Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:40:46.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Gerard D'souza ,
Douglas Cyphers  and
Tim Phipps
Gerard D'souza
Affiliation:
Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 Scientific article No. 2369, West Virginia University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown
Douglas Cyphers
Affiliation:
Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 Scientific article No. 2369, West Virginia University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown
Tim Phipps
Affiliation:
Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 Scientific article No. 2369, West Virginia University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The extent to which individual factors influence the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is estimated using a logit model and data from a 1990 survey of West Virginia producers. The results are, as expected, different than those for conventional agricultural technologies. For example, the effects of human capital characteristics are significant, while those for structural and institutional characteristics are not. However, the likelihood of adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is affected most by the environmental characteristic of whether or not the producer is aware that ground water contamination exists on his farm. This creates an important “awareness effect” upon which policies to promote sustainable agriculture adoption can be formulated. It also implies the existence of a derived demand for sustainable agriculture.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 159 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

References

Capps, O. Jr. and Kramer, R.A. “Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 49–59.Google Scholar
Caswell, M.F. and Zilberman, D. “The Choice of Irrigation Technology in California.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 224–33.Google Scholar
Environmental Law Institute. “The Promise of LISA.” Environmental Forum 6 (1989): 23.Google Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33 (1985): 255–98.Google Scholar
Feder, G. and Slade, R. “The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984): 312–20.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. and Jackson, J.E. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Harper, J.K., Rister, M.E., Mjelde, J.W., Drees, B.M., and Way, M.O. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Insect Management Technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (1990): 997–1005.Google Scholar
Just, R.E. and Antle, J.M. “Interactions Between Agricultural and Environmental Policies: A Conceptual Framework.” American Economic Review 80 (1990): 197–202.Google Scholar
Lee, L.K. “Farm Chemicals and Groundwater Quality.” Agricultural Outlook. ERS, USDA. Washington, D.C., September 1987. pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.T., Wetzstein, M.E., and Douce, G.K. “Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management.” Review of Agricultural Economics 13 (1991): 129–39.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E.G., Miranowski, J.A., and Morehart, M.J. “Investments in Soil Conservation and Land Improvements: Factors Explaining Farmers’ Decisions.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 601, ERS, USDA. Washington, D.C., January 1989.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R.S. and Rubinfeld, D.L. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
Putler, D.S. and Zilberman, D. “Computer Use in Agriculture: Evidence from Tulare County, California.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988): 790–802.Google Scholar
Rahm, M.R. and Huffman, W.E. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984): 405–13.Google Scholar
Reichelderfer, K. “A Survey of Resource and Environmental Policies Affecting Agriculture.” Agricultural Outlook. ERS, USDA. Washington, D.C., March 1988. pp. 28–33.Google Scholar
Rook, S.P. and Carlson, G.A. “Participation in Pest Management Groups.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 563–6.Google Scholar
Taylor, D.C. and Dobbs, T.L. “South Dakota's Sustainable Agriculture Farmers.” Economics Newsletter, No. 264. Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, November 1988.Google Scholar
Thirtle, C. and Ruttan, V.W. The Role of Demand and Supply in the Generation and Diffusion of Technical Change. New York: Harwood Academic Press, 1987.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1987 Census of Agriculture: Part 48: West Virginia State and County Data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
Zepeda, L. “Predicting bST Use by California Dairy Farmers.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15 (1990): 55–62.Google Scholar