IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150557.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Drives the Adoption of Clean Agricultural Technologies? An Ex Ante Assessment of Sustainable Biofuel Production in Southwestern Wisconsin

Author

Listed:
  • Mooney, Daniel F.
  • Barham, Bradford L.

Abstract

This paper explores the farmer’s general decision to adopt a clean agricultural production technology and the particular role of pro-social behavior. We hypothesize that pro-social behavior may influence farmers’ individual valuation of clean technologies through two channels, their beliefs about the technology’s public benefits and their preferences for environmental quality. A linear characteristics model is developed to illustrate how a pro-social preference structure may lead to different adoption outcomes as compared to the standard profitmaximization framework. We test this possibility using mail survey data on ex ante bioenergy crop adoption in southwestern Wisconsin. The contingent valuation empirical strategy estimates farmers’ distribution of willingness-to-accept values (i.e., minimum biomass reservation prices) as a function of expected pro-social behavior, factors that constrain short-run technological change, and other standard adoption influences. We find that the observed heterogeneity in WTA values is partially and significantly explained by expected pro-social behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L., 2013. "What Drives the Adoption of Clean Agricultural Technologies? An Ex Ante Assessment of Sustainable Biofuel Production in Southwestern Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150557, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150557
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.150557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150557/files/AAEA%20-%20Clean%20technology%20-%2009-19.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.150557?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. Matthew J. Kotchen, 2006. "Green Markets and Private Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(4), pages 816-845, August.
    2. Kotchen, Matthew J., 2005. "Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 281-300, March.
    3. Bradford L. Barham, 1996. "Adoption of a Politicized Technology: bST and Wisconsin Dairy Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1056-1063.
    4. Alexander Pfaff & Shubham Chaudhuri & Howard Nye, 2004. "Household Production and Environmental Kuznets Curves – Examining the Desirability and Feasibility of Substitution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(2), pages 187-200, February.
    5. F. Bonnieux & P. Rainelli & D. Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the Supply of Environmental Benefits by Agriculture: A French Case Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 135-153, March.
    6. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    7. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
    8. Feng Song & Jinhua Zhao & Scott M. Swinton, 2011. "Switching to Perennial Energy Crops Under Uncertainty and Costly Reversibility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 764-779.
    9. P. Dupraz & D. Vermersch & B. De Frahan & L. Delvaux, 2003. "The Environmental Supply of Farm Households: A Flexible Willingness to Accept Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, June.
    10. Robert J. Sheeder & Gary D. Lynne, 2011. "Empathy-Conditioned Conservation: “Walking in the Shoes of Others” as a Conservation Farmer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 433-452.
    11. David J. Lewis & Bradford L. Barham & Brian Robinson, 2011. "Are There Spatial Spillovers in the Adoption of Clean Technology? The Case of Organic Dairy Farming," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 250-267.
    12. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    13. Francois Bonnieux & Pierre Rainelli & Dominique Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture," Post-Print hal-01595403, HAL.
    14. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, January.
    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. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    3. Grischa Perino, 2013. "Private provision of public goods in a second-best world: Cap-and-trade schemes limit green consumerism," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 13-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Moore, Michael R., 2007. "Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Delgado, Michael S. & Harriger, Jessica L. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "The value of environmental status signaling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Dagher, Leila & Bird, Lori & Heeter, Jenny, 2017. "Residential green power demand in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 1062-1068.
    7. Wichman, Casey J., 2016. "Incentives, green preferences, and private provision of impure public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 208-220.
    8. Anja Brumme & Wolfgang Buchholz & Dirk Rübbelke, 2023. "The purity of impure public goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(3), pages 493-514, June.
    9. Matthew J. Kotchen, 2006. "Green Markets and Private Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(4), pages 816-845, August.
    10. Liang Guo & Wendy Xu, 2023. "“We Are the World”: When More Equality Improves Efficiency and Antipandemic Consumptions Are Intervened," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 214-232, March.
    11. Richard Cornes, 2016. "Aggregative Environmental Games," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 339-365, February.
    12. Kotchen, Matthew J., 2007. "Equilibrium existence and uniqueness in impure public good models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 91-96, November.
    13. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    14. Delgado, Michael S. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "Voluntary Pollution Abatement and Regulation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, April.
    15. Wade, Tara & Kurkalova, Lyubov & Secchi, Silvia, 2016. "Modeling Field-Level Conservation Tillage Adoption with Aggregate Choice Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    16. Jongeneel, Roelof A. & Polman, Nico B.P. & Slangen, Louis H.G., 2005. "Why Are Farmers Going Multifunctional?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24585, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Valeria Costantini & Susanna Mancinelli & Massimilano Corradini, 2011. "Environmental and Innovation Performance in a Dynamic Impure Public Good Framework," Working Papers 201117, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    18. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24812, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Lisette Ibanez & Gilles Grolleau, 2008. "Can Ecolabeling Schemes Preserve the Environment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 233-249, June.
    20. Élodie Letort & Chalachew Temesgen, 2014. "Influence of environmental policies on farmland prices in the Bretagne region of France," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 95(1), pages 77-109.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    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:aaea13:150557. 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.