, LR03AGR02 SPADD, Zaghouan 1121, Tunisie)

Abstract

Climate change has adverse effects on agriculture, decreasing crop quality and productivity. This makes it necessary to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies that contribute to the maintenance of technical efficiency (TE). This study analyzed the relationship of TE with farmers’ mitigation and adaptation action preferences, their risk and environmental attitudes, and their perception of climate change. Through the stochastic frontier method, TE levels were estimated for 370 farmers in Northwest Mexico. The results showed the average efficiency levels (57%) for three identified groups of farmers: High TE (15% of farmers), average TE (72%), and low TE (13%). Our results showed a relationship between two of the preferred adaptation actions against climate change estimated using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. The most efficient farmers preferred “change crops,” while less efficient farmers preferred “invest in irrigation infrastructure.” The anthropocentric environmental attitude inferred from the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale was related to the level of TE. Efficient farmers were those with an anthropocentric environmental attitude, compared to less efficient farmers, who exhibited an ecocentric attitude. The climate change issues were more perceived by moderately efficient farmers. These findings set out a roadmap for policy-makers to face climate change at the regional level.

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel Angel Orduño Torres & Zein Kallas & Selene Ivette Ornelas Herrera & Bouali Guesmi, 2019. "Is Technical Efficiency Affected by Farmers’ Preference for Mitigation and Adaptation Actions against Climate Change? A Case Study in Northwest Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3291-:d:239897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3291/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3291/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2001. "Measuring Producers' Risk Preferences: A Global Risk-Attitude Construct," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1009.
    2. Meeusen, Wim & van den Broeck, J, 1977. "Technical Efficiency and Dimension of the Firm: Some Results on the Use of Frontier Production Functions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 109-122.
    3. Karunarathna, Muditha & Wilson, Clevo, 2017. "Agricultural biodiversity and farm level technical efficiency: An empirical investigation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 38-46.
    4. Moniruzzaman, Shaikh, 2015. "Crop choice as climate change adaptation: Evidence from Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 90-98.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. Jorge Andr√©s Perdomo & Darrell Hueth, 2010. "Funciones de producci√≥n y eficiencia t√©cnica en el eje cafetero colombiano: una aproximaci√≥n con frontera estoc√°stica," Documentos CEDE 7606, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    7. Uttam Khanal & Clevo Wilson & Boon Lee & Viet-Ngu Hoang, 2018. "Do climate change adaptation practices improve technical efficiency of smallholder farmers? Evidence from Nepal," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 507-521, April.
    8. Blanca Isabel Sánchez-Toledano & Zein Kallas & Oscar Palmeros Rojas & José M. Gil, 2018. "Determinant Factors of the Adoption of Improved Maize Seeds in Southern Mexico: A Survival Analysis Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    9. Antonio Alvarez & Julio del Corral, 2010. "Identifying different technologies using a latent class model: extensive versus intensive dairy farms," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 231-250, June.
    10. Perdomo Jorge Andrés & Juan Carlos Mendieta, 2007. "Factores que afectan la eficiencia técnica y asignativa en el sector cafetero colombiano: una aplicación con análisis envolvente de datos," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    11. Castells-Quintana, David & Lopez-Uribe, Maria del Pilar & McDermott, Thomas K.J., 2018. "Adaptation to climate change: A review through a development economics lens," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 183-196.
    12. Maia, Alexandre Gori & Miyamoto, Bruno César Brito & Garcia, Junior Ruiz, 2018. "Climate Change and Agriculture: Do Environmental Preservation and Ecosystem Services Matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 27-39.
    13. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    14. Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 2014. "Agriculture in the Global Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 121-146, Winter.
    15. Zein Kallas & Teresa Serra & José Maria Gil, 2010. "Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: the case of Catalonian vineyard production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 409-423, September.
    16. Perdomo, Jorge-Andres & Hueth, Darrell L., "undated". "Funciones de producción y eficiencia técnica en el eje cafetero colombiano: una aproximación con frontera estocástica," Documentos CEDE Series 100873, Universidad de Los Andes, Economics Department.
    17. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    18. Castells-Quintana, David & del Pilar Lopez-Uribe, Maria & McDermott, Thomas K.J., 2018. "A review of adaptation to climate change through a development economics lens," Working Papers 309605, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    19. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    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. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Lukasz Kryszak, 2024. "The impact of environmental attitudes of farmers on efficiency in the agricultural sector in the European Union," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(8), pages 383-394.
    3. Sang Putu Kaler Surata & Dewa Ayu Puspawati & Putu Eka Pasmidi Ariati & I. Gusti Agung Paramitha Eka Putri, 2022. "The ecological views of the Balinese toward their subak cultural landscape heritage," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 12994-13010, November.

    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. Orduño Torres, Miguel Angel & Kallas, Zein & Ornelas Herrera, Selene Ivette, 2020. "Farmers’ environmental perceptions and preferences regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation actions; towards a sustainable agricultural system in México," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Orduño, Miguel Angel & Kallas, Zein & Ornelas, Selene Ivette, 2021. "Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions Based on Farmers' Environmental Preferences and Perceptions. Sustainable Agriculture, Mexico," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314967, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Do, Truong Lam & Parvathi, Priyanka & Wossink, Ada & Grote, Ulrike, 2018. "Farm production efficiency and natural forest extraction: Evidence from Cambodia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 480-493.
    4. Tong, Q. & Swallow, B. & Zhang, L. & Zhang, J., 2018. "Risk Attitude, Technical Efficiency and Adoption: An Integrated Approach to Climate-Smart Rice Production in the Jianghan Plain, China," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277311, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Jorge Andres, Perdomo Calvo & Darrell Lee, Hueth & Jorge Andres, Perdomo Calvo, 2011. "Funciones de producción, análisis de economías a escala y eficiencia técnica en el eje cafetero colombiano: una aproximación con frontera estocástica [Estimation of the Production Functional Form, ," MPRA Paper 37179, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ščurková, Dáša & Marčanová, Marianna, 2023. "Adapting Agriculture: Policy Implications of the Rise of Resistant Seeds in Farmers' Climate Change Strategy," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 15(4), December.
    7. Nguyen Thi Chau & Tofael Ahamed, 2022. "Analyzing Factors That Affect Rice Production Efficiency and Organic Fertilizer Choices in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-11, July.
    8. Lakshmikantha N R & Rinan Shah & Veena Srinivasan & Aditi Mukherji, 2025. "Hits and misses: water-based climate change adaptation interventions for agriculture in South Asia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ioannis Skevas, 2019. "A Hierarchical Stochastic Frontier Model for Efficiency Measurement Under Technology Heterogeneity," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 17(3), pages 513-524, September.
    11. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Wang, Hung-Jen, 2006. "Pitfalls in the estimation of a cost function that ignores allocative inefficiency: A Monte Carlo analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 317-340, October.
    12. Hung-Jen Wang, 2002. "Heteroscedasticity and Non-Monotonic Efficiency Effects of a Stochastic Frontier Model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 241-253, November.
    13. Alem, Habtamu, 2020. "Performance of the Norwegian dairy farms: A dynamic stochastic approach," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 263-271.
    14. Dörschner, T. & Mußhoff, O., . "Does the Risk Attitude Influence and Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Agri-Environmental Measures? – A Normative Approach to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    15. Castells-Quintana, David & Lopez-Uribe, Maria del Pilar & McDermott, Thomas K.J., 2022. "Population displacement and urban conflict: Global evidence from more than 3300 flood events," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Papadopoulos, Alecos & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2021. "Type II failure and specification testing in the Stochastic Frontier Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(3), pages 990-1001.
    17. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    18. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 336-352, July.
    19. Willian Sierra-Barón & Pablo Olivos-Jara & Andrés Gómez-Acosta & Oscar Navarro, 2023. "Environmental Identity, Connectedness with Nature, and Well-Being as Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior, and Their Comparison between Inhabitants of Rural and Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, March.
    20. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:12:p:3291-:d:239897. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.