IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v86y2010iii1p585-608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories

Author

Listed:
  • Clark P. Bishop
  • C. Richard Shumway
  • Philip R. Wandschneider

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion technology addresses environmental issues of waste disposal and greenhouse gas emission reduction. This paper examines attitudes toward adoption of this conservation technology on dairy farms. To specify an appropriate dependent variable without a large number of adopters, an ordered probit model is constructed. The empirical analysis uses data from a 2006 survey of Pacific Northwest dairy farms. Aggregate variables are constructed based on behavioral economics and conservation adoption literature. Variables include private and social costs, social motives, capacity, innovation receptivity, and opportunity costs, most of which are found to be highly related to the decision to seriously consider adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:86:y:2010:iii:1:p585-608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/86/3/585
    Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Amartya Sen, 1997. "Individual Preference as the Basis of Social Choice," International Economic Association Series, in: Kenneth J. Arrow & Amartya Sen & Kotaro Suzumura (ed.), Social Choice Re-examined, chapter 2, pages 15-37, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Levine, Daniel S., 2006. "Neural modeling of the dual motive theory of economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 613-625, August.
    4. Upadhyay, Bharat Mani & Young, Douglas L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2002. "How Do Farmers Who Adopt Multiple Conservation Practices Differ From Their Neighbors?," 2002 Annual Meeting, July 28-31, 2002, Long Beach, California 36658, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Ivan O. Kitov, 2005. "Modelling the average income dependence on work experience in the USA from 1967 to 2002," Working Papers 11, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    6. Daniel Bromley, 2004. "Reconsidering Environmental Policy: Prescriptive Consequentialism and Volitional Pragmatism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(1), pages 73-99, May.
    7. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    8. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    9. Rahelizatovo, Noro C. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2002. "Factors Influencing The Implementation Of Best Management Practices In The Dairy Industry," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35241, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Walters, Cory G. & Shumway, C. Richard & Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2012. "Crop Insurance, Land Allocation, and the Environment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    3. Ribaudo, Marc & Delgado, Jorge & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Livingston, Michael J. & Mosheim, Roberto & Williamson, James M., 2011. "Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy," Economic Research Report 118022, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Meredith T Niles & Serge Wiltshire & Jason Lombard & Matthew Branan & Matthew Vuolo & Rajesh Chintala & Juan Tricarico, 2022. "Manure management strategies are interconnected with complexity across U.S. dairy farms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Ernesto Mesa-Vázquez & Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Belén López-Felices, 2021. "Three Decades of Behavioural Economics in Agriculture. An Overview of Global Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark E., 2015. "Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 147-158.
    9. Robert J. Sheeder & Gary D. Lynne, 2011. "Empathy-Conditioned Conservation: “Walking in the Shoes of Others” as a Conservation Farmer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 433-452.
    10. Jean McGuire & Lois Morton & Alicia Cast, 2013. "Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, March.
    11. Sulemana, Iddisah & James, Harvey S., 2014. "Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 49-61.
    12. Du, Xiaodong & Carriquiry, Miguel A., 2013. "Spatiotemporal analysis of ethanol market penetration," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 128-135.
    13. Tubetov, Dulat & Musshoff, Oliver & Kellner, Ulla, 2012. "Investments in Kazakhstani Dairy Farming: A Comparison of Classical Investment Theory and the Real Options Approach," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 51(3), pages 1-28, August.
    14. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    15. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Statzu, Vania, 2016. "A Choice Experiment Study on the Farmers’ Attitudes toward Biogas and Waste Reuse in a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone," 2016 Fifth AIEAA Congress, June 16-17, 2016, Bologna, Italy 242329, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    16. Ming-Yeu Wang & Shih-Mao Lin, 2020. "Intervention Strategies on the Wastewater Treatment Behavior of Swine Farmers: An Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Muhammad Achirul Nanda & Wahyu Sugandi & Arif Kurnia Wijayanto & Harry Imantho & Arya Sutawijaya & Leopold Oscar Nelwan & I Wayan Budiastra & Kudang Boro Seminar, 2023. "The Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Technology to Support Alternative Fuels for Agriculture in the Context of Effective Solid Waste Management in the Jabodetabek Area, Indonesia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Simpson, Jesse R. & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2021. "Developing a methodology to predict the adoption rate of Connected Autonomous Trucks in transportation organizations using peer effects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    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. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2008. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion and Behavioral Innovation Theory," Working Papers 2008-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    2. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    4. Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan & Molnarova, Kristina Janeckova & Vlasak, Josef & Kottova, Blanka & Petrzelka, Peggy & Gebhart, Michal & Walmsley, Alena, 2020. "Trends of soil degradation: Does the socio-economic status of land owners and land users matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    6. Abdulla, Majd, 2009. "The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001913, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Hua Zhong & Ping Qing & Wuyang Hu, 2016. "Farmers' willingness to participate in best management practices in Kentucky," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 1015-1039, June.
    10. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric, 2012. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs A Preliminary Analysis of New Data," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124721, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    12. Wade, Tara & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia, 2012. "Using the logit model with aggregated choice data in estimation of Iowa corn farmers’ conservation tillage subsidies," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124974, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Howard, Gregory & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Stripping Because You Want to Versus Stripping Because the Money is Good: A Latent Class Analysis of Farmer Preferences Regarding Filter Strip Programs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149821, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. J. Bidogeza & P. Berentsen & J. Graaff & A. Oude Lansink, 2009. "A typology of farm households for the Umutara Province in Rwanda," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 1(3), pages 321-335, September.
    15. Burnett, Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2022. "Land tenure and conservation adoption: An analysis of contracts and incentives," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Shepler, Ryan & Suter, Jordan F., 2017. "An Analysis of the Impact of Tenure on Groundwater Use and Attitudes Concerning Groundwater Conservation in Colorado’s Republican River Basin," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258219, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    18. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Haluk Gedikoglu & Sansel Tandogan & Joseph Parcell, 2023. "Neighbor effects on adoption of conservation practices: cases of grass filter systems and injecting manure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(3), pages 723-756, June.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    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:86:y:2010:iii:1:p585-608. 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: https://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.