Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:40:28.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Research and Extension Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

John C. Whitehead ,
Thomas J. Hoban  and
William B. Clifford
John C. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
Thomas J. Hoban
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
William B. Clifford
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The North Carolina Agriculture Survey was designed to estimate the willingness to pay for agricultural research and extension programs. We find that North Carolina households are willing to pay between $218 and $401 million for food production programs and between $251 and $698 million for water quality programs annually. We find evidence of divergent validity and differences in the willingness to pay estimates from the single-bound and multiple-bound data.

Keywords

agricultural research and extension programscontingent valuationdivergent validitymultiple bound questionssingle bound questions
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2001 , pp. 91 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

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

Alberini, Anna “Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29,2(1995): 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann “Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 67,4(1991):413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann, and Huppert, Daniel D. “OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17,3(1989):230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy Ann, and James, Michelle D. “Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed-Ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 2(1987):269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ann, Cameron Trudy and Quiggin, John “Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up’ Questionnaire.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27,3(1994):218–234.Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Flores, Nicholas E., Martin, Kerry M., and Wright, Jennifer L. “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods.” Land Economics 72,1(1996):113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Richard T., Groves, Theodore, and Machina, Mark J., “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway, June, 1999.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H.Econometric Analysis, Third Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H.LIMDEP Version 7.0: User's Manual, Bellport, New York: Econometric Software, 1998.Google Scholar
Haab, Timothy C. and McConnell, Kenneth E. “Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32,2(1997):251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, Michael, Loomis, John, and Kanninen, Barbara “Statistical Efficiency of Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73,4(1991): 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, John P. “Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73,2(1991): 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E., and Just, Richard E. “Funding, Structure, and Management of Public Agricultural Research in the United States,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76,4(1994):744–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, Ian H., Bateman, Ian J., and Langford, Hugh D. “A Multilevel Modelling Approach to Triple-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 7,3(1996): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Carson, Richard T.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
North Carolina State Data Center. Office of State Planning, http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/sdn/, February 26, 1999.Google Scholar
Norton, George W, Coffey, Joseph D., and Frye, E. Berrier “Estimating Returns to Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching at the State Level.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 16,1(1984):121–128.Google Scholar
Norton, Virgil, Colyer, Dale, Norton, Nancy Anders, and Davis-Swing, Larry “Issues and Trends in Agricultural and Agricultural Economics Research Funding.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77,5(1995):1337–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Gregory M. “Research and Extension Expenditures Rising.” Choices Second Quarter(2000):24–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, V. Kerry “Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods.” Land Economics 72,2(1996): 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G.. Statistical Methods. Seventh Edition, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Swallow, Stephen K. and Mazzotta, Marisa. “Toward Assessing the Non-Market Benefits of Experiment Station Research: A Case Study of Public Preferences for AES Research in Rhode Island.” Selected Paper, 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, Tennessee, August 8-11.Google Scholar
Welsh, Michael P. and Poe, Gregory L. “Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36,2(1998): 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar