IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/peaceg/397831.html

Drivers and Barriers to Producer Adoption of Climate Resilient Pea Varieties in the Western Canadian Prairies

Author

Listed:
  • Vanthuyne, Cole

Abstract

Currently, challenges associated with root rots and drought affect the relative advantage of field pea production, and the severity of these challenges is exacerbated by a changing climate. Advances in crop breeding offer potential solutions in the form of new varieties that address these biotic and environmental stressors, but producer adoption is key. In this research, I examine the opportunities and constraints to adoption of field pea in producers’ rotation decisions, with a focus on the impacts of producer perceptions, uncertainty preferences and technology acceptance. Data was collected through an online survey of 461 Western Canadian field crop producers that incorporated a discrete choice experiment (DCE), Tanaka et al.’s (2010) prospect theory game, and Ellsberg’s (1961) two-urns paradox. These methods allowed us to explore how risk, loss, and ambiguity aversion affected demand for varietal attributes—such as climate resilience (root rot resistance and drought tolerance), royalty models (e.g., Variety Use Agreements), and new technologies (e.g., gene editing). Analyzed through a mixed multinomial logit model, the results suggest the inclusion of field pea in the crop rotation is motivated by the benefits of diversification, but the benefits must outweigh the loss of financial certainty or incentives to justify their place in the crop rotation. This motivation is supported with a significant demand found for root rot resistance among risk and ambiguity averse producers within the full sample. Further, loss aversion was found to have significant positive impacts on demand for drought tolerance. The results point towards root rot challenging the financial certainty of pea, whereas in the case of drought tolerance, demand appears to be driven from a search for protection from overall losses, rather than a guarantee of gains. However, uncertainty behaviours are found to have mixed explanatory power over adoption decisions, likely driven by a heterogenous population. The influence of uncertainty is found to be variable between technologies, growing zones, and producer experience with pea. Sub-sample analysis by soil zone and grower type yielded significant but variable results regarding the impact of uncertainty behaviours. Risk, loss, and ambiguity aversion influenced the perceived utility of traits such as root rot resistance and drought tolerance, with the direction and magnitude of these effects differing across sub-samples and traits. A similar pattern is observed among producers exhibiting ambiguity aversion in relation to the adoption of gene-edited varieties, as adoption was found to be limited or increased by a gene-edited designation when ambiguity aversion was present. The presence of Varietal Use Agreements (VUAs) in new varieties is found to significantly limit adoption, with ambiguity aversion magnifying this effect. Overall, there is a demand for climate-resilient traits among sub-samples, however the usage of gene editing and VUA are found to limit adoption within the sample. The variable results by subanalysis highlight the potential importance of localized and heterogenous factors on the demand for agricultural technologies and practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanthuyne, Cole, 2025. "Drivers and Barriers to Producer Adoption of Climate Resilient Pea Varieties in the Western Canadian Prairies," PEAce GE3LS Research 397831, Genome Canada Climate-Smart Agriculture and Food Systems (CSAFS) Initiative Socioeconomics Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:peaceg:397831
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.397831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/397831/files/VANTHUYNE-THESIS-2025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.397831?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. Kirsten Huijps & Henk Hogeveen & Gerrit Antonides & Natalia I. Valeeva & Theo J.G.M. Lam & Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink, 2010. "Sub-optimal economic behaviour with respect to mastitis management," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(4), pages 553-568, December.
    2. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    3. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    4. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    5. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    6. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    7. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
    8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    9. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    10. 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).
    11. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    13. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    14. Glenn W. Harrison & Eric Johnson & Melayne M. McInnes & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 897-901, June.
    15. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    16. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    17. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    18. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    19. Stéphane Couture & Stéphane Lemarié & Sabrina Teyssier & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2024. "The value of information under ambiguity: a theoretical and experimental study on pest management in agriculture," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 19-47, February.
    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. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    2. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    3. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    4. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    5. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    6. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    7. Ding, Yihong & Robinson, Elizabeth & Balcombe, Kelvin, 2025. "The role of experience in climate adaptation: Evidence from a field experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    8. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    9. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    10. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Preferences for information precision under ambiguity," Thema Working Papers 2018-09, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    11. Bocquého, Géraldine & Deschamps, Marc & Helstroffer, Jenny & Jacob, Julien & Joxhe, Majlinda, 2023. "Modelling refugee migration under cognitive biases: Experimental evidence and policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. 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).
    13. Arjun Chatrath & Rohan A. Christie‐David & Hong Miao & Sanjay Ramchander, 2019. "Losers and prospectors in the short‐term options market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(6), pages 721-743, June.
    14. Thomas Astebro & José Mata & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 09.09, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    15. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    16. Sui, Pengfei & Wang, Baolian, 2025. "Stakes and investor behaviors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    17. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Susan Laury & Melayne McInnes & J. Swarthout, 2009. "Insurance decisions for low-probability losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 17-44, August.
    19. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.

    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:peaceg:397831. 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://agbio.usask.ca/ .

    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.