IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea16/242329.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Choice Experiment Study on the Farmers’ Attitudes toward Biogas and Waste Reuse in a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone

Author

Listed:
  • Strazzera, Elisabetta
  • Statzu, Vania

Abstract

The present study aims at assessing dairy farmers’ preferences over different technological options related to the anaerobic digestion technology. A Choice Experiment study was conducted in Arborea, a NVZ dairy district located in Sardinia, Italy. The results show that profitability of the investment is a general driver of the choice. Heterogeneity of preferences is observed, especially as regards the options of investment on-farm or off-farm. Farmers who are especially interested in an investment on-farm are characterized by higher awareness of energy issues; while farmers with excess waste load would prefer an off-farm investment. Digestate treatment options have practically been ignored in our choice experiments: farmers do not seem aware of the opportunities offered by further processing of the digestate to improve management of the farm waste. New regulations associated with the Circular Economy EU package could increase the farmers’ perception of economic benefits associated with the adoption of anaerobic digestion technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Strazzera, Elisabetta & Statzu, Vania, 2016. "A Choice Experiment Study on the Farmers’ Attitudes toward Biogas and Waste Reuse in a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone," 2016 Fifth AIEAA Congress, June 16-17, 2016, Bologna, Italy 242329, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea16:242329
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.242329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/242329/files/AIEAA_2016_Strazzera_Statzu.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.242329?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. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Barnes, A.P. & Willock, J. & Hall, C. & Toma, L., 2009. "Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1715-1722, December.
    3. Benhabib, Jess & Spiegel, Mark M., 2005. "Human Capital and Technology Diffusion," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 935-966, Elsevier.
    4. Nguyen, Thi Phuoc Lai & Seddaiu, Giovanna & Virdis, Salvatore Gonario Pasquale & Tidore, Camillo & Pasqui, Massimiliano & Roggero, Pier Paolo, 2016. "Perceiving to learn or learning to perceive? Understanding farmers' perceptions and adaptation to climate uncertainties," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 205-216.
    5. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    6. Gachango, Florence Gathoni & Andersen, Laura Mørch & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2015. "Adoption of voluntary water-pollution reduction technologies and water quality perception among Danish farmers," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 235-244.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    9. Brudermann, Thomas & Reinsberger, Kathrin & Orthofer, Anita & Kislinger, Martin & Posch, Alfred, 2013. "Photovoltaics in agriculture: A case study on decision making of farmers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-103.
    10. Popp, Jennie S. Hughes & Rodriguez, German, 2007. "The Role of Stakeholders' Perceptions in Addressing Water Quality Disputes in an Embattled Watershed," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34808, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    12. Laura McCann & Haluk Gedikoglu & Bob Broz & John Lory & Ray Massey, 2015. "Effects of observability and complexity on farmers’ adoption of environmental practices," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1346-1362, August.
    13. Anna Bratt, 2002. "Farmers' Choices: Management Practices to Reduce Nutrient Leakage within a Swedish Catchment," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(5), pages 673-689.
    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. Gachango, Florence Gathoni & Andersen, Laura Mørch & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2015. "Adoption of voluntary water-pollution reduction technologies and water quality perception among Danish farmers," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 235-244.
    2. Bourceret, Amélie & Accatino, Francesco & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "A modeling framework of a territorial socio-ecosystem to study the trajectories of change in agricultural phytosanitary practices," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 494(C).
    3. Dmytro Serebrennikov & Fiona Thorne & Zein Kallas & Sinéad N. McCarthy, 2020. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in Europe: A Systemic Review of Empirical Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    7. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    8. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    9. O'Dell, Dallas & Contu, Davide & Shreedhar, Ganga, 2025. "Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. David Boto‐García & Antonio Alvarez & José Baños, 2021. "Modelling heterogeneous preferences for nature‐based tourism trips," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1625-1653, December.
    11. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point & Dominique Ami & Olivier Chanel, 2009. "Approche multidimensionnelle de la valeur économique des loisirs de nature, suivi d'un commentaire de Dominique Ami et Olivier Chanel," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 421(1), pages 29-51.
    12. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    13. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    16. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2019. "Conveyance and the moderating effect of envy on homeowners' choice of appliances," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S06/2019, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    17. Gallardo, R. Karina & Olanie, Aaron & Ordóñez, Rita & Ostrom, Ostrom, 2015. "The Use of Electronic Payment Machines at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    19. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    20. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:aiea16:242329. 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/aieaaea.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.