Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:30:55.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Citizen Preferences for Government Soil Erosion Control Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Jeffrey L. Jordan  and
Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb
Jeffrey L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department sf Agricultural Economics at theUniversity of Georgia Experiment Station
Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb
Affiliation:
Department sf Agricultural Economics at theUniversity of Georgia Experiment Station
Get access

Abstract

The 1990 Farm Bill contains several measures concerning soil erosion caused by U.S. farmers. Data from a nationwide survey of people conerning their attitudes toward agriculture were used to examine the structure of respondents' preferences for government support-policies to combat soil erosion. Estimates of the influence of socio-economic and demographic variables on policy preferences were computed using a multiple-indicator model. Results show more support for the regulation of soil erosion, including laws and fines, than for government financial support.

Keywords

soil erosionpreferences measurementlinear structural relationship (LISREL) modellatent variables
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 73 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E. Jr., and Joreskog, K. G.. “The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violation of measurement scale and distribution assumption.” J. Marketing Res., 24(1987): 222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M., and Chou, C. P.. “Practical issues in structural modelling. Soc. Meth. and Res., 16(1987):78–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohrnstedt, G. W. “Measurement.” In Handbook of Survey Research, Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., and Anderson, A.B., eds. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1983.Google Scholar
Deacon, R., and Shapiro, P.. “Private preferences for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda.” Am. Econ. Rev., 65(1975):943–955.Google Scholar
Earle, T. R., Rose, C. W., and Brownlea, A. A.. “Socio-economic Predictors of Intention Toward Soil Conservation and Their Implication in Environmental management.” J. Environ. Manag., 9(1979):225–236.Google Scholar
Ervin, C. A. and Ervin, D. E.. “Factors affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence and Policy Implications.” Land Economics, 58(1982):277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, J. M. “Demands for public spending: an attitudinal approach.” Public Choice, 40(1983):135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, J. M. “Interrelationships among public spending preferences: a micro analysis.” Public Choice, 45(1985): 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. C. “Taxes and expenditures in the U.S.: public opinion surveys and incidence analysis compared.” Econ. Inq., 23(1985):525–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramlich, E. M., and Rubinfeld, D. L.. “Micro estimates of public spending demand functions and tests of the Tiebout and median-voter hypotheses.” J. Polit. Econ., 90(1982):536–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, L. C. “Who Cares About Water pollution? Opinions in a Small-Town Crisis.” Sociol. Inq., 55(1985a): 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, L. C. “Concerns About Toxic Wastes, Three Demographic Predictors.” Sociol. Perspect, 28(1985b): 463–486.Google Scholar
Harman, H. H.Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Havlicek, J. “Megatrends affecting agriculture: implications for agricultural economics.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 68(1986):1053–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, D. “Demand for national public goods: estimates from surveys.” Econ. Inq., 23(1985):487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D.. Advances in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. “Simultaneous analysis of longitudinal data from several cohorts.” In Cohort Analysis in Social Research: Beyond the Identification Problem. Mason, W. M. and Fienberg, S.E., eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D.LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares Methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc., 1986.Google Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D.LISREL 7 User's Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
Kalten, G., and Schuman, H.. “The effect of the question on survey responses: a review.” J. R Statist Soc, 145A(1982): 42–73.Google Scholar
Lankford, R. H. “Preferences of citizens for public expenditures on elementary and secondary educatioa” J. Econometrics, 27(1985): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynne, G. D., Shonkwiler, J. S., and Rola, L. R.. “Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behavior.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 70(1988): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar, J. J. “The farming in American life study: a national survey of American attitudes towards farming and agriculture.” Technical Documentation, Auburn University, 1986.Google Scholar
Mueller, D.J.Measuring Social Attitudes: A Handbook of Researchers and Practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1986.Google Scholar
Muthen, B., and Kaplan, D.. “A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables.” British J. Math. and Statist. Psy. 38(1985):171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, E. G., Miranowski, J. A., and Morehart, M. J.. “Investments in soil conservation and land improvements: factors explaining farmers' decisions.” Washington DC: USDA ERS, Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 601, 1989.Google Scholar
Norris, P. E. and Batie, S. S.. “Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 19(1987):79–90.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M. O. “Reducing soil erosion: offsite benefits.” Washington DC: USDA ERS, Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 561, 1986.Google Scholar
Saris, W. E., and Stronkhorst, L. H.. Causal Modelling in Nonexperimental Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
Schokkaert, E. “Preferences and demand for local public spending.” J. Public Econ. 34(1987):175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonquist, J. A., and Dunkelberg, W. C.. Survey and Opinion Research: Procedures for Processing and Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar