IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205640.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Canales, Elizabeth
  • Bergtold, Jason S.
  • Williams, Jeffery
  • Peterson, Jeffrey

Abstract

The diffusion of technologies is a gradual process; it takes time for the information about these new practices to be diffused (Jaffe et al., 2002). While the first assay examines adoption at a point in time, it is also possible to examine adoption in a dynamic setting using a duration model. Using duration models allows for the temporal aspect of adoption and the heterogeneity in the timing of adoption to be accounted for (Abdulai & Huffman, 2005). The second essay examines the timing of adoption of three conservation practices: continuous no-till, cover crops, and VRA of inputs. The timing of adoption was measured as the time it took for farmers to adopt a practice since they first started managing the farm or since the introduction of the practice if the practice was available after the farmer started farming. Findings in this study suggest that the adoption of certain practices delay the adoption of other conservation practices. In addition, the findings in this study suggest that risk aversion is not a significant factor in delaying the speed of adoption of continuous NT. Similar to the first paper, it is possible that farmers do not see NT as a risky practice, thus risk aversion may not affect its adoption or speed of adoption. However, risk aversion was found to delay the adoption of cover crops and VRA of inputs. In addition, the results in this study suggest that farmers who considered themselves innovators adopt the three conservation practices at a faster rate than their counterparts.

Suggested Citation

  • Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205640
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205640/files/AAEA%20Conservation%20and%20Risk%20Paper%20Canales%20est%20al%202015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shapiro, Barry Ira & Brorsen, B. Wade & Doster, D. Howard, 1992. "Adoption Of Double-Cropping Soybeans And Wheat," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Lattimore, Pamela K. & Baker, Joanna R. & Witte, Ann D., 1992. "The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 377-400, May.
    3. Schimmelpfennig, David & Ebel, Robert, 2011. "On the Doorstep of the Information Age: Recent Adoption of Precision Agriculture," Economic Information Bulletin 291945, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Joseph C. Cooper, 2003. "A Joint Framework for Analysis of Agri-Environmental Payment Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 976-987.
    5. Lyubov Kurkalova & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2006. "Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 247-267, June.
    6. Jack Meyer, 2010. "Representing risk preferences in expected utility based decision models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 179-190, April.
    7. Hensher, David A. & Greene, William H. & Li, Zheng, 2011. "Embedding risk attitude and decision weights in non-linear logit to accommodate time variability in the value of expected travel time savings," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 954-972, August.
    8. Glenk, Klaus & Colombo, Sergio, 2013. "Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    9. Isik, Murat & Yang, Wanhong, 2004. "An Analysis of the Effects of Uncertainty and Irreversibility on Farmer Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Veronesi, Marcella & Chawla, Fabienne & Maurer, Max & Lienert, Judit, 2014. "Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Antle, John & Capalbo, Susan & Mooney, Sian & Elliott, Edward & Paustian, Keith, 2003. "Spatial heterogeneity, contract design, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration policies for agriculture," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 231-250, September.
    12. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Cost-Responsiveness of Conservation Practice Adoption: A Revealed Preference Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    14. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    15. Klaus Glenk & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 25-46, February.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    17. Just, Richard E., 2003. "Risk research in agricultural economics: opportunities and challenges for the next twenty-five years," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 123-159.
    18. Darren Hudson & Diane Hite, 2003. "Producer Willingness to Pay for Precision Application Technology: Implications for Government and the Technology Industry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 51(1), pages 39-53, March.
    19. Humphrey, Steven J. & Verschoor, Arjan, 2004. "The probability weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 419-425, September.
    20. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    21. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon & Donald A. Wehrung, 1990. "Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 422-435, April.
    22. Zeuli, Kimberly A. & Skees, Jerry R., 2000. "Will Southern Agriculture Play A Role In A Carbon Market?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 1-14, August.
    23. Mariano Mezzatesta & David A. Newburn & Richard T. Woodward, 2013. "Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 722-742.
    24. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    25. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    26. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2013. "Including Management Policy Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Case Study of the Great Barrier Reef," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(2), pages 197-215, June.
    27. Pamela K. Lattimore & Joanna R. Baker & A. Dryden Witte, 1992. "The Influence Of Probability on Risky Choice: A parametric Examination," NBER Technical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    28. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    29. Zeuli, Kimberly A. & Skees, Jerry R., 2000. "Will Southern Agriculture Play a Role in a Carbon Market?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 235-248, August.
    30. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    31. 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.
    32. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett & Michael B. Ward, 2013. "Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-47, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    33. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    34. Diane P. Dupont, 2010. "Cost‐Sharing Incentive Programs for Source Water Protection: The Grand River's Rural Water Quality Program," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(4), pages 481-496, December.
    35. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    36. Hugues Morand & Paul J. Thomassin, 2005. "Changes in Quebec Cropping Practices in Response to a Carbon Offset Market: A Simulation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(4), pages 403-424, December.
    37. Daniel Burghart & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2007. "Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-105, August.
    38. 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.
    39. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    40. Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim & Roussy, Caroline, 2012. "The adoption of innovative cropping systems under price and production risks: a dynamic model of crop rotation choice," Working Papers 207985, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    41. 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.
    42. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multi-dimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 455-466, September.
    43. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, July.
    44. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Willingness to pay for travel time reliability in passenger transport: A review and some new empirical evidence," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 384-403, May.
    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. Adusumilli, Naveen & Wang, Hua & Dodla, Syam & Deliberto, Michael, 2020. "Estimating risk premiums for adopting no-till and cover crops management practices in soybean production system using stochastic efficiency approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(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. Glenk, Klaus & Colombo, Sergio, 2013. "Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    2. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2015. "Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 125-142, January.
    3. Ayako Suzuki & Koichi Kume, 2008. "Aging, Probability Weighting, and Reference Point Adoption: An Experimental Study," ISER Discussion Paper 0720, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    4. Torres, Cati & Faccioli, Michela & Riera Font, Antoni, 2017. "Waiting or acting now? The effect on willingness-to-pay of delivering inherent uncertainty information in choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 231-240.
    5. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    8. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    9. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    10. Diane P. Dupont, 2010. "Cost‐Sharing Incentive Programs for Source Water Protection: The Grand River's Rural Water Quality Program," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(4), pages 481-496, December.
    11. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 326-334.
    13. Williams, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2017. "Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 302-311.
    14. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    15. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    16. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Probability interference in expected utility theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 163-175.
    17. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 14-24.
    18. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    19. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    20. Marcello Basili & Alain Chateauneuf & Fulvio Fontini, 2005. "Choices Under Ambiguity With Familiar And Unfamiliar Outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 195-207, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea15:205640. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.