IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi07/7577.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

UNTER WELCHEN UMSTANDEN WURDEN DEUTSCHE LANDWIRTE GENTECHNISCH VERANDERTEN RAPS ANBAUEN? EIN DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT (German)

Author

Listed:
  • Breustedt, Gunnar
  • Muller-Scheessel, Jorg
  • Meyer-Schatz, Henrika Marie

Abstract

Mittels eines Discrete Choice Experimentes werden empirisch Determinanten identifiziert, die die Entscheidung für den potenziellen Anbau von gentechnisch verändertem Raps durch 217 rapsanbauende Landwirte bestimmen. Die Deckungsbeitragsdifferenz gegenüber konventionellem Raps, die Haftungswahrscheinlichkeit und höhe für Auskreuzungsschäden, die Wartezeit für die Rückkehr zu konventionellem Rapsanbau, die Einstellung von Nachbarlandwirten gegenüber Grüner Gentechnik, die Betriebsgröße, der betriebliche Rapsanteil, der Betriebstyp, die Innovationsneigung des Betriebsleiters, das Geschlecht des Betriebsleiters, eine akademische Ausbildung und die Existenz von Kindern unter 16 Jahren werden als signifikante Einflussgrößen identifiziert. Folglich ist neben den betriebswirtschaftlichen Kenngrößen nicht nur die eigene Präferenz, sondern auch die Meinung der Nachbarlandwirte mitentscheidend für die Adoption. Hingegen haben eine gesteigerte Anwendungsflexibilität der ersten Herbizidmaßnahme, das Alter und die Kooperationsneigung des Betriebsleiters keinen signifikanten Einfluss.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi07:7577
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7577/files/cp07br01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7577?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. 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.
    2. Enneking, Ulrich, 2003. "Die Analyse von Lebensmittelpräferenzen mit Hilfe von Discrete-Choice-Modellen am Beispiel ökologisch produzierter Wurstwaren," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(05), pages 1-14.
    3. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    4. 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.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    6. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 63-74, March.
    7. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    8. 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. 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.
    2. Breustedt, G. & Müller-Scheeßel, J. & Meyer-Schatz, H.M., 2008. "Unter welchen Umständen würden deutsche Landwirte gentechnisch veränderten Raps anbauen?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    5. 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.
    6. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    7. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    8. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess Peoples' Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Working Papers 2004:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    11. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    13. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    14. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    15. Girma T. Kassie & Awudu Abdulai & Clemens Wollny, 2009. "Valuing Traits of Indigenous Cows in Central Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 386-401, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan, 2006. "Non-Participation in Choice Models: Hurdle and Latent Class Models," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods Using Choice Modeling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And Technology," Research Reports 18181, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    19. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    20. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.

    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:gewi07:7577. 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/gewisea.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.