IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277300.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Soil conservation behavior among annual crop farmers: the moderating role of intrinsic on extrinsic motivations

Author

Listed:
  • Bopp, C.
  • Engler, A.
  • Poortvliet, M.
  • Jara-Rojas, R.

Abstract

This article examines the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, as well as the interplay between the two, on the adoption intensity of soil conservation agriculture (SCA). It seeks to understand the drivers of SCA among annual crop farmers using three conservation practices subject to be financed by an economic incentive for degraded soils in Chile; namely conservation tillage, stubble incorporation, and use of organic manure. The incentive to conservation represents an extrinsic motivation, while intrinsic motivations was represented by several beliefs about SCA based on the Planned Behavior Approach. To account for selection bias on unobservable factors between the incentive and behavior, a two-step model was performed to estimate the intensity of SCA adoption. Farm/farmers characteristics and control variables were also included in the model. Results of the econometric analysis show that attitudes and the exogenous incentive are both significant, but also the interaction with each other. Farmers with low intrinsic motivation are heavily dependent on extrinsic motivation to adopt SCA, while those intrinsically motivated seem to act in a sustainable way regardless the existence of external rewards. Finally, soil degradation was also found to play a key role on the intensity of SCA adoption. Acknowledgement : This work was supported by the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT), through its Programme Becas Chile for Phd studies 2016.

Suggested Citation

  • Bopp, C. & Engler, A. & Poortvliet, M. & Jara-Rojas, R., 2018. "Soil conservation behavior among annual crop farmers: the moderating role of intrinsic on extrinsic motivations," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277300, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277300
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277300/files/1591.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277300?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teklewold, Hailemariam & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2013. "Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-93.
    2. Bratti, M. & Miranda, A, 2010. "Endogenous Treatment Effects for Count Data Models with Sample Selection or Endogenous Participation," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/19, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Erwin Wauters & Erik Mathijs, 2014. "The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: a meta-analytic review," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 78-102.
    4. Brian W. Gould & William E. Saupe & Richard M. Klemme, 1989. "Conservation Tillage: The Role of Farm and Operator Characteristics and the Perception of Soil Erosion," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(2), pages 167-185.
    5. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    6. Alejandra Engler & Roberto Jara-Rojas & Carlos Bopp, 2016. "Efficient use of Water Resources in Vineyards: A Recursive joint Estimation for the Adoption of Irrigation Technology and Scheduling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(14), pages 5369-5383, November.
    7. Abdul Nafeo Abdulai, 2016. "Impact of conservation agriculture technology on household welfare in Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 729-741, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    2. Martey, Edward & Etwire, Prince Maxwell & Abdoulaye, Tahirou, 2020. "Welfare impacts of climate-smart agriculture in Ghana: Does row planting and drought-tolerant maize varieties matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Tianzhi Gao & Yaqin Ren & Qian Lu & Hui Feng, 2023. "Conservation Tillage Technology: A Study on the Duration from Awareness to Adoption and Its Influencing Factors—Based on the Survey of the Yellow River Basin in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Wondimagegn Tesfaye & Garrick Blalock & Nyasha Tirivayi, 2021. "Climate‐Smart Innovations and Rural Poverty in Ethiopia: Exploring Impacts and Pathways," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 878-899, May.
    5. Tambo, J. & Mockshell, J., 2018. "Differential impacts of conservation agriculture technology options on household welfare in sub-Saharan Africa," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277035, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Michler, Jeffrey D. & Baylis, Kathy & Arends-Kuenning, Mary & Mazvimavi, Kizito, 2019. "Conservation agriculture and climate resilience," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 148-169.
    7. Sankhulani, Linda, 2021. "Impact evaluation of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers’ livelihood in Zambia and Tanzania," Research Theses 334762, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Ali M. Oumer & Michael Burton & Atakelty Hailu & Amin Mugera, 2020. "Sustainable agricultural intensification practices and cost efficiency in smallholder maize farms: Evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 841-856, November.
    9. Aslihan Arslan & Kristin Floress & Christine Lamanna & Leslie Lipper & Solomon Asfaw & Todd Rosenstock, 2020. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 63 - The adoption of improved agricultural technologies - A meta-analysis for Africa," IFAD Research Series 304758, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    10. Makaiko G. Khonje & Julius Manda & Petros Mkandawire & Adane Hirpa Tufa & Arega D. Alene, 2018. "Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: evidence from eastern Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(5), pages 599-609, September.
    11. Tambo, Justice A. & Mockshell, Jonathan, 2018. "Differential Impacts of Conservation Agriculture Technology Options on Household Income in Sub-Saharan Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 95-105.
    12. The Dung Bui & Dung Mau Nguyen, 2022. "Sustainable land managements in Vietnam: adoption determinants and income effects at farm household level," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9687-9703, July.
    13. Guillermo Montt & Trang Luu, 2020. "Does Conservation Agriculture Change Labour Requirements? Evidence of Sustainable Intensification in Sub‐Saharan Africa," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 556-580, June.
    14. Thompson, Nathanael M. & Reeling, Carson J. & Fleckenstein, Michelle R. & Prokopy, Linda S. & Armstrong, Shalamar D., 2021. "Examining intensity of conservation practice adoption: Evidence from cover crop use on U.S. Midwest farms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Ainembabazi, John Herbert & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Feleke, Shiferaw & Alene, Arega & Dontsop-Nguezet, Paul M. & Ndayisaba, Pierre Celestin & Hicintuka, Cyrille & Mapatano, Sylvain & Manyong, Victor, 2018. "Who benefits from which agricultural research-for-development technologies? Evidence from farm household poverty analysis in Central Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-46.
    16. Marenya, Paswel P. & Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos & Jaleta, Moti & Rahut, Dil B., 2020. "Sustainable intensification among smallholder maize farmers in Ethiopia: Adoption and impacts under rainfall and unobserved heterogeneity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. He, Fei & Lai, John & Court, Christa D. & Borisova, Tatiana & Athearn, Kevin R., 2023. "Producers Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practices in Floridan Aquifer Region," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335650, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Momanyi, Denis & Lagat, Prof. Job K. & Ayuya, Dr. Oscar I., 2016. "Analysis of the Marketing Behaviour of African Indigenous Leafy Vegetables among Smallholder Farmers in Nyamira County, Kenya," MPRA Paper 69202, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Jan 2016.
    20. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.