IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/31120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Hite, Diane
  • Hudson, Darren
  • Intarapapong, Walaiporn

Abstract

A contingent valuation survey conducted in Mississippi is used to assess public willingness to pay for reductions in agricultural nonpoint pollution. The analysis focuses on implementation of a policy to provide farmers with precision application equipment to reduce nutrient runoff. Findings suggest public support exists for such policies. This study also finds that inclusion of debriefing questions can be used to refine willingness-to-pay estimates in contingent valuation studies. A nonparametric scope test suggests respondents are sensitive to level of runoff reduction and associated water-quality benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren & Intarapapong, Walaiporn, 2002. "Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:31120
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31120/files/27020433.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31120?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. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    3. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    5. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    6. Darrell J. Bosch & Zena L. Cook & Keith O. Fuglie, 1995. "Voluntary versus Mandatory Agricultural Policies to Protect Water Quality: Adoption of Nitrogen Testing in Nebraska," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 13-24.
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Isik, Murat & Khanna, Madhu & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2001. "Sequential Investment In Site-Specific Crop Management Under Output Price Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    10. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    11. Intarapapong, Walaiporn & Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren, 2002. "The Economic And Environmental Impacts Of Variable Rate Fertilizer Application: The Case Of Mississippi," Research Reports 15801, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2000. "Using Contingent Valuation to Value a Noxious Weeds Control Program: The Effects of Including an "Unsure" Response Category," Western Region Archives 321676, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    13. Cabe, Richard & Herriges, Joseph A., 1992. "The regulation of non-point-source pollution under imperfect and asymmetric information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 134-146, March.
    14. Caleb A. Oriade & Robert P. King & Frank Forcella & Jeffrey L. Gunsolus, 1996. "A Bioeconomic Analysis of Site-Specific Management for Weed Control," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(4), pages 523-535.
    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. Nettle, R. & Morton, J.M. & McDonald, N. & Suryana, M. & Birch, D. & Nyengo, K. & Mbuli, M. & Ayre, M. & King, B. & Paschen, J.-A. & Reichelt, N., 2021. "Factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors in a privatized agricultural extension system," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Kovacs, Kent & Popp, Michael & Xu, Ying & West, Grant, 2016. "Tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services and economic returns from groundwater depletion on a farm landscape," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235357, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Shaik, Saleem & Coble, Keith H. & Hudson, Darren & Miller, James C. & Hanson, Terrill R. & Sempier, Stephen H., 2008. "Willingness to Pay for a Potential Insurance Policy: Case Study of Trout Aquaculture," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(01), pages 1-10, April.
    4. Cattaneo, Andrea & Claassen, Roger & Johansson, Robert C. & Weinberg, Marca, 2005. "Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?," Economic Research Report 7248, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Kwabena Krah & Daniel R Petrolia & Angelica Williams & Keith H Coble & Ardian Harri & Roderick M Rejesus, 2018. "Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 240-258.
    6. Choi, Dong Soon & Ready, Richard, 2021. "Measuring benefits from spatially-explicit surface water quality improvements: The roles of distance, scope, scale, and size," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Xu, Ying & Kovacs, Kent & Nalley, Lanier & Popp, Michael, 2015. "Investment in on-farm reservoirs to align economic returns and ecosystem services," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196778, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Marcos Gallacher & Daniel Lema & Laura Gastaldi & Alejandro Galetto, 2016. "Climate variability and agricultural production in argentina: the role of risk-transfer mechanisms," Ensayos de Política Económica, Departamento de Investigación Francisco Valsecchi, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina., vol. 2(4), pages 11-38, Octubre.
    9. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P. & Parajuli, Shanta, 2009. "Broiler Producers’ Willingness To Pay To Manage Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46825, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Kovacs, Kent & Wailes, Eric & West, Grant & Popp, Jennie & Bektemirov, Kuatbay, 2014. "Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Groundwater Conservation and Surface Water Quality with On-Farm Reservoirs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 409-437, November.
    12. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    13. Li, Tongzhe & Fooks, Jacob & Messer, Kent D., 2017. "Residents’ Preferences in Adopting Water Runoff Management Practices: Examining the Effect of Behavioral Nudges in a Field Experiment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259127, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Dadhi Adhikari & Jennifer A. Thacher & Janie M. Chermak & Robert P. Berrens, 2017. "Linking Forest to Faucets in a Distant Municipal Area: Public Support for Forest Restoration and Water Security in Albuquerque, New Mexico," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01), pages 1-34, January.
    15. Sarah P. Church & Kristin M. Floress & Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad & Chloe B. Wardropper & Pranay Ranjan & Weston M. Eaton & Stephen Gasteyer & Adena Rissman, 2021. "How water quality improvement efforts influence urban–agricultural relationships," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 481-498, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Bhattarai, Gandhi Raj & Pandit, Ram & Hite, Diane, 2004. "Willingness To Pay For Public Goods: A Hedonic Demand Model For Neighborhood Safety, School And Environmental Quality," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34628, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    19. Diane Hite, 2009. "Factors Influencing Differences between Survey and Market-based Environmental Value Measures," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(1), pages 117-138, January.
    20. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Kim, Tae-Goun, 2011. "Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 515-526, September.
    21. Kent Kovacs & Grant West, 2016. "The Influence of Groundwater Depletion from Irrigated Agriculture on the Tradeoffs between Ecosystem Services and Economic Returns," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, December.
    22. Williams, Angelica & Coble, Keith H. & Williams, Brian & Dicks, Michael & Knippenberg, Ross, 2016. "Consumer Preferences for Pet Health Insurance," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230144, Southern Agricultural 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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. 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.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    6. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    7. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Area," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10103, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    9. Sandra Lechner & Anne Rozan & François Laisney, 2003. "A model of the anchoring effect in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up," Working Papers of BETA 2003-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    10. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2017. "A Novel Approach to Estimating the Demand Value of Road Safety," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 254045, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Daniel McFadden, 2014. "The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 2, pages 7-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    14. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    15. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    16. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    17. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for recycling food waste in the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1096, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    18. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Region," Research Reports 107582, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    19. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    20. Darren Hudson & Diane Hite, 2003. "Producer Willingness to Pay for Precision Application Technology: Implications for Government and the Technology Industry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 51(1), pages 39-53, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:31120. 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.