IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jet/dpaper/dpaper641.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can money always talk? : implication for environmental compensation by international agribusiness

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Li
  • Lei, Lei

Abstract

With the development of agricultural industrialization, the environmental issues of intensive animal farming are attracting increasing attention. Using survey data from 313 Chinese households living near the large-scale broiler farms of an international food company, this paper employs a contingent valuation method and discrete choice experiment to quantify the willingness to accept an air pollution compensation scheme. We find the following. (1) 42% of respondents have a nonmonetary preference for compensation; thus, the conventional contingent valuation method is unsuitable for application to them. (2) The results of a probit and tobit model show that in addition to income, “trust and perception” dominate decision-making based on willingness to accept; however, the effect of actual distance is weak. (3) Because of the positive externalities of roads, schools, and job opportunities, the combination of nonmonetary options is feasible and beneficial for both sides (the company and households) in the long term. Thus, from the perspective of the global value chain, it is worth studying nonmonetary compensation strategies in order to explore the sustainable development strategies of multinational corporations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Li & Lei, Lei, 2017. "Can money always talk? : implication for environmental compensation by international agribusiness," IDE Discussion Papers 641, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    • Handle: RePEc:jet:dpaper:dpaper641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ir.ide.go.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=48861&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    2. Gadaud, Juliette & Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2010. "Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 297-311, December.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    4. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    5. Dong, Bingying & Zhu, Ling & Li, Kevin & Luo, Meifeng, 2015. "Acceptance of the international compensation regime for tanker oil pollution – And its implications for China," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 179-186.
    6. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    7. Iosifidi, Maria, 2016. "Environmental awareness, consumption, and labor supply: Empirical evidence from household survey data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Do all material incentives for pro-social activities backfire? The response to cash and non-cash incentives for blood donations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 738-748, August.
    9. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    10. Blignaut, James & Mander, Myles & Inglesi-Lotz, Roula & Glavan, Jane & Parr, Stephen, 2016. "The amenity value of Abu Dhabi's coastal and marine resources to its beach visitors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 32-41.
    11. Duong, Lien & Evans, John, 2016. "Gender differences in compensation and earnings management: Evidence from Australian CFOs," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 17-35.
    12. Weersink, Alfons & Raymond, Mark, 2007. "Environmental regulations impact on agricultural spills and citizen complaints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 654-660, January.
    13. Basil E. Stumborg & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2001. "Nonpoint Source Pollution and Present Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Lake Mendota," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 120-132.
    14. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    15. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    17. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Improving Willingness to Pay Estimates for Quality Improvements through Joint Estimation with Quality Perceptions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(1), pages 100-111, July.
    18. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    19. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    20. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Carlos Jurado-Rivas & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    8. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    9. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    10. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    11. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    14. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    15. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    16. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    17. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    18. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    19. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    20. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural economics; Poultry; Agriculture; Globalization; Willingness to accept; CVM; Choice experiment; Global value chain; Pollution; China;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:jet:dpaper:dpaper641. 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: Michitaka Imamitsu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/idegvjp.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.