IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150419.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring Factors That Influence Perceptions of Using Genomics for Emission Reductions in Beef Cattle

Author

Listed:
  • Kessler, Anna
  • Goddard, Ellen
  • Parkins, John

Abstract

Given the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from beef production and rising concerns with climate change, genomics have been introduced to facilitate selective breeding for increased feed efficiency in beef cattle as one area of emissions reductions. Public perception is an important consideration in this endeavour. In this study data collected from a survey of 1803 participants from across Canada is analysed and the influence of attitudes and knowledge pertaining to the environment and biotechnologies on the degree of acceptance and relative perceived benefit to human health of this use of genetic technology is examined. Upon grouping respondents into categories of those who oppose, doubt, and support this use of genomics, multinomial logistic regressions are used to determine the factors influencing an opposing or supporting position, relative to doubt, the relatively neutral position. Results suggest that distinct characteristics influence the likelihood of supporting or opposing this use of technology with respect to two different measures of acceptability of the technology - degree of acceptance and relative perceived benefits to human health.

Suggested Citation

  • Kessler, Anna & Goddard, Ellen & Parkins, John, 2013. "Exploring Factors That Influence Perceptions of Using Genomics for Emission Reductions in Beef Cattle," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150419
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.150419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150419/files/AKessler_AAEA2013_Selected-Paper-2675.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.150419?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. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    2. Subak, Susan, 1999. "Global environmental costs of beef production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 79-91, July.
    3. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2007. "Structural Equation Modelling of Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food (GM) in the Mediterranean Europe: Spain, Greece and Italy," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9415, 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. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate friendly production practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-106.

    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. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    2. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 412-419, October.
    3. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    4. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    5. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2014. "Sustainable development in ecological economics," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 3, pages 41-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    7. Martin Binder, 2009. "Some Considerations Regarding the Problem of Multidimensional Utility," Jena Economics Research Papers 2009-099, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Toman, Michael, 1998. "Sustainable Decisionmaking: The State of the Art from an Economics Perspective," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-39, Resources for the Future.
    9. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Chan, Andrew Yiu-Chung & Fleming, Christopher M., 2013. "Estimating the cost of air pollution in South East Queensland: An application of the life satisfaction non-market valuation approach," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152133, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    11. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    12. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    13. Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    14. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Valuing Ecosystem Diversity in South East Queensland: A Life Satisfaction Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 45-65, January.
    15. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    16. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.
    17. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    18. Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
    19. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara, 2012. "A parsimonious, stacked latent-class methodology for predicting behavioral heterogeneity in terms of life-constraint heterogeneity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 130-144.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Livestock Production/Industries; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;
    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:aaea13:150419. 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.