IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/28570.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyzing Agricultural Landowners' Willingness To Install Streamside Buffers

Author

Listed:
  • Lynch, Lori
  • Hardie, Ian W.
  • Parker, Douglas D.

Abstract

Many watershed organizations have prioritized establishing streamside (riparian) buffers on agricultural land to improve water quality. Using data from a 2000 survey of 500 Maryland landowners, we examine what level of financial incentives they would require to install such buffers for 15 years on a voluntary basis. A random utility model is developed where a landowner is willing to accept the offered contract if he or she receives a higher utility from the incentive payment and buffer installation than from not planting the buffer. Given the development pressure in the Washington D.C./Baltimore corridor, we test whether farmers need more than the agricultural opportunity costs to encumber their land. Higher incentive payments, part-time farming, education, and a Lower Shore location positively influence the respondent=s willingness to install a buffer. Length of the farming horizon, age, and a Southern Maryland location negatively influence the respondent=s willingness.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28570
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28570/files/wp02-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    2. Mortensen, Timothy L. & Coon, Randal C. & Leitch, Jay A. & Leistritz, F. Larry & Ekstrom, Brenda L., 1989. "Economic Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program in North Dakota," Agricultural Economics Reports 23177, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    3. Lynch, Lori & Tjaden, Robert, 2001. "Willingness Of Forest Landowners To Use Poultry Litter As Fertilizer," Working Papers 28585, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 35-51.
    6. 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.
    7. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    10. repec:ags:joaaec:v:32:y:2000:i:3:p:585-596 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Robert Sanford & Hubert Stroud, 2000. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Act 250 in Protecting Vermont Streams," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 623-641.
    12. McLean-Meyinsse, Patricia E. & Hui, Jianguo & Joseph, Randolph, Jr., 1994. "An Empirical Analysis Of Louisiana Small Farmers' Involvement In The Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Mooney, Sian & Eisgruber, Ludwig M, 2001. "The Influence of Riparian Protection Measures on Residential Property Values: The Case of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2-3), pages 273-286, March-May.
    14. David E. Hansen & S. I. Schwartz, 1975. "Landowner Behavior at the Rural-Urban Fringe in Response to Preferential Property Taxation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(4), pages 341-354.
    15. 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.
    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(1), pages 1-14, July.
    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. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    2. Lambert, Dayton M. & Schaible, Glenn D. & Johansson, Robert C. & Daberkow, Stan G., 2006. "Working-Land Conservation Structures: Evidence on Program and Non-Program Participants," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21438, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Jordan F. Suter & Gregory L. Poe & Nelson L. Bills, 2008. "Do Landowners Respond to Land Retirement Incentives? Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 17-30.
    4. David C. Roberts & Christopher D. Clark & Burton C. English & William M. Park & Roland K. Roberts, 2009. "Estimating Annualized Riparian Buffer Costs for the Harpeth River Watershed," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 894-913.
    5. Suter, Jordan F. & Bills, Nelson L. & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "The Importance Of Spatial Data In Modeling Actual Enrollment In The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (Crep)," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20151, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners' preferences and potential participation in western Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 72-81.
    7. Lambert, Dayton M. & Sullivan, Patrick, 2006. "Conservation Reserve Program Participation and Acreage Enrollment of Working Farms," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21361, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Buckley, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Mechan, Sarah, 2012. "Operating or not Operating at the Margin: Farmers Willingness to Adopt a Riparian Buffer Zone," Working Papers 148830, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    9. Hung-Hao Chang & Richard N. Boisvert, 2009. "Distinguishing between Whole-Farm vs. Partial-Farm Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 144-161.

    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:umdrwp:28570. 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/daumdus.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.