Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:53:52.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Patricia E. Norris  and
Sandra S. Batie
Patricia E. Norris
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Sandra S. Batie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using data from a survey of farm operators in two Virginia counties, the authors analyze farmers' soil conservation decisions. Results indicate that financial factors, including income and debt, are the most important influences on the sample farmers' use of conservation practices. Additional factors such as perception of erosion, education level, off-farm employment, and tenancy also influence conservation expenditures. Factors influencing conservation tillage acreage differ from those influencing expenditures for other conservation practices. In particular, age and race of the operator and on-farm erosion potential are significantly related to the use of conservation tillage but not other practices. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for conservation programs.

Keywords

soil conservationadoptionVirginiaconservation policyTobit models
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , July 1987 , pp. 79 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.” J. Econ. Lit, 19,4(1981):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Baron, D. Landownership Characteristics and Investment in Soil Conservation. USDA, ERS Staff Report No. AGES810911, 1981.Google Scholar
Batie, S. S. Soil Erosion: Crisis in America's Cropland? Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1983.Google Scholar
Bultena, G. L., and Hoiberg, E. O.. “Factors Affecting Farmers' Adoption of Conservation Tillage.” J. Soil and Water Conservation, 38,3(1983):281–284.Google Scholar
Carlson, J. E., Dillman, D. A., and Lassey, W. R. The Farmer and Erosion: Factors Influencing the Use of Control Practices. University of Idaho, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 601, 1981.Google Scholar
Dubman, B., and Smathers, W. M. “An Ordinal Polychotomous Probit Analysis of Soil Conservation Attitudes.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1983.Google Scholar
Earle, T. R., Rose, C. W., and Brownlea, A. A. “Socio-economic Predictors of Intention Towards Soil Conservation and their Implication in Environmental Management.” J. Environmental Mgt, 9,3(1979):225–236.Google Scholar
Ervin, D. E. “Soil Erosion on Owned and Rented Cropland: Economic Models and Evidence.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 1981.Google Scholar
Ervin, C. A., and Ervin, D. E. “Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence and Policy Implications.” Land Economics, 58,3(1982):277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R., and Silberman, D.. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 444, Washington, D.C., 1981.Google Scholar
Forster, D. L., and Stem, G. L. Adoption of Reduced Tillage and Other Conservation Practices in the Lake Erie Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, (Nov.) 1979.Google Scholar
Gardner, P. H., Hoagland, G. W., and Kramer, R. A.. The Distribution of Benefits from the 1982 Federal Crop Programs. United States Senate, Committee on the Budget, 98th Congress, 2nd Session, 1984.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica, 47,1(1979):153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkle, M. K. “Problems with Conservation Tillage.” J. Soil and Water Conservation, 38, 3 (1983):201–206.Google Scholar
Hoover, H., and Wiitala, M.. Operator and Landlord Participation in Soil Erosion Control in the Maple Creek Watershed in Northeast Nebraska. USDA, ESCS Staff Report NRED 80-4, 1980.Google Scholar
Lasley, P., and Nolan, M.. “Landowner Attitudes Toward Soil and Water Conservation in the Grindstone-Lost Muddy Creek Project.” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, 1981.Google Scholar
Lee, L. K. “The Impact of Land Ownership Factors on Soil Conservation.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 62,5(1980):1070–1076.Google Scholar
Lee, L. K., and Stewart, W. H. “Land Ownership and Adoption of Minimum Tillage.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65,2(1983):256–264.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. F., and Moffitt, R. A. “The Uses of Tobit Analysis.” Rev. Econ. and Stat, 62, 2 (1980):318–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. “The Concepts of Attitudes and Their Relations to Behaviors.” In Sinaiko, H. Wallace and Broedling, Lauri A. (eds.), Perspectives on Attitude Assessment: Surveys and Their Alternatives. Champaign, Illinois: Pendleton Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. R., and Kuh, E.. The Investment Decision. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. M. Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Personal Communication, June, 1984.Google Scholar
Nowak, P. J., and Korsching, P. F. “Social and Institutional Factors Affecting the Adoption and Maintenance of Agricultural BMPs.” In Schaller, F. and Bailey, G. (eds.), Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Pampel, F. Jr., and van Es, J. C.. “Environmental Quality and Issues of Adoption Research.” Rural Sociology, 42,1(1977):57–71.Google Scholar
Rahm, M. R., and Huffman, W. E. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66,4(1984):405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D. L., and Miller, W. L. “The Adoption Process and Environmental Innovations: A Case Study of a Government Project.” Rural Sociology, 43,4(1978):634–648.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica, 26, 1(1958):26–36.Google Scholar
United States Government Accounting Office (USGAO). To Protect Tomorrow's Food Supply—Soil Conservation Needs Priority Attention. CED-77-30, Washington, D.C., 1977.Google Scholar
Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D.. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 537, 1978.Google Scholar