nach oben

Environmental Management

Erschienen in:

05.05.2021

Impact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA

verfasst von: Santosh Pathak, Krishna P. Paudel, Naveen C. Adusumilli

Erschienen in: Environmental Management | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Conservation practices focusing on improving the soil and water quality of working lands are implemented across the United States, supported partially through the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service cost-share or incentive payment programs. We assess whether participation in federal conservation support programs induces a change in the number of conservation practices adopted by farmers. We also identify the factors that affect the adoption intensity of different best management practices. We use survey data collected from Louisiana farmers and estimate models using the matching method and Poisson quasi-likelihood model. We find that participation in the cost-share or incentive program leads to an increase in the number of conservation practices on the farms. Similarly, the use of precision technology application and farm being integrated are likely to have a higher number of on-farm conservation practices. Results have implications for federal working lands conservation support programs in the United States.

Nächster Artikel Grassroots Approaches for Sustaining Biocultural Diversity and Livelihood Security: Insights from Indian Eastern Himalaya

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45698 and https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf.

1 acre = 0.40469 hectares.

LMFP assists farmers in voluntarily addressing farm production and resource management concerns that are essential for agricultural sustainability. Being listed in the Louisiana Master Farmer Program database does not necessarily mean that the farmers belong to that program. Therefore, the comprehensive database of LMFP represents the general farmers’ population.

We used variables such as age, farming experience, education, and farm income to assess the representativeness of survey data to the farmer population in the state. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, the Louisiana averages for farmer’s age and experience are 58.4 years and 16 years, respectively. In our study, the average age of farmers and average years of experience are 55 years and 18 years, respectively. Most of Louisiana’s farm revenue is < $500,000, which holds in our case. The proportion of farmers completing some college is 27% for Louisiana and 21% in our study. All these suggest that the survey data are reflective of the farmer population in the state.

We consider farmer as a participant (=1) in the conservation if he/she is enrolled in at least one of the EQIP/CSP programs. We exclude other conservation programs in this analysis because they are not primarily focused on working lands.

EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to producers and landowners to plan and install structural and land management practices to reduce water pollution and other environmental problems. In 2019, EQIP contract enrolled 13 million acres of farmland (Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf). CSP contracts are for 5 years with an opportunity to extend if a farmer fulfills the initial contract and agrees to achieve additional conservation objectives. Contract payments are made for existing activities, additional activities, and supplemental activities annually. For more information about payments for practices under CSP in Louisiana, readers are directed to https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/?cid=nrcseprd1328426.

If x = z, two solutions appear during estimation. If x and z are distinct, identification is possible only with at least one variable in z that is not in x (Staub and Winkelmann 2013).

An alternative approach to our analysis is to model only the most adopted practices using a multivariate probit model. Given the small number of observations and lack of model convergence, we did not pursue that route.

Our goodness-of-fit test rejected the validity of the Poisson model (Deviance goodness-of-fit = 239.93; P = 0.0000). This is because the Poisson model requires the mean and variance to be equal for the model to be a valid one. In addition, our model had a mean value of 10.05 with a variance of more than double the mean value, i.e., 27.12. So, PQL is a better choice to account for the overdispersion of the count dataset (Cameron and Trivedi 2005). PQL considered dispersion parameter = 2.38, deviance = 239.93 and χ² (93) = 116.51 for our dataset.

We suspect the treatment variable—participation in a conservation program—to be correlated with unobserved factors, thus likely making it endogenous. We use Durbin and Wu-Hausman test to test for potential endogeneity issue. The test failed to reject the null that variables are exogenous (Durbin χ² (1) = 0.037, P value = 0.87; Wu-Hausman F (1, 92) = 0.033, P value = 0.85), thus making results from PQL valid.

Adusumilli N, Dikitanan R, Wang H (2020a) Effect of cost-sharing federal programs on adoption of water conservation practices: results from propensity score matching approach. Water Econ Policy 6(1):1950004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X19500048CrossRef

Adusumilli N, Wang H, Dodla S, Deliberto M (2020b) Estimating risk premiums for adopting no-till and cover crops management practices in soybean production system using stochastic efficiency approach. Agricu Syst 178:102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102744CrossRef

Arbuckle JG (2013) Farmer support for extending conservation compliance beyond soil erosion: evidence from Iowa. J Soil Water Conserv 68(2):99–109. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.68.2.99CrossRef

Barbercheck M, Brasier K, Kiernan NE, Sachs C, Trauger A (2014) Use of conservation practices by women farmers in the Northeastern United States. Renew Agr Food Syst 29(1):65–82CrossRef

Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manage 96(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006CrossRef

Byerlee D, De Polanco EH (1986) Farmers’ stepwise adoption of technological packages: evidence from the Mexican Altiplano. Am J Agricu Econ 68(3):519–527. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241537CrossRef

Camacho-Cuena E, Requate T (2012) The regulation of nonpoint source pollution and risk preferences: an experimental approach. Ecol Econ 73:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.019CrossRef

Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2010) Microeconometrics using stata. Stata Press, USA

Cattaneo A, Hellerstein D, Nickerson C, Myers C (2006) Balancing the multiple objectives of conservation programs. ERR 19, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DC. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45394/29439_err19_002.pdf

Chouinard HH, Paterson T, Wandschneider PR, Ohler AM (2008) Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Econ 84(1):66–82. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.1.66CrossRef

Claassen R, Duquette E, Horowitz J (2013) Additionality in agricultural conservation payment programs. J Soil Water Conserv 68(3):74A–78A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.68.3.74ACrossRef

Claassen R, Duquette EN, Smith DJ (2018) Additionality in US agricultural conservation programs. Land Econ 94(1):19–35. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.94.1.19CrossRef

Claassen R, Horowitz J, Duquette E, Ueda K (2014) Additionality in US agricultural conservation and regulatory offset programs. ERR 170, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DC. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45244/48525_err170.pdf

Clearfield F, Osgood BT (1986) Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045620.pdf.

CRS (2019) Agricultural conservation: a guide to programs. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/

Daloğlu I, Nassauer JI, Riolo RL, Scavia D (2014) Development of a farmer typology of agricultural conservation behavior in the American corn belt. Agricu Syst 129:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.007CrossRef

Deutz AP (2018) Adoption of conservation practices and precision technologies in South Dakota: an empirical analysis. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA

Dillmann DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey

Duke JM, Dundas SJ, Messer KD (2013) Cost-effective conservation planning: lessons from economics. J Environ Manage 125:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.048CrossRef

ERS (2019) Conservation spending seeks to improve environmental performance in agriculture. Economic Research Service, USDA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/conservation-programs/. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

Fleming P, Lichtenberg E, Newburn DA (2018) Evaluating impacts of agricultural cost sharing on water quality: additionality, crowding in, and slippage. J Environ Econ Manage 92:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.007CrossRef

Floress K et al. (2018) Measuring farmer conservation behaviors: challenges and best practices. Land Use Policy 70:414–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.030CrossRef

Gillespie J, Kim SA, Paudel K (2007) Why don’t producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agricu Econ 36(1):89–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00179.xCrossRef

Gourieroux C, Monfort A, Trognon A (1984) Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: applications to Poisson models. Econometrica 52(3):701–720. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913472CrossRef

Grand L, Messer KD, Allen III W (2017) Understanding and overcoming the barriers for cost-effective conservation. Ecol Econ 138:139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.027CrossRef

Greiner R, Patterson L, Miller O (2009) Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric Syst 99(2-3):86–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003CrossRef

Howard G (2020) Additionality violations in agricultural payment for service programs: experimental evidence. Land Econ 96(2):244–264. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.96.2.244CrossRef

Isik M, Yang W (2004) An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the conservation reserve program. J Agricu Resource Econ 29(2):242–259. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.31113CrossRef

Jann B (2017) Kernel matching with automatic bandwidth selection. Paper presented at the United Kingdom Stata Users’ Group Meetings, 7–8 September, 2017, London, UK. https://www.stata.com/meeting/uk17/slides/uk17_Jann.pdf

Kalcic M, Prokopy L, Frankenberger J, Chaubey I (2014) An in-depth examination of farmers’ perceptions of targeting conservation practices. Environ Manage 54:795–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0342-7CrossRef

Khanna M, Shortle J (2017) Preserving water quality: challenges and opportunities for technological and policy innovations. Choices 32(4):1–4

Kim S, Gillespie JM, Paudel KP (2005) The effect of socioeconomic factors on the adoption of best management practices in beef cattle production. J Soil Water Conserv 60(3):111–120

Kling CL (2013) State level efforts to regulate agricultural sources of water quality impairment. Choices 28(3):1–4

Lambert DM, Paudel KP, Larson JA (2015) Bundled adoption of precision agriculture technologies by cotton producers. J Agricu Resource Econ 40(2):325–345. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.206599CrossRef

Lambert DM, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman LF (2006) Conservation-compatible practices and programs: who participates? ERR 14, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/20278/PDF

Lichtenberg E (2014) Conservation, the Farm Bill, and US agri-environmental policy. Choices 29(3):1–6

Ma Z, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P (2012) Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the US: implications for policy design and outreach. Land Use Policy 29(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.004CrossRef

Maringanti C, Chaubey I, Popp J (2009) Development of a multiobjective optimization tool for the selection and placement of best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control. Water Resources Res 45:W06406. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007094CrossRef

McConnell M, Burger L (2011) Precision conservation: a geospatial decision support tool for optimizing conservation and profitability in agricultural landscapes. J Soil Water Conserv 66(6):347–354. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.6.347CrossRef

McGuire J, Morton LW, Cast AD (2013) Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agricu Human Values 30:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9381-yCrossRef

Mezzatesta M, Newburn DA, Woodward RT (2013) Additionality and the adoption of farm conservation practices. Land Econ 89(4):722–742. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.4.722CrossRef

NALC (2020) Conservation programs - an overview. The National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/conservation-programs/. Accessed 1 Aug 2020

NASS (2017) Quick Stats Database. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/

National Research Council (2010) Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/12832

NRCS (2018) Program Contracts System. Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://prohome.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 1 Jul 2020

NRCS (2019a) Louisiana’s Conservation Investment Report. Louisiana’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Louisiana. https://www.blogs.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd1448905&ext=pdf

NRCS (2019b) NRCS conservation programs. National Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/cp_la.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2019

Pates NJ, Hendricks NP (2020) Additionality from payments for environmental services with technology diffusion. Am J Agric Econ 102(1):281–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaz028CrossRef

Paudel KP, Gauthier WM, Westra JV, Hall LM (2008) Factors influencing and steps leading to the adoption of best management practices by Louisiana dairy farmers. J Agric App Econ 40(1):203–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800028066CrossRef

Paudel KP, Mishra AK, Pandit M, Larkin S, Rejesus R, Velandia M (2020) Modeling multiple reasons for adopting precision technologies: evidence from US cotton producers. Comput Electron Agric 175:105625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105625CrossRef

Porter PA, Mitchell RB, Moore KJ (2015) Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: reimagining a more resilient agricultural landscape in the Mississippi river watershed. J Soil Water Conserv 70(3):63A–68A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.3.63ACrossRef

Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63(5):300–311. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.300CrossRef

Rahelizatovo NC, Gillespie JM (2004) The adoption of best-management practices by Louisiana dairy producers. J Agric Appl Econ 36(1):229–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800021970CrossRef

Reimer AP, Denny RC, Stuart D (2018) The impact of federal and state conservation programs on farmer nitrogen management. Environ Manage 62:694–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1083-9CrossRef

Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014) Farmer participation in US Farm Bill conservation programs. Environ Manage 53:318–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8CrossRef

Reimer AP, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012) The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric Human Values 29:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9308-zCrossRef

Ribaudo M (2015) The limits of voluntary conservation programs. Choices 30(2):1–5

Ribaudo M, Shortle J (2019) Reflections on 40 years of applied economics research on agriculture and water quality. Agricu Resource Econ Rev 48(3):519–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2019.32CrossRef

Ribaudo MO, Heimlich R, Peters M (2005) Nitrogen sources and Gulf hypoxia: potential for environmental credit trading. Ecol Econ 52(2):159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.07.021CrossRef

Ribaudo MO, Zilberman D, Taylor R, Gordon B (2017) Conservation programs can accomplish more with less by improving cost-effectiveness. Choices 32(4):1–6

Shortle J (2017) Policy reforms needed for better water quality and lower pollution control costs. Choices 32(4):1–7

Shortle JS, Ribaudo M, Horan RD, Blandford D (2012) Reforming agricultural nonpoint pollution policy in an increasingly budget-constrained environment. Environ Sci Technol 46(3):1316–1325. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2020499CrossRef

Sitienei I, Gillespie J, Scaglia G (2018) Adoption of management practices and breed types by US grass-fed beef producers. Prof. Anim. Sci. 34(6):571–580. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2018-01711CrossRef

Staub KE, Winkelmann R (2013) Consistent estimation of zero‐inflated count models. Health Econ 22(6):673–686. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2844CrossRef

Stuart EA (2010) Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci 25(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313CrossRef

Sulemana I, James Jr HS (2014) Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol Econ 98:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.011CrossRef

USDA (2019) FY 2020 budget summary. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy2020-budget-summary.pdf

Wade T, Claassen RL, Wallander S (2015) Conservation-practice adoption rates vary widely by crop and region. EIB 147, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44030

Wallander S, Smith D, Bowman M, Claassen R (2021) Cover crop trends, programs, and practices in the United States. EIB 222, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44027/56332_eib147.pdf

Ward CE, Vestal MK, Doye DG, Lalman DL (2008) Factors affecting adoption of cow-calf production practices in Oklahoma. J Agric Appl Econ 40(3):851–863. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800002376CrossRef

Ward PS, Bell AR, Droppelmann K, Benton TG (2018) Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy 70:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.001CrossRef

Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Wu J (2000) Slippage effects of the conservation reserve program. Am J Agric Econ 82(4):979–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00096CrossRef

Yu C et al. (2019) Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China. Nature 567:516–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1001-1CrossRef

Zhong Y (2003) Economic analysis of the best management practices (BMPs) in Louisiana sugarcane production. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Titel: Impact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA
verfasst von: Santosh Pathak
Krishna P. Paudel
Naveen C. Adusumilli
Publikationsdatum: 05.05.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Environmental Management / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0364-152X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01477-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Integrating Regional Frameworks and Local Variability for Riverine Bioassessment

Grassroots Approaches for Sustaining Biocultural Diversity and Livelihood Security: Insights from Indian Eastern Himalaya

Coastal Community Resilience and Power in the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Adaptability in North Carolina and Louisiana

Assessing the Effectiveness of a Community-based Livestock Insurance Program

Battling Water Limits to Growth: Lessons from Water Trends in the Central Plateau of Iran

Park Visitors’ Place Attachment and Climate Change-related Displacement: Potential Shifts in Who, Where, and When