IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea26/404750.html

Farmers' Willingness to Accept Solar Leasing on CRP or Marginal Lands in the Southern Great Plains: A Discrete Land Use Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Osman, Eliyasu Y.
  • Bergtold, Jason S.
  • Lindamood, Jackson
  • Caldas, Marcellus M.

Abstract

Expanding solar energy production requires access to land; however, relying on productive farmland raises concerns about competing with food production. Identifying alternative sites, such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands or marginal lands, offers an alternative sustainable solution. Yet, little is known about how much compensation landowners require to lease such lands for small-scale solar installations. This study examines the determinants of farmers' willingness to accept (WTA) payments for solar leases on CRP or marginal lands in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. Using survey data and a heteroskedastic interval regression model, results show a mean WTA of $665 per acre per year, with significant heterogeneity across states and farmer characteristics. Rangeland area and livestock ownership increase WTA, while CRP participation lowers it. Higher pastureland rental rates also significantly reduce WTA, and state fixed effects indicate notably lower WTA in Colorado and New Mexico. Perceptions of renewable technologies and land-use intensity further shape compensation demands. These findings offer guidance for policymakers and solar developers in structuring lease offers tailored to land type, regional context, and market conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Osman, Eliyasu Y. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Lindamood, Jackson & Caldas, Marcellus M., 2026. "Farmers' Willingness to Accept Solar Leasing on CRP or Marginal Lands in the Southern Great Plains: A Discrete Land Use Approach," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404750, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea26:404750
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404750/files/177674_191884_115232_Osman_et_al_2026_Solar_AAEA_Paper_Presentation.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404750?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. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, 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. Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "A cognitive psychological approach of analyzing preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47938, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    3. Poe, Gregory L. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm," MPRA Paper 38864, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Joo Heon Park & Douglas L. MacLachlan, 2013. "Estimating willingness to pay by risk adjustment mechanism," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 37-46, January.
    5. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    6. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    8. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    9. K.G. Willis & G.D. Garrod, 1998. "Biodiversity values for alternative management regimes in remote UK coniferous forests: an iterative bidding polychotomous choice approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 157-166, September.
    10. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 417-436, December.
    11. Cristeche, Estela & Tello, Diego & de Prada, Jorge & Brescia, Victor, 2015. "Contigent Valuation with Multiple Bounded Format and Uncertainty Response of a Rural Land Zoning Program in the South of Cordoba Province, Argentina," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211551, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    15. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Lili Sun & G. Kooten, 2009. "Comparing Fuzzy and Probabilistic Approaches to Preference Uncertainty in Non-Market Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(4), pages 471-489, April.
    17. Billy Manoka, 2000. "Existence Value: A Re-Appraisal and Cross-Cultural Comparison," EEPSEA Research Report rr2000071, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2000.
    18. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Lars Hultkrantz & Gunnar Lindberg & Camilla Andersson, 2006. "The value of improved road safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 151-170, March.
    20. Joseph Cooper & Daniel Hellerstein, 2009. "Do Government Economists Value AAEA Conferences?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 914-930, December.

    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:aaea26:404750. 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.