IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/30767.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Producers' Willingness To Pay For Real-Time Mesoscale Weather Information

Author

Listed:
  • Kenkel, Philip L.
  • Norris, Patricia E.

Abstract

Mesoscale weather networks can provide improved weather information to agricultural producers. This technology can potentially improve production decisions, reduce irrigation and pesticide inputs, and reduce weather-related losses. Developing a mesoscale network to disseminate real-time mesoscale weather information requires a substantial investment. In addition, there are costs associated with maintenance of the system and distribution of the information available. While public funds may be available to support initial development of the system, there may be less public support initial development of the system, there may be less public support for maintaining the system and subsidizing users' access to the information. This study uses the contingent valuation technique to determine the willingness of Oklahoma farmers and ranchers, as one set of potential users, to pay for real-time mesoscale weather information. The results indicate that agricultural producers are willing to pay only a modest fee for improved weather information. Gross sales, irrigation, and past weather losses are among the factors shown to significantly impact willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenkel, Philip L. & Norris, Patricia E., 1995. "Agricultural Producers' Willingness To Pay For Real-Time Mesoscale Weather Information," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30767
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.30767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/30767/files/20020356.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.30767?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. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-566, September.
    3. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Larson, James A. & Collins, Rebecca L. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C., 1999. "Factors Influencing West Tennessee Farmers' Willingness To Pay For A Boll Weevil Eradication Program," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21573, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Velandia, Margarita & Jensen, Kimberly & DeLong, Karen L. & Wszelaki, Annette & Rihn, Alicia, 2020. "Tennessee Fruit and Vegetable Farmer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Plastic Biodegradable Mulch," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 51(3), November.
    3. Samuel D. Zapata & Carlos E. Carpio, 2014. "The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 613-623, September.
    4. Cohen, Daniel R. & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Actual Versus Stated Willingness To Pay: A Comment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-6, December.
    5. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga & Lamie, R. David, 2013. "The Economic Impact of Services Provided by an Electronic Trade Platform: The Case of MarketMaker," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-20.
    6. James R. Mahan & Robert J. Lascano, 2016. "Irrigation Analysis Based on Long-Term Weather Data," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Gillespie, Jeffrey & Lewis, Darius, 2008. "Processor Willingness to Adopt a Crawfish Peeling Machine: An Application of Technology Adoption under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 369-383, April.
    8. Ngugi, Daniel & Mukundu, Denford & Epperson, James E. & Acheampong, Yvonne J., 2003. "Determinants of Household Participation in Rural Development Projects," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35251, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Senakpon, Kokoye, 2017. "Farmers’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Testing Service In Northern Haiti," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252804, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Brenna Ellison & Nicholas D Paulson & Mykel R Taylor & Glynn T Tonsor & Jonathan Coppess & Gary D Schnitkey, 2017. "Evaluation of Educational Offerings Associated with the 2014 Farm Bill," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 547-558.
    11. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-18.
    12. Parcell, Joe L. & Kastens, Terry L. & Dhuyvetter, Kevin C. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2000. "Agricultural Economists' Effectiveness in Reporting and Conveying Research Procedures and Results," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 173-182, October.
    13. Brad Hartman & Harvey Cutler & Martin Shields & Dave Turner, 2021. "The economic effects of improved precipitation forecasts in the United States due to better commuting decisions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 2149-2171, December.
    14. Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "From Farm Income to Food Consumption: Valuing USDA Data Products," C-FARE Reports 266593, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    15. Sardorbek Musayev & Jonathan Mellor & Tara Walsh & Emmanouil Anagnostou, 2022. "Application of Agent-Based Modeling in Agricultural Productivity in Rural Area of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E., 2014. "Distribution-free Methods for Estimation of Willingness to Pay Models Using Discrete Response Valuation Data," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170453, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    4. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    5. Carina Cavalcanti & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2017. "A glance into the willingness to reduce overfishing: Field evidence from a fishnet exchange program," Monash Economics Working Papers 09-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    7. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    9. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    10. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    11. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    13. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    14. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    15. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    16. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    17. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    18. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    19. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    20. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    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:jlaare:30767. 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/waeaaea.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.