IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/360617.html

Recognizing Non-Pecuniary Labor Benefits in Technology Adoption: Evidence from Automatic Milking Systems in U.S. Dairy Farming

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Jingyuan
  • Melo, Grace

Abstract

This study examines pecuniary (e.g., labor cost savings) and non-pecuniary (e.g., improved flexibility) labor benefits in technology adoption through a discrete choice experiment involving 212 dairy farmers in the U.S. Midwest focusing on automatic milking systems. Results reveal that farmers value flexible time 2.17 times more than hired labor savings, suggesting practitioners differentiate non-pecuniary benefit from pecuniary ones and utilize multiple methods to assess preference heterogeneity for robustness: we consistently found that farmers experienced labor difficulties favor hired labor savings, whereas those with secondary income value both benefits less. For other characteristics (e.g., herd size), preference heterogeneity is ambiguous.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Jingyuan & Melo, Grace, 2025. "Recognizing Non-Pecuniary Labor Benefits in Technology Adoption: Evidence from Automatic Milking Systems in U.S. Dairy Farming," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360617, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:360617
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.360617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360617/files/75147_99029_105300_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.360617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    2. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Falco, Salvatore Di, 2010. "Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 211-220, June.
    3. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    4. Ortiz, Cristhian A. & Avila-Santamaría, Jorge J. & Martinez-Cruz, Adan L., 2023. "Dairy farmers’ willingness to adopt cleaner production practices for water conservation: A discrete choice experiment in Mejia, Ecuador," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    5. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Grebitus Carola & Roosen Jutta & Seitz Carolin Claudia, 2015. "Visual Attention and Choice: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Food Decisions," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 73-81, January.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    8. Tom Hertz & Steven Zahniser, 2013. "Is There A Farm Labor Shortage?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 476-481.
    9. Özdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Hauber, A. Brett, 2009. "Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 894-901, July.
    10. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 383-396.
    11. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    12. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2023. "Sample size selection for discrete choice experiments using design features," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    15. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    16. Peña-Lévano, Luis & Burney, Shaheer & Beaudry, Jalyssa, 2023. "Automatic Milking Systems: An Exploratory Study of Wisconsin Dairy Farms," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2023, January.
    17. Zahniser, Steven & Taylor, J. Edward & Hertz, Thomas & Charlton, Diane, 2018. "Farm Labor Markets in the United States and Mexico Pose Challenges for U.S. Agriculture," Economic Information Bulletin 281161, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    19. Jeffrey D Michler & Emilia Tjernström & Simone Verkaart & Kai Mausch, 2019. "Money Matters: The Role of Yields and Profits in Agricultural Technology Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(3), pages 710-731.
    20. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    21. Gutiérrez-Li, Alejandro & Melo, Grace & Burney, Shaheer & Escalante, Cesar & Acharya, Shree Ram, 2025. "Automatic Milking Systems: Labor-Savings Route or Costly Gamble for Dairy Farmers?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), January.
    22. Rebecca Schewe & Diana Stuart, 2015. "Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: How are automatic milking systems used and to what end?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 199-213, June.
    23. Khwaja, Ahmed & Silverman, Dan & Sloan, Frank, 2007. "Time preference, time discounting, and smoking decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 927-949, September.
    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. Zhenshan Chen & Stephen K. Swallow & Ian T. Yue, 2020. "Non-participation and Heterogeneity in Stated: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Plans and Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 35-67, September.
    2. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    3. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    4. Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2019. "Consumer switching in retail electricity markets: Is price all that matters?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 88-103.
    5. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    6. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    7. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    8. Jacobson, Michael & Shr, Yau-Huo & Dalemans, Floris & Magaju, Christine & Ciannella, Rodrigo, 2018. "Using a choice experiment approach to assess production tradeoffs for developing the croton value chain in Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 76-85.
    9. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., "undated". "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Jérôme Boutang & Michel de Lara, 2016. "Risk Marketing," Working Papers hal-01353821, HAL.
    11. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei & Takahashi, Yuko & Nishimura, Shuzo, 2011. "Can economic-psychological parameters predict successful smoking cessation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 285-295, May.
    12. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    13. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Wu, Xinrui & Liu, Ziming & Feng, Shuyi, 2025. "Social norms alleviate the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    15. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    16. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, "undated". "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    18. Kevin W. Maina & Martin C. Parlasca & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Matin Qaim, 2024. "Farmer‐friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 829-846, September.
    19. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    20. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    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:aaea25:360617. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.