IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150409.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Horticultural Producers' Willingness to Adopt Water Recirculation Technology in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Author

Listed:
  • Cultice, Alyssa K.
  • Bosch, Darrell J.
  • Pease, James W.
  • Boyle, Kevin J.

Abstract

In response to economic and environmental concerns, Water-Recycling Technologies (WRT) have been developed to reduce water consumption and surface run-off in horticultural operations. Water recirculation provides the potential for water conservation and may also reduce grower costs in the long run. However, WRT comes with increased risk of disease from water-borne pathogens such as Pythium and Phytophthora, which can cause devastating plant losses. In addition, WRT entail infrastructure investment costs to capture, treat, and recirculate water. These cost and disease concerns dissuade some growers from adopting WRT. More information is needed about producers’ irrigation and disease management practices and their attitudes toward containment and recirculation of irrigation runoff. A mail survey was administered in February 2013 to horticultural nursery growers in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Information was gathered about the firm and respondents’ demographic characteristics, plus production, irrigation, and disease management practices. The survey incorporates a choice experiment analyzing willingness to accept water recycling based upon hypothetical disease outbreak and water shortage probabilities and associated percentage cost increases. This information is related to the respondent’s recycling choices using a conditional logit model to evaluate the effects of disease probability, drought probability, and water recirculation cost on producers’ willingness to adopt waterrecycling technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Cultice, Alyssa K. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2013. "Horticultural Producers' Willingness to Adopt Water Recirculation Technology in the Mid-Atlantic Region," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150409, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150409
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.150409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150409/files/Culticeetal_2013_AAEASelectedPaper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.150409?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 1999. "Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of Organic Horticultural Techniques in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 47-63, January.
    3. Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2005. "Farmers' Choice of Using Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Social Capital Approach," 2005 Annual Meeting, February 5-9, 2005, Little Rock, Arkansas 35505, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. 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.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Bayard, Budry & Jolly, Curtis M., 2007. "Environmental Perceptions and Behavioral Change of Hillside Farmers: The Case of Haiti," Farm and Business - The Journal of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    9. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre, 2008. "Does Intensity Of Change Matter? Factors Affecting Adoption In Two Agri-Environmental Schemes," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6458, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jihyo & Park, Hi-Chun & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2015. "Incentives for waste cooking oil collection in South Korea: A contingent valuation approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-71.

    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. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    2. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    4. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    7. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    8. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    9. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    10. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    11. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. James, Philip A.S. & Smart, James C. R. & Smith, Julian & Bulling, M. T. & Beed, Fen D. & Luwandagga, David, 2011. "The effect of participation in the Ugandan National Agricultural Advisory Services on willingness to pay for extension services," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Acceptance of national wind power development and exposure. A case-control choice experiment approach," Discussion Papers 933, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    16. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    17. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 29-37.
    20. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these 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:aaea13:150409. 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/aaeaaea.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.