IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v61y1999i3p165-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A bioeconomic decision model comparing composted and fresh litter for winter squash

Author

Listed:
  • Andrews, S. S.
  • Lohr, L.
  • Cabrera, M. L.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrews, S. S. & Lohr, L. & Cabrera, M. L., 1999. "A bioeconomic decision model comparing composted and fresh litter for winter squash," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 165-178, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:61:y:1999:i:3:p:165-178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(99)00046-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert D. Weaver, 1996. "Prosocial Behavior: Private Contributions to Agriculture's Impact on the Environment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 231-247.
    2. Safley, C.D. & Safley Jr., L.M., 1991. "Economic Analysis Of Alternative Poultry Litter Compost Systems," Department of Economics and Business - Archive 259582, North Carolina State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Xu, Feng & Prato, Tony, 1995. "Optimal Farm-Level Use and Value of Broiler Litter [Watershed Management I Section]," Staff General Research Papers Archive 880, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Graham, Mary, 2009. "Developing a social perspective to farm performance analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2390-2398, June.
    2. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J., 2010. "An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2033-2041, August.
    3. Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy & Higley, Leon, 1999. "Farmer risk assessment for voluntary insecticide reduction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 121-130, July.
    4. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    5. Soderqvist, Tore, 2003. "Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 105-120, November.
    6. Russell, Clifford S. & Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Clark, Christopher D., 2003. "Searching for evidence of alternative preferences, public as opposed to private," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-27, May.
    7. Petrick, Martin, 2006. "Should the Government Finance Public Goods in Rural Areas? A Review of Arguments," Staff Paper Series 497, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Fritsch, David A. & Collins, Alan R., 1993. "The Economic Feasibility Of Poultry Litter Composting Facilities In Eastern West Virginia," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, October.
    9. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    10. Mamzina, Tatyana, 2012. "Integrated innvestment plans modernization monotown: Kuzbass experience," Annals of marketing-mba, Department of Marketing, Marketing MBA (RSconsult), vol. 3, November.
    11. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.
    12. Andrew Bell & Nathanial Matthews & Wei Zhang, 2016. "Opportunities for improved promotion of ecosystem services in agriculture under the Water-Energy-Food Nexus," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(1), pages 183-191, March.
    13. Sauer, Johannes & Wossink, Ada, 2010. "The Marginal Cost Of Agri-Environmental Services," 50th Annual Conference, Braunschweig, Germany, September 29-October 1, 2010 93939, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. Myung Ja Kim & C. Michael Hall & Heejeong Han, 2021. "Behavioral Influences on Crowdfunding SDG Initiatives: The Importance of Personality and Subjective Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    16. Fowlie, Meredith & Wiser, Ryan & Chapman, Duane, 2001. "Supporting Public Goods with Voluntary Programs: Non-Residential Demand for Green Power," Working Papers 127660, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    17. Dependra Bhatta & Krishna P. Paudel & Kai Liu, 2023. "Factors influencing water conservation practices adoptions by Nepali farmers," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 10879-10901, October.
    18. Park, Timothy A. & Lohr, Luanne, 2002. "Organic Pest Management Decisions: A Systems Approach," Faculty Series 16655, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    19. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273494, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273498, Agricultural Economics Society.

    More about this item

    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:eee:agisys:v:61:y:1999:i:3:p:165-178. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.