Willingness to Pay for IPM: An Application of the Heckman-Copula Approach

  • Esmaeil PishbaharEmail author
  • Javad Hosseinzad
  • Sahar Abedi
  • Pariya Bageri
Part of the Perspectives on Development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region book series (PDMENA)


Integrated pest management (IPM) is a product protection system that is used for coordinated sustainable agriculture development. This paper uses the Heckman-copula approach to study Iranian farmers’ willingness to pay for IPM. IPM, which matches sustainable agriculture, is one of the best ways of protecting agricultural products. Therefore, the application of IPM can minimize the negative impact of pesticides on human beings and natural resources including wildlife. Heckman-copula is an efficient method to cope with the invalid assumption of joint normality in the maximum likelihood estimation of the sample-selection model. The copula approach frees us from this wrong assumption, so we can select appropriate marginal distribution for error terms in selection and outcome equations leading to more reliable results. The results of our study show that the logistic distribution of the selection equation and student’s t-distribution for the outcome equation are suitable. Moreover, the number of used IPM operations and knowledge of chemical pesticides’ risks have a positive and significant effect on the probability of WTP for IPM to avoid the negative effects of pesticides.


Heckman-copula IPM Marginal distribution Willingness to pay 


  1. Ahn H, Powell J (1993) Semiparametric estimation of censored selection models with a nonparametric selection mechanism. J Econometrics 58(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amigues J, Boulatoff C, Desaigues B (2002) The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol Econ 43:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baraki H (2010) Designing of cropping pattern in Mashhad plain based on energy use efficiency, water and economic factors. Phd dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ferdowsi University of MashhadGoogle Scholar
  4. Brethour C, Weersink A (2001) An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction. J Agric Econ 25:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosslett S (1993) Semiparametric estimation of a regression model with sample selectivity. Nonparametric and semiparametric methods in econometrics and statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175–197Google Scholar
  6. Cuyno CM, Norton GW, Rola A (2001) Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study. J Agric Econ 25:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Genius M, Strazzera E (2011) Applying copula approach to sample selection modelling. Appl Econ 1–28Google Scholar
  8. Hasebe T (2013) Copula-based maximum-likelihood estimation of sample-selection models. Stata J 13(3):547–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hasebe T, Vijverberg W (2012) A flexible sample selection model: a GTL-Copula approach. IZA discussion paper series, 70Google Scholar
  10. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffmann R, Kassouf AL (2005) Deriving conditional and unconditional marginal effects in log earning equations estimated by Heckman procedure. Appl Econ 37(11):1303–1311Google Scholar
  12. Khodaverdizadeh M, KavoosiKelashemi M, Hayati B, Molaei M (2009) Estimation of recreation value and determining the factors effective in visitors’ WTP for Saint Stepanus church using the Heckman two-stage and CV methods. World Appl Sci J 7(4):543–551 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  13. Kong F, Xiong K, Zhang N (2014) Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay and its level for ecological compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland, China: a household-level survey. Sustainability 6:6714–6728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee LF (1982) Some approaches to the correction of selectivity bias. Rev Econ Stud 49:355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee LF (1983) Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica 51:12–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rasul G, Thapa G (2004) Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric Syst 79:327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith MD (2003) Modelling sample selection using Archimedean Copulas. Econometrics J 6:99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zuehlke T, Zeman A (1991) A comparison of two-stage estimators of censored regression models. Rev Econ Stat 73(1):185–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esmaeil Pishbahar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Javad Hosseinzad
    • 1
  • Sahar Abedi
    • 1
  • Pariya Bageri
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations