IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea98/20942.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmer Willingness To Pay For Herbicide Safety Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Owens, Nicole N.
  • Swinton, Scott M.
  • van Ravenswaay, Eileen O.

Abstract

Microeconomic studies often make two assumptions: 1) producers focus on profit maximization, disregarding "external" environmental and health costs; and 2) producers have full information about their production processes and markets. This study examines whether these assumptions are valid for the herbicide use decisions of Michigan corn growers. It further examines corn growers' willingness to pay for reductions in risk associated with the use of herbicide safety characteristics. The approach used involves a mail survey designed to simulate the market for herbicide formulations described as identical to atrazine except that the "new" herbicide formulations are described as a) not carcinogenic to humans, b) not leachable into groundwater, or c) nontoxic to fish. Respondents were asked a variety of questions about their farms, herbicide use, information sources, and their knowledge and opinions of health and environmental effects of atrazine. A double-hurdle model is used to estimate demand for the "new" formulations. From this, willingness to pay is estimated. As predicted by theory and indicated by previous studies, willingness to pay for risk reductions associated with each of the three safety attributes was positive. Results indicate that mean willingness to pay for source reduction in leaching risk from atrazine is $4.40 per acre for 40 acres and is $4.92 per acre for the carcinogenicity risks. While the average respondent would not demand 40 acres of source reduction in fish toxicity risk from atrazine, mean willingness to pay for 30 acres is $3.92 per acre. For the non-leaching formulation, this result indicates the average respondent would pay a premium of $4.40 cents per acre to purchase 40 acres of an atrazine alternative proven to be non-leaching. As atrazine is typically applied at a cost of $3.00 per acre, these premiums are significant. The range of willingness to pay estimates for the three aspects of health and environmental quality examined by this research suggest that farmers are more concerned about on-farm health and environmental effects than about off-farm effects. For each of the quantities examined here, per acre willingness to pay for reductions in fish toxicity risks was less than that associated with reductions in leaching and carcinogenicity risks. Cancer and leaching are generally on-farm effects, while harmful effects to fish tend to occur "downstream." The mean levels of adoption for the three attributes also confirm this. Over 40 percent of respondents indicated they would use some of the non-leaching and non-carcinogenic attributes, while only 25 percent indicated similar intentions for the fish-safe attribute. The results for the non-leaching attribute allowed testing of the hypothesis that willingness to pay increases with knowledge of the potential of atrazine to leach. The empirical results suggest that average willingness to pay for reductions in the leaching risk from atrazine would increase by approximately 9 percent if all farmers were fully informed of the leaching potential of atrazine.

Suggested Citation

  • Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., 1998. "Farmer Willingness To Pay For Herbicide Safety Characteristics," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20942, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea98:20942
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20942/files/spowen01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20942?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. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand, Jr. & Kenneth E. McConnell & Firuzeh Arsanjani, 1990. "Sample Selection Bias in the Estimation of Recreation Demand Functions: An Application to Sportfishing," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(1), pages 40-49.
    3. D'souza, Gerard & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim, 1993. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 159-165, October.
    4. Kevin T. McNamara & Michael E. Wetzstein & G. Keith Douce, 1991. "Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 129-139.
    5. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    6. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    7. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    8. E. Douglas Beach & Gerald A. Carlson, 1993. "A Hedonic Analysis of Herbicides: Do User Safety and Water Quality Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 612-623.
    9. D'Souza, Gerard E. & Cyphers, Douglas & Phipps, Tim T., 1993. "Factors Affecting The Adoption Of Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-7, October.
    10. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1995. "Farmer Demand for Safer Pesticides," Staff Paper Series 201201, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    11. Ribaudo, Marc & Bouzaher, Aziz, 1994. "Atrazine: Environmental Characteristics and Economics of Management," Agricultural Economic Reports 34011, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Waibel, Hermann & Garming, Hildegard, 2007. "Pesticides And Farmer Health In Nicaragua: A Willingness To Pay Approach," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 7, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    2. Garming, H. & Waibel, H., 2007. "Willingness to pay to avoid health risks from pesticides, a case study from Nicaragua," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    3. Hasing, Tomas & Carpio, Carlos E. & Willis, David B. & Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele, 2012. "The Effect of Label Information on U.S. Farmers' Herbicide Choices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 200-214, August.
    4. Poor, Joan, 1999. "Water Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: Welfare Measures for Chemigation Producers," Western Region Archives 321700, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    5. Garming, Hildegard & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Willingness To Pay To Avoid Health Risks From Pesticides, A Case Study From Nicaragua," 46th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, October 4-6, 2006 14968, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Hildegard Garming & Hermann Waibel, 2009. "Pesticides and farmer health in Nicaragua: a willingness-to-pay approach to evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 125-133, May.

    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. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., 1997. "Will Farmers Use Safer Pesticides?," Staff Paper Series 11577, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Poor, Joan, 1999. "Water Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: Welfare Measures for Chemigation Producers," Western Region Archives 321700, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    3. Dung, Luu Tien & Phi Ho, Dinh & Thi Kim Hiep, Nguyen & Hoi, Phan Thi, 2018. "The Determinants of Rice Farmers Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Applied Economics, Kasetsart University, Center for Applied Economics Research, vol. 25(2), December.
    4. Swinton, Scott M. & Day, Esther, 2000. "Economics In The Design, Assessment, Adoption, And Policy Analysis Of I.P.M," Staff Paper Series 11789, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Maumbe, Blessing M. & Swinton, Scott M., 2000. "Why Do Smallholder Cotton Growers In Zimbabwe Adopt Ippm? The Role Of Pesticide-Related Health Risks And Technology Awareness," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21784, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    7. Mugula, Joseph J & Ahmad, Athman Kyaruzi & Msinde, John & Kadigi, Michael, 2023. "Determinants of Adoption of Bundled Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Mvomero and Kilosa Districts, Tanzania," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 11(4), September.
    8. Egziabher, Kidanemariam G. & Mathijs, Erik & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Maertens, Miet, 2013. "The Economic Impact of a New Rural Extension Approach in Northern Ethiopia," Working Papers 146558, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Lungu, Harad Chuma, 2019. "Determinants of climate smart agricultural technology adoption in the Northern Province of Zambia," Research Theses 334754, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Boris O. K. Lokonon & Aly A. Mbaye, 2018. "Climate change and adoption of sustainable land management practices in the Niger basin of Benin," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, February.
    11. Ndiritu, S. Wagura & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele, 2014. "Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 117-127.
    12. Amankwah, Akuffo, 2021. "Adoption of Multiple Agricultural Technologies and Impact on Productivity in Rural Nigeria – a Plot-Level Analysis," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315178, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    14. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    15. Sydorovych, Olha & Marra, Michele C., 2007. "A Genetically Engineered Crop's Impact on Pesticide Use: A Revealed-Preference Index Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Zhihai Yang & Amin W. Mugera & Ning Yin & Yumeng Wang, 2018. "Soil conservation practices and production efficiency of smallholder farms in Central China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1517-1533, August.
    19. Tiziana Pagnani & Elisabetta Gotor & Enoch Kikulwe & Francesco Caracciolo, 2021. "Livelihood assets’ influence on Ugandan farmers’ control practices for Banana Xanthomonas Wilt (BXW)," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.

    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:aaea98:20942. 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.