IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea26/404508.html

Valuing Agrivoltaics: Farmer Preferences and Policy Implications for Dual Land Use in the U.S. Midwest

Author

Listed:
  • Mwebaze, Paul
  • Khanna, Madhu
  • Majeed, Fahd
  • Mishra, Bijesh
  • Miao, Ruiqing

Abstract

Utility-scale solar expansion across U.S. croplands is intensifying food–energy land-use conflicts, particularly in the Midwest. Agrivoltaics (AV), the co-location of photovoltaic systems with agricultural production, offers a potential land-use solution, but its scalability depends on farmer adoption. This study examines how financial incentives, operational requirements, and behavioral factors shape AV adoption decisions using a discrete choice experiment with 177 farmers across 12 Midwestern states (708 choice observations). The experiment evaluates attributes that directly affect farm profitability, risk exposure, and management complexity, including lease payments, income variability, land share under panels, and requirements for new equipment or crop switching. We model adoption as a joint discrete–continuous decision, capturing both the likelihood of adoption and the extent of land allocation to AV. Results show that higher lease payments significantly increase both the probability of adoption and land allocation, highlighting the importance of stable and attractive compensation. In contrast, operational complexity, particularly requirements for new equipment, reduces adoption and generates substantial implicit costs in willingness-to-accept (WTA) estimates. Behavioral characteristics also matter: farmers with higher discount rates are less likely to adopt, whereas risk-tolerant farmers are more willing to participate. Latent class analysis further reveals substantial heterogeneity, distinguishing a majority of cautious “moderate adopters” from a smaller group of “high-intensity adopters” that is more responsive to stable income streams and higher lease compensation. Overall, the findings suggest that financially attractive and operationally simple AV contracts will be critical for scaling adoption while preserving agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Mwebaze, Paul & Khanna, Madhu & Majeed, Fahd & Mishra, Bijesh & Miao, Ruiqing, 2026. "Valuing Agrivoltaics: Farmer Preferences and Policy Implications for Dual Land Use in the U.S. Midwest," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404508, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea26:404508
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404508/files/177536_193609_115232_AAEA_2026_Selected_Paper_ID_126524.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404508?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    2. Zeddies, Hendrik Hilmar & Parlasca, Martin & Qaim, Matin, 2025. "Agrivoltaics increases public acceptance of solar energy production on agricultural land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Wagner, Johanna & Bühner, Charlotte & Gölz, Sebastian & Trommsdorff, Max & Jürkenbeck, Kristin, 2024. "Factors influencing the willingness to use agrivoltaics: A quantitative study among German farmers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 361(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. Dan Yavorsky & Elisabeth Honka & Keith Chen, 2021. "Consumer search in the U.S. auto industry: The role of dealership visits," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-52, March.
    2. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    3. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    4. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    5. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    6. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    7. Boneva, Teodora & Golin, Marta & Kaufmann, Katja Maria & Rauh, Christopher, 2022. "Beliefs about Maternal Labor Supply," IZA Discussion Papers 15788, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Raj Chandra & GianCarlo Moschini & Gabriel E. Lade, 2025. "Geographical indications and welfare: Evidence from US wine demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(2), pages 670-695, March.
    10. Webb, Edward J.D. & Hess, Stephane, 2021. "Joint modelling of choice and rating data: Theory and examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    12. Laura-Lucia Richter & Melvyn Weeks, 2016. "Flexible Mixed Logit with Posterior Analysis: Exploring Willingness-to-Pay for Grid Resilience," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1631, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Javid, Roxana J. & Nejat, Ali, 2017. "A comprehensive model of regional electric vehicle adoption and penetration," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 30-42.
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    16. Andrea Ascani & Riccardo Crescenzi & Simona Iammarino, 2015. "Economic Institutions and the Location Strategies of European Multinationals in their Geographical Neighbourhood," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 97, European Institute, LSE.
    17. Shenhao Wang & Qingyi Wang & Jinhua Zhao, 2018. "Deep Neural Networks for Choice Analysis: Extracting Complete Economic Information for Interpretation," Papers 1812.04528, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    18. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    19. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    20. Mohammad Ghaderi, 2026. "Attention-entropy random utility: Endogenous: Attention and context effects in discrete choice," Economics Working Papers 1936, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    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:aaea26:404508. 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.