IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc23/334540.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Heterogeneity in the effect of GHG mitigation strategies on Irish dairy farms

Author

Listed:
  • Balaine, Lorraine
  • Buckley, Cathal
  • Breen, James
  • Krol, Dominika

Abstract

The agricultural sector is increasingly under pressure to participate in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction effort. At the farm level, significant improvements can be achieved through the adoption of new technologies. This study explores the heterogeneity in the effect of GHG mitigation strategies across the distribution of GHG emissions on Irish dairy farms. The econometric analysis is performed on an unbalanced panel dataset by using fixed effects (FE) unconditional quantile regression models. The preliminary results reveal that GHG mitigation strategies have a differential effect across the distribution of GHG emissions, with two main implications. First, the findings suggest that relying on estimations of a technology’s effect at the mean can be somewhat misleading as this does not reflect the effect of heterogeneity. Second, the study shows that the effect of GHG mitigation strategies is larger for high emitting farms than for low emitting farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Balaine, Lorraine & Buckley, Cathal & Breen, James & Krol, Dominika, 2023. "Heterogeneity in the effect of GHG mitigation strategies on Irish dairy farms," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334540, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc23:334540
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334540/files/AES2023_IrishDairyFarms.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334540?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. Emma Jane Dillon & Thia Hennessy & Peter Howley & John Cullinan & Kevin Heanue & Anthony Cawley, 2018. "Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 207-221, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    4. Kenneth G. Cassman & Patricio Grassini, 2020. "A global perspective on sustainable intensification research," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 262-268, April.
    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. Vaiknoras, Kate A. & Larochelle, Catherine & Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Herrington, Caitlin, 2017. "The Roles of Formal and Informal Delivery Approaches in Achieving Fast and Sustained Adoption of Biofortified Crops: Learnings from the Iron Bean Delivery Approaches in Rwanda," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258288, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Bulte, Erwin & Cecchi, Francesco & Lensink, Robert & Marr, Ana & van Asseldonk, Marcel, 2020. "Does bundling crop insurance with certified seeds crowd-in investments? Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 744-757.
    3. Pronti, Andrea & Auci, Sabrina & Berbel, Julio, 2024. "Water conservation and saving technologies for irrigation. A structured literature review of econometric studies on the determinants of adoption," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    4. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    5. Michael J. Andrews, 2020. "Local Effects of Land Grant Colleges on Agricultural Innovation and Output," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 139-175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. repec:lic:licosd:37616 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Wuepper, David & Sauer, Johannes & Kleemann, Linda, 2014. "Sustainable intensification of pineapple farming in Ghana: Training and complexity," Kiel Working Papers 1973, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Soto, Iria & Achten, Wouter M.J. & Muys, Bart & Mathijs, Erik, 2015. "Who benefits from energy policy incentives? The case of jatropha adoption by smallholders in Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 37-47.
    10. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    11. Villacis, Alexis H. & Bloem, Jeffrey R. & Mishra, Ashok K., 2023. "Aspirations, risk preferences, and investments in agricultural technologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Johan Swinnen, 2016. "Value Chain Innovations for Technology Transfer in Developing and Emerging Economies: Concept, Typology and Policy Implications," Working Papers id:10694, eSocialSciences.
    13. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    14. Mudiwa, Benjamin, 2011. "A Logit Estimation of Factors Determining Adoption of Conservation Farming by Smallholder Farmers in the Semi-Arid Areas of Zimbabwe," Research Theses 198516, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Hira Channa & Jacob Ricker‐Gilbert & Hugo De Groote & Jonathan Bauchet, 2021. "Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 733-748, September.
    16. Mekonnen, Daniel & Gerber, Nicolas, 2015. "The Effect of Aspirations on Agricultural Innovations in Rural Ethiopia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211680, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Shawn Cole & Xavier Giné & James Vickery, 2017. "How Does Risk Management Influence Production Decisions? Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1935-1970.
    18. Smale, Melinda & Assima, Amidou & Kergna, Alpha & Thériault, Véronique & Weltzien, Eva, 2018. "Farm family effects of adopting improved and hybrid sorghum seed in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 162-171.
    19. Macours, Karen, 2014. "Adoption and adaptation in developing country agriculture," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 95(01), pages 13-24, March.
    20. Vaiknoras, Kate A. & Larochelle, Catherine & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2020. "The spillover effects of seed producer groups on non-member farmers in local communities in Nepal," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304359, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management;

    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:aesc23:334540. 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.