[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/frrfes/316459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jourdain, Damien
  • Lairez, Juliette
  • Striffler, Bruno
  • Affholder, François
Abstract
Sustainable intensification (SI) of farming systems aims to increase food production from existing farmland in ways that have a lower environmental impact and maintain the food production capacity over time. SI embraces a set of diverse agricultural technologies that share a common feature: their adoption is dependent on the interactions between farmers’ decision-making processes, locally specific agro-ecological conditions, and the traits of the technology itself. There are concerns about the sustainability of the maize mono-cropping systems that are in use in Laosc today. Therefore, we used discrete choice experiments (DCE) to explore the potential adoption or alternative agricultural systems. We analyse the heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for different cropping system attributes using a mixed logit model, and we discuss the possible drivers and barriers to the adoption of these more sustainable options. The results suggest the existence of four types of farmers: “fertility-minded”, “factor-constrained”, “maximisers”, and “risk-averse”. Each type of farmers was likely to react differently to the proposed sustainable intensification techniques. Overall, the DCE appeared to be an efficient tool to elicit the diversity of farmer preferences in an agricultural region and for fine-tuning strategies for successful research and development of sustainable intensification.

Suggested Citation

  • Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Affholder, François, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(4), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:frrfes:316459
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316459/files/Jourdain2020_Article_FarmersPreferenceForCroppingSy%20%281%29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316459?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. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    2. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    3. David Hensher, 2014. "Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 12, pages 268-289, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. 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.
    5. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    7. Waiyan Leong & David Alan Hensher, 2012. "Embedding Decision Heuristics in Discrete Choice Models: A Review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 313-331, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Pilar Useche & Bradford L. Barham & Jeremy D. Foltz, 2013. "Trait-based Adoption Models Using Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Approaches," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 332-338.
    10. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Production Practices: A Choice Experiment Study in the Rhone River Delta," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 112-130, January.
    11. Doris Läpple & Garth Holloway & Donald J Lacombe & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2017. "Sustainable technology adoption: a spatial analysis of the Irish Dairy Sector," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 810-835.
    12. Affholder, François & Jourdain, Damien & Quang, Dang Dinh & Tuong, To Phuc & Morize, Marion & Ricome, Aymeric, 2010. "Constraints to farmers' adoption of direct-seeding mulch-based cropping systems: A farm scale modeling approach applied to the mountainous slopes of Vietnam," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 51-62, January.
    13. Alary, V. & Nefzaoui, A. & Jemaa, M. Ben, 2007. "Promoting the adoption of natural resource management technology in arid and semi-arid areas: Modelling the impact of spineless cactus in alley cropping in Central Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 573-585, May.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    17. 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.
    18. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    19. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Boussard, J. M., 1969. "The introduction of risk into a programming model: Different criteria and the actual behavior of farmers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 92-121.
    21. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    22. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    23. Andersson, Magnus & Engvall, Anders & Kokko, Ari, 2007. "Regional Development In Lao Pdr: Growth Patterns And Market Integration," EIJS Working Paper Series 234, Stockholm School of Economics, The European Institute of Japanese Studies.
    24. Fang, Yixin & Wang, Junhui, 2012. "Selection of the number of clusters via the bootstrap method," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 468-477.
    25. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    26. Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. & Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Dogbe, Wilson, 2006. "Economics of the impact of alternative rice cropping systems on subsistence farming: Whole-farm analysis in northern Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 102-121, November.
    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. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2021. "Are Smallholder Farmers Interested in Practicing Sustainable Intensification? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Preferences for Sustainability Attributes of Maize Production in Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315032, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Lairez, Juliette & Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago & Jourdain, Damien & Falconnier, Gatien N. & Lienhard, Pascal & Striffler, Bruno & Syfongxay, Chanthaly & Affholder, François, 2020. "Context matters: Agronomic field monitoring and participatory research to identify criteria of farming system sustainability in South-East Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Falconnier, Gatien N. & Leroux, Louise & Beillouin, Damien & Corbeels, Marc & Hijmans, Robert J. & Bonilla-Cedrez, Camila & van Wijk, Mark & Descheemaeker, Katrien & Zingore, Shamie & Affholder, Franç, 2023. "Increased mineral fertilizer use on maize can improve both household food security and regional food production in East Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    4. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. Zelepugin, Anatoly D. & Belousov , Andrey V., 2021. "Socio-economic aspects of the rational use of natural resources," Economic Consultant, Roman I. Ostapenko, vol. 35(3), pages 30-37.
    6. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    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. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Post-Print hal-02995632, HAL.
    2. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437, December.
    3. Damien Jourdain1,2,3 & Juliette Lairez4,5 & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437.
    4. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & Thomas Lundhede, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Post-Print hal-03737618, HAL.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    8. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    11. Hensher, David A. & Balbontin, Camila & Collins, Andrew T., 2018. "Heterogeneity in decision processes: Embedding extremeness aversion, risk attitude and perceptual conditioning in multiple process rules choice making," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 316-325.
    12. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    13. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Lagerkvist, C.J. & Edenbrandt, A.K. & Tibbelin, I. & Wahlstedt, Y., 2020. "Preferences for sustainable and responsible equity funds - A choice experiment with Swedish private investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    17. Ward, Patrick S. & Bell, Andrew R. & Droppelmann, Klaus & Benton, Tim G., 2018. "Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 27-37.
    18. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    19. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    20. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    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:frrfes:316459. 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/inrapfr.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.