IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19279.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Habitus and Interest in Agroforestry Practices in Missouri

Author

Listed:
  • Flower, Todd
  • Valdivia, Corinne
  • Dorr, Hilary

Abstract

This study analyzes the factors driving interest in two agroforestry practices, riparian buffers and forest farming. Because agroforestry is outside main stream commodity production in US agriculture, the purpose is to evaluate a framework to understand attitudes. The framework incorporates Pierre Bourdieu's notions of "habitus" and "field" along with individual economic and demographic characteristics of farm operators' traditionally used in adoption studies. Four attitudes are analyzed: disengagers, conservatives, lifestyle, and accumulators. A Logit regression measures the effects of respondents' attitudes, and other internal and external factors to assess interest in each practice. The data used is from a household survey of 364 farm-operators from the Fox Wyaconda watershed in northeast Missouri and Scott County in southeast Missouri gathered in 1999. Findings show that a conservative or a lifestyle attitude, are significant, with high probability of being interested in riparian buffers. Those with an accumulator or a lifestyle attitude have a significant and high probability of being interested in forest farming. Other variables also significant in riparian buffer interest are knowledge of agroforestry, and interest in alternative farming practices, and especially having perceptions of erosion problems. In forest farming, a high value of farm and assets has a negative effect, while belonging to informal groups has a positive effect pointing to characteristics that do not belong to traditional farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Flower, Todd & Valdivia, Corinne & Dorr, Hilary, 2005. "Habitus and Interest in Agroforestry Practices in Missouri," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19279, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19279
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19279/files/sp05fl03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19279?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. Thomas L. Dobbs & Jules N. Pretty, 2004. "Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and "Multifunctionality"," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 220-237.
    2. Isik, Murat & Yang, Wanhong, 2004. "An Analysis of the Effects of Uncertainty and Irreversibility on Farmer Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Lynch, Lori & Brown, Cheryl, 2000. "Landowner Decision Making About Riparian Buffers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    5. repec:ags:joaaec:v:32:y:2000:i:3:p:585-596 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. M. Shucksmith, 1993. "Farm Household Behaviour And The Transition To Post‐Productivism," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 466-478, September.
    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. Lynch, Lori & Hardie, Ian W. & Parker, Douglas D., 2002. "Analyzing Agricultural Landowners' Willingness To Install Streamside Buffers," Working Papers 28570, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Bob Crabtree & Neil Chalmers & Nicola‐Jo Barron, 1998. "Information for Policy Design: Modelling Participation in a Farm Woodland Incentive Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 306-320, September.
    3. Work, James & Hauer, Grant & Luckert, M.K. (Marty), 2018. "What ethanol prices would induce growers to switch from agriculture to poplar in Alberta? A multiple options approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 51-62.
    4. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    6. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., Jr., 1996. "Program Participation Behvaior Of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Erik Nelson & Virginia Matzek, 2016. "Carbon Credits Compete Poorly With Agricultural Commodities In An Optimized Model Of Land Use In Northern California," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 1-24, November.
    8. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    9. 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.
    10. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    12. Franco, Juan Agustin & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2008. "Adoption and diffusion of no tillage practices in Southern Spain olive groves," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44014, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    15. Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H., 1992. "The Structure Of Citizen Preferences For Government Soil Erosion Control Programs," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Gary Lynne, 1984. "Commentary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 1(3), pages 10-14, June.
    17. Leland Glenna, 1996. "Rationality, habitus, and agricultural landscapes: Ethnographic case studies in landscape sociology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(4), pages 21-38, September.
    18. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    19. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    20. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.

    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:aaea05:19279. 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/aaeaaea.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.