Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior

Kurkalova, Lyubov A.; Kling, Catherine L.; Zhao, Jinhua

doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00048.x

Cited by 109 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gould et al (1989), Soule et al (2000) and Davey and Furtan (2008) found age to have a negative effect while Warriner and Moul (1992) and Kurkalova et al (2006) showed a positive effect. We also analyze the effect of farm size, here measured by the total area planted with grains.…”

Section: Farm and Farmer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…There exists little empirical evidence on the economic impact of adoption on individual farmers. Kurkalova et al (2006) provide an exception; they estimate the effect of no-till on farm profits and quantify the adoption premium associated with uncertainty based on observed behavior. The impact of no-till on herbicide use is another issue that has received little attention in an empirical context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental and Production Cost Impacts of No-till in Finland: Estimates from Observed Behavior

Laukkanen¹,

Nauges²

2011

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No-till has been promoted as a cultivation method that reduces both production costs and the environmental impacts of farming relative to conventional tillage. Using farmlevel data from Finland, we show that no-till has no statistically significant effect on total variable costs but that it increases the use of plant protection products and fertilizers, and decreases the use of labor. An environmental impact simulation combining the results on input use with a nutrient and herbicide runoff model predicts that no-till produces environmental benefits on highly erodible land, but may be even detrimental to the environment in average conditions. 3

show abstract

Section: Farm and Farmer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental and Production Cost Impacts of No-till in Finland: Estimates from Observed Behavior

Laukkanen¹,

Nauges²

2011

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These programs incentivize the supply of conservation practices by cost-sharing up to 75% of the implementation expenses. Payments are designed to partially compensate farmers for the direct costs incurred and provide a risk premium to offset the uncertainty associated with adoption [30,31]. However, it is challenging to set incentive levels that are cost-effective for both farmers and the federal government and that also address well-known principal-agent problems associated with moral hazards and bureaucratic over-or under-supply.…”

Section: Incentivizing Bmp Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conjoint Analysis of Farmers’ Response to Conservation Incentives

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental degradation threatens the long term resiliency of the US food and farming system. While USDA has provided conservation incentives for the adoption of best management practices (BMPs), only a small percentage of farms have participated in such conservation programs. This study uses conjoint analysis to examine Vermont farmers' underlying preferences and willingness-to-accept (WTA) incentives for three common BMPs. Based on the results of this survey, we hypothesize that federal cost share programs' payments are below preferred incentive levels and that less familiar and more complex BMPs require a higher payment. Our implications focus on strategies to test these hypotheses and align incentive payments and other non-monetary options to increase BMP adoption.

show abstract

“…Technology adoption literature in general has studied different aspects of adoption, including the costs of adoption (Kurkalova, Kling, & Zhao, 2003), impact of adoption on efficiency (Langemeier, 2005), different stages of adoption (Barham, Jackson-Smith, & Moon, 2002), reversible technology adoption (Baerenklau & Knapp, 2005), role of human capital (Foster & Rosenzweig, 1995;Rahm & Huffman, 1984), risk (Marra & Carlson, 1987), and simultaneous adoption of technology and productivity (McBride & El-Osta, 2002;Zepeda, 1994).…”

Section: The Term "Herbicide-resistant" (Hr) Is Sometimes Used In Recmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

2007

Encyclopedia of Environment and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural Resource Management Survey data for 2003 were used to estimate logit models for adoption of conservation-tillage practices and herbicide-resistant/stacked-gene cottonseed in the United States. The specification allowed for the possibility that adoption of one technology could influence adoption of the other. However, the null hypothesis that the technologies are adopted independently could not be rejected. The coefficient for herbicide-resistant cotton adoption was positive in the conservation-tillage adoption equation, but significant only at the 5.1% (10.2%) level in one-(two-) tailed tests. The coefficient for conservation-tillage adoption was positive in the herbicide-resistant seed adoption equation, but significant only at the 7% (14%) level in one-(two-) tailed tests. Prior adoption of no-till had a significant, positive impact on the conservation-tillage adoption. Compared to Delta states, Southern Plains and Western states were less likely to adopt either technology. Some practical limitations of analyzing complex survey data with limited research access are discussed.

show abstract

Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior

Cited by 109 publications

References 39 publications

Environmental and Production Cost Impacts of No-till in Finland: Estimates from Observed Behavior

Environmental and Production Cost Impacts of No-till in Finland: Estimates from Observed Behavior

Conjoint Analysis of Farmers’ Response to Conservation Incentives

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About