IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/csdawp/108719.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Kipperberg, Gorm
  • Bond, Craig A.
  • Hoag, Dana L.

Abstract

This paper analyzes Colorado Corn producers’ preferences over both private- and environmental public-good production system attributes. Current production practices are characterized by intensive water and chemical use, resulting in non-point source pollution to water bodies as well as soil erosion problems. Data from a stated preference survey are employed to analyze key attributes of experimentally configured irrigation systems, proposed as alternatives to current practices. Panel mixed logit estimations find positive preferences for profit, risk reduction, and, importantly, systems with less environmental impact in terms of nitrate leaching and soil erosion. The results also find presence of significant preference heterogeneity and a complementary relationship between the two environmental attributes. Analysis of this kind can be used by policy makers to predict behavioral responses associated with introduction of new technologies, or to assess welfare implications of agricultural policy changes and stricter environmental regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kipperberg, Gorm & Bond, Craig A. & Hoag, Dana L., 2008. "An Application of Mixed Logit Estimation in the Analysis of Producers’ Stated Preferences," Working Papers 108719, Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:csdawp:108719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/108719
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    2. Nyborg, Karine & Rege, Mari, 2003. "Does Public Policy Crowd Out Private Contributions to Public Goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 115(3-4), pages 397-418, June.
    3. Navarro, Peter, 1988. "Why Do Corporations Give to Charity?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(1), pages 65-93, January.
    4. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    5. G. C. Van Kooten & Ward P. Weisensel & Duangdao Chinthammit, 1990. "Valuing Trade-Offs between Net Returns and Stewardship Practices: The Case of Soil Conservation in Saskatchewan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(1), pages 104-113.
    6. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    7. Court, R H & Woods, Marry J, 1970. "Testing for Profit Maximization in an Empirical Situation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 11(3), pages 412-426, October.
    8. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Furubotn, Eirik G & Pejovich, Svetozar, 1972. "Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1137-1162, December.
    10. José Moraga-González & Noemi Padrón-Fumero, 2002. "Environmental Policy in a Green Market," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 419-447, July.
    11. Robert Innes, 2006. "A Theory of Consumer Boycotts under Symmetric Information and Imperfect Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(511), pages 355-381, April.
    12. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    13. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    14. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    15. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
    16. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    17. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    18. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    19. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kverndokk, Snorre & Nyborg, Karine, 2003. "An economic model of moral motivation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 1967-1983, September.
    20. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    21. Rehman, T. & Romero, C., 1993. "The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems: Some basic considerations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-255.
    22. Ekin Birol & Melinda Smale & Ágnes Gyovai, 2006. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate Farmers’ Valuation of Agrobiodiversity on Hungarian Small Farms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(4), pages 439-469, August.
    23. Aydin Basarir & Jeffrey M. Gillespie, 2006. "Multidimensional goals of beef and dairy producers: an inter-industry comparison," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(1), pages 103-114, July.
    24. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural production; profit-maximization; environment; mixed logit; stated preference; attribute part-worth; nitrate leaching; soil erosion; risk; Crop Production/Industries; C10; D62; Q12; Q15; Q51;

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:csdawp:108719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dacsuus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.