IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aes008/36771.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Breustedt, Gunnar
  • Muller-Scheessel, Jorg
  • Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe

Abstract

This paper explores farmers’ willingness to adopt genetically modified oilseed rape prior to its commercial release and estimates the ‘demand’ for the new technology. The analysis is based upon choice experiments with 202 German arable farmers. A multinomial probit estimation revealed that GM attributes such as gross margin, expected liability from cross pollination, or flexibility in returning to conventional oilseed rape significantly affect the likelihood of adoption. Neighbouring farmers’ attitudes towards GM cropping and a number of farmer and farm characteristics were also found to be significant determinants of prospective adoption. Demand simulations suggest that adoption rates are very sensitive to the profit difference between GM and non-GM rape varieties. A monopolistic seed price would substantially reduce demand for the new technology. A monopolistic seed supplier would reap between 45 and 80 per cent of the GM rent, and the deadweight loss of the monopoly would range between 15 and 30 per cent of that rent. The remaining rent for farmers may be too small to outweigh possible producer price discounts resulting from the costs of segregating GM and non-GM oilseed rape along the supply chain.

Suggested Citation

  • Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aes008:36771
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.36771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/36771/files/Breustedt_scheesel_latacz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.36771?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. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Bolduc, Denis, 1999. "A practical technique to estimate multinomial probit models in transportation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 63-79, February.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    7. Marra, Michele C. & Hubbell, Bryan J. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2001. "Information Quality, Technology Depreciation, And Bt Cotton Adoption In The Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Matin Qaim & Alain de Janvry, 2003. "Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 814-828.
    9. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Qaim, Matin, 2007. "Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who Benefits from public-private partnership?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5-6), pages 523-543.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    11. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economic Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Bryan J. Hubbell & Michele C. Marra & Gerald A. Carlson, 2000. "Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 118-132.
    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. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    2. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Meyer-Schatz, Henrika Marie, 2007. "UNTER WELCHEN UMSTANDEN WURDEN DEUTSCHE LANDWIRTE GENTECHNISCH VERANDERTEN RAPS ANBAUEN? EIN DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT (German)," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7577, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.
    4. Sadashivappa, Prakash & Qaim, Matin, 2009. "Effects of Bt Cotton in India During the First Five Years of Adoption," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 49947, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    6. Anchal Arora & Sangeeta Bansal, "undated". "Diffusion of Bt Cotton in India: Impact of Seed Prices and Technological Development," Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Discussion Papers 11-01, Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
    7. Thomas J. Venus & Koen Dillen & Maarten J. Punt & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2017. "The Costs of Coexistence Measures for Genetically Modified Maize in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 407-426, June.
    8. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    9. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2003. "European Consumer Preferences For U.S. And Domestic Beef: Willingness To Pay For Source Verification, Hormone-Free, And Genetically Modified Organism-Free Beef," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21974, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Perez y Perez, Luis, 2011. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for biodiesel in Spain," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114605, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Gracia, Azucena & de Magistris, Tiziana, 2008. "When more is less: the effect of multiple health and nutritional labels in food product choice," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    15. Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R., 2008. "Korean Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Domestic versus U.S. and Australian Beef with Alternative Attributes," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6172, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    17. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    18. Ellis, Jade & Delong, Karen L. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Griffith, Andrew P., 2021. "The Impact of a Visual Cheap Talk Script in an Online Choice Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 12(01), January.
    19. Gary Madden & Michael Simpson & Scott Savage, 2002. "Broadband Delivered Entertainment Services: Forecasting Australian Subscription Intentions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 78(243), pages 422-432, December.
    20. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    More about this item

    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:aes008:36771. 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/aesukea.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.