IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/360677.html

Effects of risk preferences, family labor and family succession on the adoption of sustainable manure management technologies in dairy farming

Author

Listed:
  • Olivera, Serena
  • Börner, Jan
  • Sellare, Jorge

Abstract

The intensification of livestock production systems driven by growing demand for animal products has resulted in significant environmental challenges. Manure mismanagement in intensive systems can lead to greenhouse gas emissions and potential contamination of water and soil, thus contributing to biodiversity loss and climate change. We study manure management adoption in dairy farms in Buenos Aires, Argentina where livestock production is strongly linked to cultural traditions and faces multiple barriers to sustainable change, such as strong taxation and high levels of uncertainty. Specifically, we examine how two key behavioral and social mechanisms shape adoption outcomes: farmers’ risk preferences, and the interplay between farm succession and family labor availability. To our knowledge, these factors have not been previously explored and are especially relevant to the local context. We run an ordinal logistic regression based on farm-level data. Farmers’ risk preferences are elicited using a lottery-based experiment, while succession is proxied by the farmer’s perception of his/her children continuing dairy farm activities. We complement our analysis using semi-structured interviews with key informants to add qualitative insights into the motivations and constraints for adoption. We find that farmers more willing to take risks are more likely to adopt manure management practices, but this effect becomes weaker with farmers that simultaneously present loss-aversion. Family dynamics also play a key role. Surprisingly, farmers who expect a child to take over the farm, but do not currently have family labor on the farm, are less likely to adopt. Yet, when both succession and active family labor are in place, the likelihood of adoption increases significantly. We find that in-farm sustainable investments are more prone when the succession is expected and the family is actively engaged in farm labor.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivera, Serena & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2025. "Effects of risk preferences, family labor and family succession on the adoption of sustainable manure management technologies in dairy farming," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360677, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:360677
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.360677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360677/files/75165_95424_105300_Olivera_Borner_Sellare-Manure_management_adoption_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.360677?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. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    2. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    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. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    2. Jan (J.B.) Engelmann & Basil Schmid & Justin Chumbley & Ernst Fehr, 2018. "The Dark Side of Personality: Anti-Sociality Increases Strategic Game Play," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-010/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Takahashi, Taiki, 2011. "Psychophysics of the probability weighting function," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(5), pages 902-905.
    4. Chetty, Rinelle & Hofmeyr, Andre & Kincaid, Harold & Monroe, Brian, 2021. "The Trust Game Does Not (Only) Measure Trust: The Risk-Trust Confound Revisited," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil & Xu, Xiaogeng, 2025. "Risk taking on behalf of others: Does the timing of uncertainty revelation matter?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    6. Krzysztof Kontek, 2009. "Lottery valuation using the aspiration / relative utility function," Working Papers 39, Department of Applied Econometrics, Warsaw School of Economics.
    7. Dorian Jullien & Alexandre Truc, 2024. "Towards a history of behavioural and experimental economics in France," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 998-1033, November.
    8. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    9. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    10. Xiao, Yu & Fukuda, Daisuke, 2015. "On the cost of misperceived travel time variability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 96-112.
    11. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    12. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    13. Alex Imas, 2016. "The Realization Effect: Risk-Taking after Realized versus Paper Losses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2086-2109, August.
    14. Heard, Claire Louise & Rakow, Tim, 2022. "Examining insensitivity to probability in evidence‐based communication of relative risks: the role of affect and communication format," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113810, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    16. Raj Chetty, 2006. "A New Method of Estimating Risk Aversion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1821-1834, December.
    17. William N. Caballero & Roi Naveiro & David Ríos Insua, 2022. "Modeling Ethical and Operational Preferences in Automated Driving Systems," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 21-43, March.
    18. Yao Thibaut Kpegli, 2023. "Smoothing Spline Method for Measuring Prospect Theory Components," Working Papers 2303, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    19. Abootaleb Shirvani & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2019. "Multiple Subordinated Modeling of Asset Returns," Papers 1907.12600, arXiv.org.
    20. Shachat, Jason & Tan, Lijia, 2023. "How auctioneers set reserve prices in procurement auctions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 709-728.

    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:ags:aaea25:360677. 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.