IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49257.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role of Cost-Share Rates and Prices on the Size of Conservation Investments in EQIP

Author

Listed:
  • Hand, Michael S.
  • Nickerson, Cynthia J.

Abstract

Per-unit costs for conservation investments in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are determined by market prices for conservation practices and payment cost-share rates. This study examines the relative importance of these factors in determining the size of the most common conservation investment in EQIP. Results suggest that per unit costs have a significant but inelastic impact on the size of conservation investment; as expected, higher per-unit costs are associated with smaller investments. This effect is largely due to variation in market prices of conservation practices for the majority of farmers. However, cost-share rates may play a role for some limited resource farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hand, Michael S. & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2009. "The Role of Cost-Share Rates and Prices on the Size of Conservation Investments in EQIP," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/49257
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    3. JunJie Wu & Bruce A. Babcock, 1998. "The Choice of Tillage, Rotation, and Soil Testing Practices: Economic and Environmental Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 494-511.
    4. Gary D. Lynne & J. S. Shonkwiler & Leandro R. Rola, 1988. "Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 12-19.
    5. Lambert, Dayton M. & Sullivan, Patrick & Claassen, Roger & Foreman, Linda F., 2006. "Conservation-Compatible Practices and Programs: Who Participates?," Economic Research Report 7255, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Lambert, Dayton M. & Sullivan, Patrick & Claassen, Roger, 2007. "Working Farm Participation and Acreage Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(01), pages 151-169, April.
    7. Joseph C. Cooper & Russ W. Keim, 1996. "Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 54-64.
    8. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Cost-Responsiveness of Conservation Practice Adoption: A Revealed Preference Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(03), December.
    9. Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & O'Donoghue, Erik J. & Banker, David E., 2007. "Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 59032, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Namatié Traoré & Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara, 1998. "On-Farm Adoption of Conservation Practices: The Role of Farm and Farmer Characteristics, Perceptions, and Health Hazards," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 114-127.
    11. Okwudili, Onianwa & Wheelock, Gerald & Gyawali, Buddhi Raj & Gan, Jianbang & Dubois, Mark & Schelhas, John, 2004. "An analysis of the factors affecting participation behavior of limited resource farmers in agricultural cost-share programs in Alabama," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 22(1).
    12. Hendrix, Shannon & Wheelock, Gerald & Onianwa, Okwudili O., 1999. "Factors Affecting Conservation Practice Behavior Of Crp Participants In Alabama," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 17(2).
    13. Jeffrey Gillespie & Seon-Ae Kim & Krishna Paudel, 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 89-102, January.
    14. Luanne Lohr & Timothy A. Park, 1995. "Utility-Consistent Discrete-Continuous Choices in Soil Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 474-490.
    15. Obubuafo, Joyce & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Paudel, Krishna & Kim, Seon-Ae, 2008. "Awareness of and Application to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program By Cow—Calf Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(01), pages 357-368, April.
    16. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(01), July.
    17. Obubuafo, Joyce & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Kim, Seon-Ae, 2008. "Awareness of and Application to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program By Cow–Calf Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQIP; cost share; beginning farmer; limited resource producer; conservation; Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:aaea09:49257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.