IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v84y2008i1p66-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Hayley H. Chouinard
  • Tobias Paterson
  • Philip R. Wandschneider
  • Adrienne M. Ohler

Abstract

We investigate the trade-off agricultural producers face between profits and stewardly activities when selecting farm practices. Instead of the profit-maximization framework, we model producer behavior in an expanded utility framework, built on production technology, and including two utility components: self and social interests. The framework introduces inherent heterogeneity and social/environmental motivations into farmer behavior. Based on this model, we hypothesize that there are farmers that are willing to forego some profit to engage in stewardly farm practices. With an empirical study, we provide evidence that some farmers are willing to make this sacrifice. Results are consistent with the multi-utility hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:1:p:66-82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/1/66
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hayes, William M. & Lynne, Gary D., 2004. "Towards a centerpiece for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 287-301, July.
    2. Sinden, Jack A. & King, David A., 1990. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(02-03), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    4. Robert Ryan & Donna Erickson & Raymond De Young, 2003. "Farmers' Motivations for Adopting Conservation Practices along Riparian Zones in a Mid-western Agricultural Watershed," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 19-37.
    5. G. C. Van Kooten & Ward P. Weisensel & Duangdao Chinthammit, 1990. "Valuing Trade-Offs between Net Returns and Stewardship Practices: The Case of Soil Conservation in Saskatchewan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(1), pages 104-113.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying the Neo-Classical Approach to Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 67-80, July.
    8. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Boyce, Rebecca R, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1366-1373, December.
    10. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    12. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    4. Buckley, Cathal & Howley, Peter & Jordan, Phil, 2015. "The role of differing farming motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(4), July.
    5. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    8. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    9. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    11. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    12. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    14. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    15. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    16. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    17. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    18. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Ion Lucian Ceapraz & Catherine Delhoume, 2017. "How Social Capital Can Improve The Territorial Innovation? The Case Of The French Agriculture. Some Conceptual Issues," Post-Print hal-04359913, HAL.
    20. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:1:p:66-82. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.