IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/149821.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stripping Because You Want to Versus Stripping Because the Money is Good: A Latent Class Analysis of Farmer Preferences Regarding Filter Strip Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Howard, Gregory
  • Roe, Brian E.

Abstract

Governments in Ohio have attempted to limit nutrient runoff in the Maumee watershed from agriculture through the establishment of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs, in which farmers are paid to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as grass filter strips. This paper seeks to understand which farmers are likely to opt into these PES programs and how farmer preferences for these programs are influenced by program attributes and farmer perceptions towards BMPs. We examine these questions using responses from a survey of Ohio farmers, where farmers choose between two PES programs and a status quo (no program) option. We allow for farmer heterogeneity using latent class analysis and find two classes of farmers. One class, denoted the “Environmental Steward” class, has a strong preference for opting into filter strip programs. Furthermore, increasing perceptions of filter strip effectiveness has no significant impact on program choice for this class. The second class, denoted the “Other” class, has a strong status quo preference. Increasing perceptions of filter strip effectiveness has a significant positive effect on members of this class. Both classes prefer programs with larger payments, smaller filter strips, and less paperwork, while program length is not significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Howard, Gregory & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Stripping Because You Want to Versus Stripping Because the Money is Good: A Latent Class Analysis of Farmer Preferences Regarding Filter Strip Programs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149821, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/149821
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    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. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    4. Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Gao, Qi & Larson, James A., 2006. "Simultaneous Adoption of Herbicide-Resistant and Conservation-Tillage Cotton Technologies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(03), pages 629-643, December.
    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. Heckman, James J. & Robb, Richard Jr., 1985. "Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions : An overview," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-267.
    7. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
    8. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
    10. Jeffrey M. Peterson & Craig M. Smith & John C. Leatherman & Nathan P. Hendricks & John A. Fox, 2015. "Transaction Costs in Payment for Environmental Service Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 219-238.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Darrell J. Bosch & Zena L. Cook & Keith O. Fuglie, 1995. "Voluntary versus Mandatory Agricultural Policies to Protect Water Quality: Adoption of Nitrogen Testing in Nebraska," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 13-24.
    14. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    15. Kelly A. Davey & W. Hartley Furtan, 2008. "Factors That Affect the Adoption Decision of Conservation Tillage in the Prairie Region of Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(3), pages 257-275, September.
    16. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    17. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    18. P. Dupraz & D. Vermersch & B. De Frahan & L. Delvaux, 2003. "The Environmental Supply of Farm Households: A Flexible Willingness to Accept Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser & et al., 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. María Pérez-Urdiales & María García-Valiñas & Roberto Martínez-Espiñeira, 2016. "Responses to Changes in Domestic Water Tariff Structures: A Latent Class Analysis on Household-Level Data from Granada, Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(1), pages 167-191, January.
    3. Elena Irwin & Joseph Campbell & Robyn Wilson & Alessandra Faggian & Richard Moore & Nicholas Irwin, 2016. "Human adaptations in food, energy, and water systems," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(1), pages 127-139, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    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:aaea13:149821. 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.