IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis

  • Boris Bravo

    (Office of Intenational Affairs and Department of Agriculture and Resource Economic, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.)

  • Horacio Cocchi

    (Office of International Affairs, University of Connecticut,CT,USA.)

  • Daniel Solís

    (Divisionof Marine Affairs and Policy, Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miam, Miami, FL, USA.)

This paper examines the determinants of adoption of soil conservation technologies among farmers participating in the Environmental Program of El Salvador (PAES). A sample of PAES participants was surveyed in 2002, from which a sub-sample was re-surveyed in 2005 along with a control group of non-participating households. This is an ex-post evaluation of PAES and there is no baseline and no randomized control group. Therefore, quasi-experimental techniques were applied to select the treatment and comparison groups after the intervention occurred. Matching techniques were employed to construct a comparison group that resembles the treatment group based on observed characteristics while statistical controls were applied to measure differences on adoption of soil conservation for the treatment group at two points in time (2002 and 2005) and between the treatment and comparison groups at a given point in time (2005), allowing for before-after and with-without comparisons. Two adoption models (Conservation Practices and Conservation Structures) were estimated using two separate samples (PAES beneficiaries 2002-2005 and beneficiaries-control group 2005). We then analyzed the factors associated with disadoption of the technologies in 2005 relative to 2002. Overall, the adoption of practices and structures is positively associated with schooling, off-farm earnings, crop diversification, technical assistance, participation in social organizations, frequency of extension visits and access to local markets. More importantly, PAES beneficiaries have increased significantly the area treated with conservation between 2002 and 2005. The results confirm that the project intervention (frequency of extension visits and years with project) is positively associated with adoption. Our findings also indicate that access to agricultural markets and rural infrastructure and institutions is crucial for adoption and diffusion of new technologies. Two probit models are estimated to examine the disadoption of practices and structures using the 2002-2005 data for PAES beneficiaries. These models indicate that off-farm income, education, frequency of extension visits, years with PAES and participation in social organizations are significant contributors to reducing the probability of disadoption of conservation technologies. In turn, disadoption is significantly associated with farm size. Disadopters of practices tend to be younger than adopters and have more diversified and larger farms with more access to input and output markets. In turn, disadopters of structures tend to have larger and more steeply farms, are more involved in social organizations and have less access to input and output markets and local infrastructure.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) in its series OVE Working Papers with number 1806.

in new window

Length: 40 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:idb:ovewps:1806
Contact details of provider: Postal: 1300 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20577
Phone: 202-623-1000
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Baidu-Forson, Jojo, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
  2. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2003. "Halving Global Poverty," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
  3. Mikael Lindahl & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1101-1136, December.
  4. Glewwe, Paul, 1996. "The relevance of standard estimates of rates of return to schooling for education policy: A critical assessment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 267-290, December.
  5. Zeller, Manfred & Diagne, Aliou & Mataya, Charles, 1997. "Market access by smallholder farmers in Malawi," FCND discussion papers 35, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  6. Johnson, Nancy L. & Baltodano, Maria Eugenia, 2004. "The economics of community watershed management: some evidence from Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 57-71, May.
  7. Feder, Gershon & Murgai, Rinku & Quizon, Jaime B., 2003. "Sending farmers back to school - the impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3022, The World Bank.
  8. Judy L. Baker, 2000. "Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty : A Handbook for Practitioners," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 13949.
  9. Pender, John L. & Kerr, John M., 1998. "Determinants of farmers' indigenous soil and water conservation investments in semi -arid India," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), September.
  10. Moreno, Georgina & Sunding, David L., 2003. "Simultaneous Estimation Of Technology Adoption And Land Allocation," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22134, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  11. Edward B. Barbier, 1990. "The Farm-Level Economics of Soil Conservation: The Uplands of Java," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 199-211.
  12. Winters, Paul & Davis, Benjamin & Corral, Leonardo, 2002. "Assets, activities and income generation in rural Mexico: factoring in social and public capital," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 27(2), August.
  13. Reardon, Thomas & Crawford, Eric W. & Kelly, Valerie A. & Diagana, Bocar N., 1995. "Promoting Farm Investment for Sustainable Intensification of African Agriculture," Food Security International Development Papers 54053, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  14. Scherr, Sara J., 2000. "A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 479-498, August.
  15. Abdulai, Awudu & Huffman, Wallace, 2007. "The Diffusion of New Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Crossbreeding Technology in Tanzania," Staff General Research Papers 12785, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  16. Clay, Daniel C. & Byiringiro, Fidele Usabuwera & Kangasniemi, Jaakko & Reardon, Thomas & Sibomana, Bosco & Uwamariya, Laurence & Tardif-Douglin, David, 1995. "Promoting Food Security in Rwanda Through Sustainable Agricultural Productivity: Meeting the Challenges of Population Pressure, Land Degradation, and Poverty," Food Security International Development Papers 54054, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  17. Kerr, John & Chung, Kimberly, 2001. "Evaluating watershed management projects:," CAPRi working papers 17, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  18. Lutz, Ernst & Pagiola, Stefano & Reiche, Carlos, 1994. "The Costs and Benefits of Soil Conservation: The Farmers' Viewpoint," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 9(2), pages 273-95, July.
  19. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Pandey, Sushil, 1999. "Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 241-256, December.
  20. Solis, Daniel & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Quiroga, Ricardo E., 2007. "Soil conservation and technical efficiency among hillside farmers in Central America: a switching regression model," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(4), December.
  21. Neill, Sean P & Lee, David R, 2001. "Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Cover Crops in Northern Honduras," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(4), pages 793-820, July.
  22. Deininger, Klaus & Zegarra, Eduardo & Lavadenz, Isabel, 2003. "Determinants and Impacts of Rural Land Market Activity: Evidence from Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1385-1404, August.
  23. 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(01), July.
  24. Awudu Abdulai & Wallace E. Huffman, 2005. "The Diffusion of New Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Crossbred-Cow Technology in Tanzania," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 645-659.
  25. Current, Dean & Lutz, Ernst & Scherr, Sara J, 1995. "The Costs and Benefits of Agroforestry to Farmers," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 10(2), pages 151-80, August.
  26. Westra, John V. & Olson, Kent D., 1997. "Farmers' Decision Processes And Adoption Of Conservation Tillage," Staff Papers 13380, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
  27. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein T., 1998. "Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 233-247, May.
  28. Thampapillai, Dodo J. & Anderson, Jock R., 1994. "A Review of the Socio-Economic Analysis of Soil Degradation Problems for Developed and Developing Countries," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(03), December.
  29. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Pandey, Sushil, 1999. "Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(3), December.
  30. 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.
  31. Winters, Paul C. & Davis, Benjamin & Corral, Leonardo, 2001. "Assets, Activities and Income Generation in Rural Mexico: Factoring in Social and Public Capital," Working Papers 12898, University of New England, School of Economics.
  32. Winters, Paul & Crissman, Charles C. & Espinosa, Patricio, 2004. "Inducing the adoption of conservation technologies: lessons from the Ecuadorian Andes," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(05), pages 695-719, October.
  33. Arellanes, Peter & Lee, David R., 2003. "The Determinants Of Adoption Of Sustainable Agriculture Technologies: Evidence From The Hillsides Of Honduras," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25826, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  34. Lau, Lawrence J. & Jamison, Dean T. & Louat, Frederic F., 1991. "Education and productivity in developing countries : an aggregate production function approach," Policy Research Working Paper Series 612, The World Bank.
  35. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-98, January.
  36. 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.
  37. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Zinnah, Moses M., 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(4), December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:idb:ovewps:1806. 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: (Monica Bazan)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.