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. 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).
    2. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    4. 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.
    5. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    6. 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.
    7. Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2005. "Testing explanations of preference reversal: A model," Working Papers 05-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    8. Mengxing Wei & Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2017. "Can quantum decision theory explain the Ellsberg paradox?," Discussion Papers in Economics 17/07, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    9. Bernedo Del Carpio, María & Alpizar, Francisco & Ferraro, Paul J., 2022. "Time and risk preferences of individuals, married couples and unrelated pairs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Villacis, Alexis H., 2023. "Inconsistent choices over prospect theory lottery games: Evidence from field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    14. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    15. Alaoui, Larbi, 2008. "The value of useless information," MPRA Paper 11411, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    19. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    20. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.

    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:aaea25:360677. 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.