Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:45:47.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulating the Effects of a Green Payment Program on the Diffusion Rate of a Conservation Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Kenneth A. Baerenklau
Kenneth A. Baerenklau*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California–Riverside
Get access

Abstract

The decision to adopt a potentially profitable but unfamiliar conservation technology is cast in a multi-period Bayesian framework. Specifically, dairy farmers who are both risk-averse and susceptible to peer group influence progressively learn about the true impact of adopting reduced phosphorus dairy diets on their income distributions as they repeatedly experiment with this new technology. Empirically calibrated simulations are used to examine the effects of a voluntary green payment program on the rate of technological diffusion. Results suggest that (a) green payments can accelerate learning and produce significant, permanent changes in behavior relatively quickly and for a reasonable cost; (b) shorter contracts offering larger incentives may be more cost-effective when learning plays an important role in behavioral change; and (c) unknown prior beliefs can reduce the efficacy of a green payment program, implying efforts to verify these priors or to ensure against them by increasing the payment level may be worthwhile.

Keywords

conservation technology adoptioncost sharingendogenous learninggreen paymentsneighborhood effectsrisk aversionvoluntary programs
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 121 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, N. (2001, January). Dairy/livestock agent, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, Dane County. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Baerenklau, K. A. (2003). “Testing for Risk Preferences, Endogenous Learning, and Neighborhood Effects in the Diffusion of an Innovation with Uncertain Profitability.” Working paper, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. (1992). “A Simple Model of Herd Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Economics CVII(3), 797–817.Google Scholar
Bell, C. D., Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., and Park, W. M. (1994). “A Logit Analysis of Participation in Tennessee's Forest Stewardship Program.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26, 463–472.Google Scholar
Besley, T., and Case, A. (1997). “Diffusion as a Learning Process: Evidence from HYV Cotton.” Staff paper, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Bolton, P., and Harris, C. (1999). “Strategic Experimentation.” Econometrica 67(2), 349–374.Google Scholar
Box, G., and Tiao, G. (1973). Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Brock, W., and Durlauf, S. (2001). “Interactions-Based Models.” In Heckman, J. J. and Learner, E. E. (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 5 (pp. 3297–3380). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Call, J., Butcher, J., Shupe, J., Lamb, R., Boman, R., and Olson, A. (1987). “Clinical Effects of Low Dietary Phosphorus Concentrations in Feed Given to Lactating Dairy Cows.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 48(1), 133–136.Google ScholarPubMed
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, J., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., and York, R. (1966). Equality of Education Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Conley, T., and Udry, C. (2000). “Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana.” Discussion Paper No. 817, Economic Growth Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Connors, K. (2000, August). County conservationist, Dane County Land Conservation Department, Madison, WI. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. C., and Keim, R. W. (1996). “Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 54–64.Google Scholar
David, P. (1985). “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
Ebeling, A. M., Bundy, L. G., Powell, J. M., and Andraski, T. W. (2002). “Dairy Diet Phosphorus Effects on Phosphorus Losses in Runoff from Land-Applied Manure.” Soil Science Society of America Journal 66, 284–291.Google Scholar
The Economist [staff]. (2001, October 20). “Manure Happens” The Economist, p. 35.Google Scholar
Fernandez, L. (1997). “Estimation of Wastewater Treatment Objectives Through Maximum Entropy.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 293–308.Google Scholar
Foster, A., and Rosenzweig, M. (1995). “Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture.” Journal of Political Economy 103(6), 1176–1209.Google Scholar
Golan, A., Judge, G., and Karp, L. (1996). “A Maximum Entropy Approach to Estimation and Inference in Dynamic Models, or Counting Fish in the Sea Using Maximum Entropy.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20, 559–582.Google Scholar
Golan, A., Judge, G., and Miller, D. (1996). Maximum Entropy Econometrics: Robust Estimation with Limited Data. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Green, G., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D., and Parker, D. (1996). “Explaining Irrigation Technology Choices: A Microparameter Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 1064–1072.Google Scholar
Griffiths, W., and Anderson, J. (1982). “Using Time-Series and Cross-Section Data to Estimate a Production Function with Positive and Negative Marginal Risks.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 77, 529–536.Google Scholar
Isik, M., and Khanna, M. (2003). “Stochastic Technology, Risk P, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2), 305–317.Google Scholar
Jackson-Smith, D. (2000). “Report to 1999 Wisconsin Dairy Herd Feeding Study Participants, Part I: A Profile of How Wisconsin Dairy Farm Operators Feed Their Milking Herds.” Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., and Stavins, R. (1995). “Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, S43–S63.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. (1982). “Adoption and Diffusion of an Innovation of Uncertain Profitability.” Journal of Economic Theory 27(1), 182–193.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J., Howitt, R., and Farzin, Y. (2003). “An Information-Theoretical Analysis of Budget-Constrained Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 106–130.Google Scholar
Kemp, R. (1997). Environmental Policy and Technical Change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Khanna, M., Isik, M., and Zilberman, D. (2002). “Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Green Payment Policies for Conservation Technology Adoption with Heterogeneous Land Quality.” Agricultural Economics 27, 157–174.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lindner, R., Fischer, A., and Pardey, P. (1979). “The Time to Adopt.” Economic Letters 2, 187–190.Google Scholar
Loury, G. (1977). “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences.” In Wallace, P. A. and LaMond, A. M. (eds.), Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination (pp. 153–186). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Manski, C. (1993a). “Dynamic Choice in Social Settings.” Journal of Econometrics 58, 121–136.Google Scholar
Manski, C. (1993b). “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem.” Review of Economic Studies 60, 531–542.Google Scholar
McGraw, L. (1999, July 16). “Cutting Phosphorus in Dairy Cattle Feed Will Save Money, Help Environment” Press release, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service. Online at USDA/ARS website: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990716.htm.Google Scholar
Munshi, K. (2000). “Social Learning in a Heterogeneous Population: Technology Diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution.” Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Nagubadi, V., McNamara, K. T., Hoover, W. L., and Mills, W. L. Jr. (1996). “Program Participation Behavior of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28, 323–336.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. (2001, June/July). “Guess What Hit the Fan …” Today's Farmer, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
Saha, A. (1997). “Risk Preference Estimation in the Nonlinear Mean Standard Deviation Approach.” Economic Inquiry 35, 770–782.Google Scholar
Satter, L. (2000, September). Professor, Department of Animal Science, and Researcher, U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Satter, L., and Dhiman, T. (1996). “Formulating Dairy Diet—Enhancing Profitability and Reducing Environmental Impact.” Paper presented at the 1996 Informational Conference with Dairy and Forage Industries, U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Online. Available at http://www.dfrc.ars.usda.gov/Research_Summaries/ind_meet/dffcl3.pdf.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. (1971). “Dynamic Models of Segregation.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 143–186.Google Scholar
Shampine, A. (1998). “Compensating for Information Externalities in Technology Diffusion Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 337–346.Google Scholar
Stoneman, P. (1981). “Intra-Firm Diffusion, Bayesian Learning, and Profitability.” Economic Journal 91, 375–388.Google Scholar
Stumborg, B., Baerenklau, K. A., and Bishop, R. C. (2001). “Nonpoint Source Pollution and Present Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Lake Mendota.” Review of Agricultural Economics 23(1), 120–132.Google Scholar
Valk, H., and Šebek, L. (1999). “Influence of Long-Term Feeding of Limited Amounts of Phosphorus on Dry Matter Intake, Mild Production, and Body Weight of Dairy Cows.” Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2157–2163.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service. (2001, October 2). Monthly Prices Received by Farmers. Online. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/wi/misc/agprices.pdf.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., Satter, L., and Sojo, R. (2000). “Milk Production, Reproductive Performance, and Fecal Excretion of Phosphorus by Dairy Cows Fed Three Amounts of Phosphorus.” Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1028–1041.Google ScholarPubMed