IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/09-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferences, Norms and Constraints in farmers' agro-ecological choices. Case study using choice experiments survey in the Rhone River Delta, France

Author

Listed:
  • Mélanie Jaeck
  • Robert Lifran

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to elicit the sensitivity of farmers to payment for agro-environmental services in a context of strong ecological and policy constraints. We present results from a choice experiment survey performed among the whole population of agricultural decision-makers (104) in the Camargue area. Several econometric models have been estimated, the most significant being the Latent Classes one. Three classes have been identified, two of them representing farmers with strong committment to a specified technology (either very chemicals intensive or organic farming ), the main class encompassing farmers complying with the norms of the PGI « Riz de Camargue » . The estimated parameters of the utility function, together with the parameter of the monetary attribute provided the monetary value of each relevant agro-ecological attribute and the associated outcomes (average and risk yield). Outcomes of the choice experiments make a strong case for differentiating incentives for spreading environmental friendly technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran, 2009. "Preferences, Norms and Constraints in farmers' agro-ecological choices. Case study using choice experiments survey in the Rhone River Delta, France," Working Papers 09-16, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2009.
    • Handle: RePEc:lam:wpaper:09-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/DR2009-16.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douadia Bougherara & Geraldine Ducos & . European School On New Institutional Economics, 2006. "Farmers’ preferences over conservation contract flexibility and duration: an estimation of the effect of transaction costs using choice experiment," Post-Print hal-01939954, HAL.
    2. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    3. Dalton, Timothy J., 2004. "A household hedonic model of rice traits: economic values from farmers in West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 149-159, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    6. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    7. Ben B. Davies & Ian D. Hodge, 2006. "Farmers’ Preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 393-414, September.
    8. P. Dupraz & D. Vermersch & B. De Frahan & L. Delvaux, 2003. "The Environmental Supply of Farm Households: A Flexible Willingness to Accept Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, June.
    9. Batz, Franz-J. & Janssen, Willem & Peters, Kurt J., 2003. "Predicting technology adoption to improve research priority--setting," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 151-164, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 29-37.
    2. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Rommel, Jens & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Types of collective action problems and farmers’ willingness to accept agri-environmental schemes in Switzerland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    4. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran & Hubert Stahn, 2012. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Incentives," Working Papers hal-02805961, HAL.
    5. Jaeck, Melanie & Lifran, Robert, 2011. "The Economic Determinants of the On-farm Management of Rice Cultivars in the Rhone River Delta (France)," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115508, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Delmotte, Sylvestre & Barbier, Jean-Marc & Mouret, Jean-Claude & Le Page, Christophe & Wery, Jacques & Chauvelon, Phillipe & Sandoz, Alain & Lopez Ridaura, Santiago, 2016. "Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 147-158.
    7. Jaeck Mélanie & Lifran Robert & Stahn Hubert, 2014. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Policy Instruments," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, January.
    8. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran & Hubert Stahn, 2012. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Incentives," Working Papers hal-02805961, HAL.
    9. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran & Hubert Stahn, 2012. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition," AMSE Working Papers 1239, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.

    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. Le Gloux, Fanny & Dupraz, Pierre & Issanchou, Alice & Ropars-Collet, Carole, 2022. "Payments for environmental services with provision thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a conditional bonus," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321177, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    2. 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.
    3. Tenkasi Raghu, Prabhakaran & Das, Sukanya & S, Bala Ravi & E.D.I, Oliver King, 2012. "Assessing Farmer’s Willingness to Participate in the On-farm Conservation of Minor Millet using Direct Compensation Payment," MPRA Paper 45079, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    5. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    6. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    7. 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.
    8. Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & Das, Sukanya & Ravi, S. Bala & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2012. "Use of Contingent Valuation to Assess Farmer Preference for On-farm Conservation of Minor Millets: Case from South India," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(3), pages 1-14.
    9. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Carpentier, Alain & Thomas, Alban, 2011. "The willingness to adopt agro-ecological innovations: Application of choice modelling to Caribbean banana planters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 140-150.
    10. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Rose Fiamohe & Tebila Nakelse & Aliou Diagne & Papa A. Seck, 2015. "Assessing the Effect of Consumer Purchasing Criteria for Types of Rice in Togo: A Choice Modeling Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Alexandre Gori Maia & José Maria Jardim Da Silveira, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences For Genetically Modified Corn In Brazil: The Contribution Of Latent Attitudes," Anais do XLI Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 41st Brazilian Economics Meeting] 196, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    14. 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.
    15. Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B., 2018. "Confronting Tradeoffs Between Agricultural Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change in Mali," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 184-193.
    16. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    17. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    18. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    19. Gauri, Dinesh Kumar & Trivedi, Minakshi & Grewal, Dhruv, 2008. "Understanding the Determinants of Retail Strategy: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 256-267.
    20. T.R.L. Fry & R.D. Brooks & Br. Comley & J. Zhang, 1993. "Economic Motivations for Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable Models," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 69(2), pages 193-205, June.

    More about this item

    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:lam:wpaper:09-16. 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: Patricia Modat (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lamplfr.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.