IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wsu/wpaper/shumway-6.html

Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion and Behavioral Innovation Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Clark P. Bishop
  • C. Richard Shumway
  • Philip R. Wandschneider

    (School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University)

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion technology addresses environmental issues of waste disposal and greenhouse gas emission reduction. This paper examines attitudes toward adoption of this conservation technology on dairy farms. To specify an appropriate dependent variable without a large number of adopters, an ordered probit model is constructed. The empirical analysis uses data from a 2006 survey of Northwest dairy farms. Aggregate variables are constructed based on behavioral economics and conservation adoption literature. Variables include private and social costs, social motives, capacity, innovation receptivity, and opportunity costs, most of which are found to be highly related to the decision to seriously consider adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2008. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion and Behavioral Innovation Theory," Working Papers 2008-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsu:wpaper:shumway-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wfaculty.ses.wsu.edu/WorkingPapers/Shumway/Anerobic%20Digest%20socio-econ_LAND-2%20complete.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hayes, William M. & Lynne, Gary D., 2004. "Towards a centerpiece for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 287-301, July.
    2. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    3. Levine, Daniel S., 2006. "Neural modeling of the dual motive theory of economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 613-625, August.
    4. Upadhyay, Bharat Mani & Young, Douglas L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2002. "How Do Farmers Who Adopt Multiple Conservation Practices Differ From Their Neighbors?," 2002 Annual Meeting, July 28-31, 2002, Long Beach, California 36658, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Cory, Gerald Jr., 2006. "A behavioral model of the dual motive approach to behavioral economics and social exchange," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 592-612, August.
    6. Ivan O. Kitov, 2005. "Modelling the average income dependence on work experience in the USA from 1967 to 2002," Working Papers 11, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    7. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(01), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    9. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    10. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    11. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    12. Rahelizatovo, Noro C. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2002. "Factors Influencing The Implementation Of Best Management Practices In The Dairy Industry," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35241, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    2. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    3. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    4. Lynne, Gary D., 2006. "Toward a dual motive metaeconomic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 634-651, August.
    5. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    6. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    9. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 213-227, May.
    10. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    11. Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan & Molnarova, Kristina Janeckova & Vlasak, Josef & Kottova, Blanka & Petrzelka, Peggy & Gebhart, Michal & Walmsley, Alena, 2020. "Trends of soil degradation: Does the socio-economic status of land owners and land users matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Abdulla, Majd, 2009. "The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001913, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Buckley, Cathal & Howley, Peter & Jordan, Phil, . "The role of differing farming motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(4).
    15. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Taylor, Mykel & Banerjee, Simanti & Xie, Lusi, 2023. "Factors influencing enrollment of leased cropland in the Conservation Stewardship Program in Kansas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    19. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric, 2012. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs A Preliminary Analysis of New Data," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124721, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:wsu:wpaper:shumway-6. 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: Danielle Engelhardt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecwsuus.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.