IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i2d10.1007_s10668-020-00630-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring opportunity cost of conversion to eco-friendly farming system: the case of Samsun and Adana provinces of Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Çağatay Yıldırım

    (Ondokuz Mayıs University)

  • Hatice Türkten

    (Ondokuz Mayıs University)

  • Vedat Ceyhan

    (Ondokuz Mayıs University)

  • Ela Atış

    (Ege University)

  • Mehmet Hasdemir

    (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)

  • H. Ece Salalı

    (Ege University)

  • Yarkın Akyüz

    (Ege University)

  • Figen Güngör

    (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)

Abstract

For last decade, adverse effects of agricultural practices to environment have been critically important worldwide. However, there has been very limited information about sufficiency of government subsidies and effects of environmental consideration on productive efficiency. The purposes of the study are, therefore, to calculate the opportunity cost of conversion to eco-friendly farming in Samsun and Adana provinces of Turkey, to determine the effects of participating the program on the farm level production efficiency and to reveal link farmers’ satisfaction and opportunity cost of participating to EFALP. The bulk of data were collected from randomly selected 168 farms by using structured questionnaire during the production year of 2015. The difference between the net revenue of participants and non-participant farms was attributed to opportunity cost of conversion to eco-friendly farming system. Data envelopment analysis was used to calculate the efficiency measures such as technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and economic efficiency for similar participants and non-participant farms, which were selected by using cluster analysis. Research result showed that scores of economic efficiency, allocative efficiency and technical efficiency were 0.37, 0.84 and 0.45 in Adana, while that of Samsun were 0.4, 0.77 and 0.60, respectively. The share of subsidies for environmental protection in total subsidies for participant farms in Samsun and Adana was 88.6% and 55.6%, respectively. The opportunity cost of environment protection for average farm was €4454.3 in Adana and €502.5 in Samsun. The quantity of sacrifice for protecting environment in Adana is higher than that of Samsun. Farm level sufficiency of environmental subsidies was 10.6% in Adana, while that of Samsun was more than a hundred. Research results also showed that government environmental subsidies were not allocated efficiently since EFALP ignored the opportunity cost of conversion and its spatial differences. It was clear from the evidence based on the research findings that the quantity of sacrifice for protecting environment was the basic reason for farmers’ satisfaction from EFALP. Rethinking the mechanism of EFALP considering spatial variability of farms’ sacrifice for protecting the environment may reinforce the EFALP. Research suggested a new option that is allocating the government payment associated with an opportunity cost of conversion to balance spatial satisfaction among farms included EFALP and to increase financial efficiency of the EFALP budget.

Suggested Citation

  • Çağatay Yıldırım & Hatice Türkten & Vedat Ceyhan & Ela Atış & Mehmet Hasdemir & H. Ece Salalı & Yarkın Akyüz & Figen Güngör, 2021. "Exploring opportunity cost of conversion to eco-friendly farming system: the case of Samsun and Adana provinces of Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1447-1460, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00630-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00630-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-00630-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-00630-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falconer, Katherine & Hodge, Ian, 2001. "Pesticide taxation and multi-objective policy-making: farm modelling to evaluate profit/environment trade-offs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 263-279, February.
    2. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Runge, C. Ford & Trestini, Samuele, 2006. "Factors Affecting Farmers' Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures: Evidence from a Case Study," Conference Papers 6688, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    3. Timothy J. Coelli & D.S. Prasada Rao & Christopher J. O’Donnell & George E. Battese, 2005. "An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-0-387-25895-9, December.
    4. Emi Uchida & Scott Rozelle & Jintao Xu, 2009. "Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints, and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on Rural Households in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 70-86.
    5. Trujillo, Juan C. & Iglesias, Wilman J., 2013. "Measurement of the Technical Efficiency of Small Pineapple Farmers in Santander, Colombia: a stochastic frontier approach," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 51(Supplemen), pages 1-14, December.
    6. R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
    7. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    8. M. Mimouni & S. Zekri & G. Flichman, 2000. "Modelling the trade‐offs between farm income and the reduction of erosion and nitrate pollution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 91-103, January.
    9. Ismet Boz, 2018. "Determinants of farmers’ enrollment in voluntary environmental programs: evidence from the Eregli Reed Bed area of Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 2643-2661, December.
    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. Silvia Saravia-Matus & T. S. Amjath-Babu & Sreejith Aravindakshan & Stefan Sieber & Jimmy A. Saravia & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2021. "Can Enhancing Efficiency Promote the Economic Viability of Smallholder Farmers? A Case of Sierra Leone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Simona Alfiero & Laura Broccardo & Massimo Cane & Alfredo Esposito, 2018. "High Performance Through Innovation Process Management in SMEs. Evidence from the Italian wine sector," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 87-110.
    3. Cordero, José Manuel & Santín, Daniel & Sicilia, Gabriela, 2015. "Testing the accuracy of DEA estimates under endogeneity through a Monte Carlo simulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(2), pages 511-518.
    4. Nguyen, Bao Hoang & Simar, Léopold & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2022. "Data sharpening for improving central limit theorem approximations for data envelopment analysis–type efficiency estimators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1469-1480.
    5. Moravcikova Dominika & Krizanova Anna & Svabova Lucia, 2018. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Selected Slovak Brands on the Principle of DEA Models with the Possibility to Optimise them," Economics and Culture, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 22-34, June.
    6. Nadimi, Reza & Tokimatsu, Koji, 2019. "Potential energy saving via overall efficiency relying on quality of life," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 283-299.
    7. Vittadini, Giorgio & Sturaro, Caterina & Folloni, Giuseppe, 2022. "Non-Cognitive Skills and Cognitive Skills to measure school efficiency," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Kimhi, Ayai & Lerman, Zvi (ed.), 2015. "Agricultural transition in post-soviet Europe and Central Asia after 25 years: International workshop in honor of Professor Zvi Lerman," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 79, number 79, September.
    9. Wijesiri, Mahinda & Yaron, Jacob & Meoli, Michele, 2017. "Assessing the financial and outreach efficiency of microfinance institutions: Do age and size matter?," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 63-76.
    10. Thanh Ngo & Kan Wai Hong Tsui, 2022. "Estimating the confidence intervals for DEA efficiency scores of Asia-Pacific airlines," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3411-3434, September.
    11. Cheng, Gang & Qian, Zhenhua, 2011. "Dea数据标准化方法及其在方向距离函数模型中的应用 [Data normalization for data envelopment analysis and its application to directional distance function]," MPRA Paper 31995, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Thu Trang Tran Nguyen & Hai Ha Le & Thi Minh Hop Ho & Thomas Dogot & Philippe Burny & Thi Nga Bui & Philippe Lebailly, 2020. "Efficiency Analysis of the Progress of Orange Farms in Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam towards Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, April.
    13. Halkos, George E. & Aslanidis, Panagiotis – Stavros C., 2023. "Sustainable energy development in an era of geopolitical multi-crisis. Applying productivity indices within institutional framework," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    14. An‐Pang Wang & Che‐Wei Chang & Juin‐Ming Tsai & Shiu‐Wan Hung, 2021. "A performance evaluation of Major League Baseball teams: An integrated social network and data envelopment analysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(6), pages 1421-1434, September.
    15. Nima Monghasemi & Amir Vadiee & Konstantinos Kyprianidis & Elaheh Jalilzadehazhari, 2023. "Rank-Based Assessment of Grid-Connected Rooftop Solar Panel Deployments Considering Scenarios for a Postponed Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Lucio Cecchini & Francesco Romagnoli & Massimo Chiorri & Biancamaria Torquati, 2023. "Eco-Efficiency and Its Determinants: The Case of the Italian Beef Cattle Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Seog-Chan Oh & Alfred J. Hildreth, 2014. "Estimating the Technical Improvement of Energy Efficiency in the Automotive Industry—Stochastic and Deterministic Frontier Benchmarking Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-27, September.
    18. Shah, Wasi Ul Hassan & Hao, Gang & Yasmeen, Rizwana & Yan, Hong & Shen, Jintao & Lu, Yuting, 2023. "Role of China's agricultural water policy reforms and production technology heterogeneity on agriculture water usage efficiency and total factor productivity change," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    19. Simar, Léopold & Zelenyuk, Valentin & Zhao, Shirong, 2024. "Inference for aggregate efficiency: Theory and guidelines for practitioners," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 316(1), pages 240-254.
    20. Veronese da Silva, Aline & Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes-Ahn, Ana Lúcia, 2022. "Accounting multiple environmental variables in DEA energy transmission benchmarking modelling: The 2019 Brazilian case," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00630-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.