Kenkel, Norris
Real-Time Wealher Information 357
of the development cost of these decision aids (estimated at $100,000 each) cannot be
recouped through user fees, it is unlikely that they will be developed. State legislators are
unlikely to devote public funds to develop information products which benefit a single
category of users.
The important question raised by the developers of Mesonet was how much agricultural
producers could be expected to pay in user fees to receive mesoscale weather data,
interpreted weather data, and weather information-related decision aids. Several researchers
have documented the theoretical value of good weather information to agricultural producers
(Katz, Murphy, and Winkler; Tice and Clouser; Sonka et al.; Winkler, Murphy, and Katz).
Agricultural producers’ perceptions of the usefulness of weather information have also been
investigated (Seeley, Graham, and Schrader; Sonka, Changnon, and Hofmg; Getz; Carlson;
McNew et al.). However, there has been little previous research on the willingness of
agricultural producers (and other decision makers) to pay for improved weather information.
In a Michigan study, over half of the respondents to a survey of agricultural producers
indicated that timely weather information had a monetary value of over $1,000 (Carlson),
although these producers may have been indicating their weather-related crop losses since
they were not asked about their willingness to pay for weather information. Vining, Pope,
and Dugas found that, on average, Texas producers were willing to pay $40/month for current
weather information and from $24/month to $118/month for perfect weather information,
depending on how far in advance the forecasts were provided. The Texas survey was not
designed as a contingent valuation of willingness to pay and the authors described their
measurement of willingness to pay as “a pragmatic attempt to evaluate perceptions of the
usefulness of weather information provided to Texas farmers” (p. 1319). Thus, while these
previous studies have documented the usefulness of weather information to agricultural
producers, none have used the contingent valuation method to obtain an accurate estimate
of fanners’ willingness to pay for weather information as a measure of the value of improved
weather data. This study fills that gap. While the Mesonet developers’ urgent need for
information presented a unique opportunity to apply the contingent valuation technique, the
study faced both time and financial constraints. Thus, the study also afforded the opportunity
to determine whether the contingent valuation method can provide useful information when
time and resources are limited.
Synoptic versus Mesoscale Weather Data
Agricultural producers receive weather information from a variety of sources including
television, radio, weather scanners, newspapers, other producers, and on-farm observation
(McNew et al.). In most states the weather information available to producers commercially
and through the U.S. Weather Service is based on regional or synoptic scale observations.
Synoptic scale weather data comes from a large number of weather stations which are
scattered over a wide area. It provides a general view of the atmosphere in a particular region.
Synoptic weather stations are usually spaced hundreds of miles apart and the weather
observations are typically updated no more frequently than once an hour (Fujita).
A mesoscale weather network has more observation points and they are spaced between
10-100 km apart (Fujita). Mesoscale weather networks also represent an advancement as
measured by the time dimension. Since local weather conditions change rapidly, the