IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffpr5/42373.html

Farmer Preferences for Milpa Diversity and Genetically Modified Maize in Mexico: A Latent Class Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Birol, Ekin
  • Villalba, Eric Rayn
  • Smale, Melinda

Abstract

Maize, the second most globally important staple crop after wheat, originated in Mexico, where it is typically grown as part of a set of associated crops and practices called the milpa system. This ancient mode of production is practiced today in ways that vary by cultural context and agro-environment. Milpas generate private economic value, in terms of food security, diet quality and livelihoods, for the two-million farm households who manage them. Furthermore, milpas generate public economic value by conserving agrobiodiversity, especially that of maize landraces, which have the potential to contribute unique traits needed by plant breeders for future crop improvement. In this way, milpas contribute to global food security in maize. However, the sustainability of the milpa system has been threatened by off-farm employment opportunities, long-distance migration, the increasing commercialization and intensification of maize production. Most recently, the milpa system has been negatively impacted by the contamination of maize landraces by genetically modified (GM) maize, cultivation of which is currently prohibited in Mexico. Here, we employ a choice experiment to estimate Mexican farmers’ valuation of three components of agrobiodiversity (crop species richness, maize variety richness and maize landraces), and examine their interest in cultivating GM maize. Choice experiment data, household level social, economic and demographic data, community level economic development data, and information on milpa production characteristics, and farmers’ attitudes and perceptions with regards to GM food and crops were collected from 420 farm households across 17 communities in three states of Mexico. Using these data, we analyzed the heterogeneity of farmer preferences using a latent class model, which can be used to simultaneously identify sample segments having homogenous preferences for milpa attributes, as well as farmer characteristics affecting preferences. We further identified the characteristics of farmers who are most likely to continue growing maize landraces and managing milpa systems, as well as those least likely to accept GM maize. Specifically, we identified three distinct segments of farmers: (i) Landrace Conservationists derive the highest private economic value from continued management of landraces and the highest economic loss from the possible adoption of GM maize. These farmers are young, dislike GM foods and crops, and are mainly located at the Oaxaca site, where transgenic constructs have been found in maize landraces. (ii) Milpa Diversity Managers derive the highest economic value from managing all of the agrobiodiversity components of the milpa, and suffer fewer losses from management of GM maize. These are older farmers, who are curious and like to experiment with maize varieties. (iii) Marginalized Maize Producers derive little value from crop species and maize variety richness, receive minimal value from maize landraces, and also experience the smallest negative impact from the adoption of GM maize. These farmers are located in the most isolated communities, have the lowest level of productivity, and oversee the largest milpa areas. They are also the most tightly integrated into the maize output markets. These novel findings have implications for debates concerning the adoption of GM maize in Mexico and its associated costs and benefits, as well as for the design of targeted, cost-effective conservation programs on farms

Suggested Citation

  • Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "Farmer Preferences for Milpa Diversity and Genetically Modified Maize in Mexico: A Latent Class Approach," IFPRI Discussion Papers 42373, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr5:42373
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.42373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/42373/files/ifpridp00726.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.42373?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. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Van Dusen, M. Eric & Taylor, J. Edward, 2005. "Missing markets and crop diversity: evidence from Mexico," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 513-531, August.
    4. Bellon, Mauricio R., 2004. "Conceptualizing Interventions to Support On-Farm Genetic Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 159-172, January.
    5. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    6. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    7. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    8. Rex Dalton, 2001. "Transgenic corn found growing in Mexico," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6854), pages 337-337, 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. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    2. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Ekin Birol & Andreas Kontoleon & Melinda Smale, 2005. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate the Demand of Hungarian Farmers for Food Security and Agrobiodiversity During Economic Transition," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 12.2005, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2005.
    5. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2020. "Economic evaluation of catch-and-release salmon fishing: impact on anglers’ willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-02441505, HAL.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    8. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    9. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    10. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    11. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    12. Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2007. "La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux Monts d’Arrée," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    13. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard, 2007. "La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux Monts d’Arrée," Post-Print hal-01201152, HAL.
    14. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Working Papers 2010-051, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    15. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    16. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol, 2010. "Introduction: The Roles and Significance of Choice Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Kragt, Marit Ellen, "undated". "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Silvia Ferrini & Riccardo Scarpa, 2005. "Experimental Designs for Environmental Valuation with Choice-Experiments: A Monte-Carlo Investigation," Working Papers in Economics 05/08, University of Waikato.
    19. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    20. Birol, Ekin & Phoebe, Koundouri & Yiannis, Kountouris, 2008. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," MPRA Paper 41906, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:iffpr5:42373. 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/ifprius.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.