AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS' WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR REAL-TIME MESOSCALE WEATHER INFORMATION



Kenkel, Norris


Real-Time Weather Information 365

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents’ Willingness to Pay for Raw Weather Data and Raw
Data Plus Value-Added Weather Information

Payment
Interval
(dollars)

_________________ Distribution of Respondents________

Raw Weather
______
Data____________

Value-Added

Information

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Zero

14

9.72

20

14.2

1-5

45

31.3

43

30.5

6-10

35

24.3

29

20.6

11 —25

13

9.03

19

13.5

26-50

0

0.00

3

2.13

More than 50

0

0.00

0

0.00

Protests

37

25.7

27

19.1

Total usable

surveys

144

100

141

100

free. These were considered protest bids and were excluded from the estimation sample. The
final sample sizes for model estimation were 107 for the raw data model and 114 for the
value-added model. The higher number of protest bids given for the raw weather data as
compared with the raw data∕value-added combination suggests that respondents are more
likely to expect provision of the raw data as a public service.

Willingness to Pay for Mesoscale WeatherInformation

The two objectives of the study were to estimate average willingness to pay and to determine
the characteristics of producers who would pay to access and use mesoscale weather
information. To this end, two maximum likelihood models were estimated: one for the raw
Mesonet data and one for the raw data/value-added information combination. When protest
bids were removed from the regression data, as is standard in CV analyses, the final number
of observations for the raw weather data model was 107 and the final number for the
value-added model was 114. Results of the model estimation are shown in table 4. Chi-
squared statistics testing the joint significance of the models’ parameters indicated that both
models were significant at the 0.001 percent level.4

Variables representing payments for agricultural publications, full- versus part-time
farming, gross sales, use of irrigation, and weather-related crop income losses were found
to significantly impact the willingness to pay for raw mesoscale weather data. Specifically,
fanners paying more for agricultural magazines are likely to pay more for the mesoscale
weather data. Full-time farmers could be expected to pay about $0.55 per month less than
part-time fanners (all else constant) for the weather data; this may reflect that they have
more time available to obtain and study existing weather information sources and, as such,
perceive a limited benefit to the mesoscale information. Results suggest that those producers

4The fragility of the model results was tested using an abbreviated speci Iication for each model. The new model coefficients
and their significance were virtually identical to the longer models’ results.



More intriguing information

1. Human Resource Management Practices and Wage Dispersion in U.S. Establishments
2. The economic value of food labels: A lab experiment on safer infant milk formula
3. Institutions, Social Norms, and Bargaining Power: An Analysis of Individual Leisure Time in Couple Households
4. The name is absent
5. Multimedia as a Cognitive Tool
6. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI
7. Accurate and robust image superresolution by neural processing of local image representations
8. Innovation in commercialization of pelagic fish: the example of "Srdela Snack" Franchise
9. HACCP AND MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION
10. Trade Liberalization, Firm Performance and Labour Market Outcomes in the Developing World: What Can We Learn from Micro-LevelData?
11. The name is absent
12. The name is absent
13. Sex differences in the structure and stability of children’s playground social networks and their overlap with friendship relations
14. THE AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS LABORATORY
15. The name is absent
16. HEDONIC PRICES IN THE MALTING BARLEY MARKET
17. The name is absent
18. Computing optimal sampling designs for two-stage studies
19. RETAIL SALES: DO THEY MEAN REDUCED EXPENDITURES? GERMAN GROCERY EVIDENCE
20. Ultrametric Distance in Syntax