Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-bh266 Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2022-01-27T20:29:41.263Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Chemical Use Reductions in Urban Fringe Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Adesoji O. Adelaja
Affiliation:
Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. He holds joint appointments in the Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Department of Geography, and Department of Community, Agricultural, Recreational and Resource Studies
Kevin Sullivan
Affiliation:
Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey
Yohannes G. Hailu
Affiliation:
Land Policy Research at the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University in East Lansing
Ramu Govindasamy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at Rutgers University in New Brunswick
Get access

Abstract

Using an augmented profit function framework designed to account for externalities related to chemical use in agriculture, this paper explains the chemical use choices of farmers in an urban fringe farming environment. It further estimates empirical logit models of reduced insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, and fertilizer usage. Results suggest that farmers who perceive their regulatory environment to be strict, who have experienced right-to-farm conflicts, and who have farms larger in size are more likely to reduce their chemical use over time, vis-à-vis other farmers. The results also suggest the importance of other farm structural and business climate factors in determining chemical use reduction choices.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Adelaja, A. 1995. “The 1994 Survey of New Jersey Farms.” Mimeograph, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Adelaja, A., and Friedman, K. 1999. “Political Economy of Right-to-Farm.Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3): 565579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelaja, A., Miller, T., and Taslim, M. 1998. “Land Values, Market Forces, and Declining Herd Size: Evidence from an Urban-Influenced Region.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1): 6371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akca, H., Sayili, M., and Kurunc, A. 2005. “Trade-off Between Multifunctional Agriculture, Externality and Environment.Journal of Applied Sciences Research 1(3): 298301.Google Scholar
Barbash, J.E., Thelin, G.P., Kolpin, D.W., and Gilliom, R.J. 2001. “Major Herbicides in Ground Water: Results from the National Water-Quality Assessment.Journal of Environmental Quality 30(3): 831835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, A., and Zahn, S.H. 1995. “Agricultural Exposure and Cancer.Environmental Health Perspectives 103(Supplement 8): 205208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, A., Zahn, S.H., Pearce, N.E., Heineman, E.F., and Fraumeni, J.F. 1992. “Clues to Cancer Etiology from Studies of Farmers.Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health 18(4): 209215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, D.J., Cook, Z.L., and Fuglie, K.O. 1995. “Voluntary versus Mandatory Agricultural Policies to Protect Water Quality: Adoption of Nitrogen Testing in Nebraska.Review of Agricultural Economics 1(17): 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, J.T., Martin, A.G., Janssen, C.L., and Whitford, F. 2004. “Are All These Rules Necessary? Extension Pesticide Programming with Regulatory Purpose.Journal of Extension 42(5): 1.Google Scholar
Clouser, R.L. 2005. “Issues at the Rural-Urban Fringe: Land Use Conflicts.” EDIS Document No. FE549, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Daniels, T.L. 1986. “Hobby Farming in America: Rural Development or Threat to Commercial Agriculture?Journal of Rural Studies 2(1): 3140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, A. 2004. “Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(1): 817.Google Scholar
Dobbs, T.L., and Smolik, J.D. 1996. “Productivity and Profitability of Conventional and Alternative Farming Systems: A Long-Term On-Farm Paired Comparison.Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 9(1): 6379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, J.M., and Malcolm, S.A. 2003. “Legal Risk in Agriculture: Right-to-Farm Laws and Institutional Change.Agricultural Systems 75(2): 295303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., and Beus, C.E. 1992. “Understanding Public Concerns About Pesticides: An Empirical Examination.The Journal of Consumer Affairs 26(2): 418438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G. 1980. “Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty.Oxford Economic Papers, New Series 32(2): 263283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S., and Smith, M. 1998. “Issues in the Economics of Pesticide Use in Agriculture: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.Review of Agricultural Economics 20(2): 462488.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., and Adelaja, A. 1998. “Predicting Consumer Risk Aversions to Synthetic Pesticide Residues: A Logistic Analysis.” Report No. P-02137-1-98, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Hamilton, P.A., and Helsel, D.R. 1995. “Effects of Agriculture on Ground-Water Quality in Five Regions of the United States.Ground Water 33(2): 217226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, S. 2003. “Regulating Land Use Conflicts on the Urban Fringe: Two Contrasting Case Studies from Australian Poultry Industry.Australian Geographer 34(1): 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobeloch, L., Salna, B., Hogan, A., Postle, J., and Anderson, H. 2000. “Blue Babies and Nitrate-Contaminated Well Water.Environmental Health Perspectives 7(108): 675678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolpin, D.W., Thurman, E.M., and Linhart, S.M. 1998. “The Environmental Occurrence of Herbicides: The Importance of Degradates in Ground Water.Earth and Environmental Science 35(3): 385390.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, L.K. 1992. “A Perspective on the Economic Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Chemical Use.American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(1/2): 8288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, R.A., Adelaja, A.O., and Andrews, M.S. 1988. “The Effects of Suburbanization on Agriculture.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(2): 346358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Sustainable Agricultural Information Service. 2009. “What Are Typical Questions That Callers Ask?” Available online at http://attra.ncat.org/who.html (accessed August 15, 2007).Google Scholar
New Jersey Statutes Annotated. 1998. New Jersey Right-to-Farm Act, as amended by P.L. 1998, c.48.Google Scholar
Nielson, E.G., and Lee, L. 1987. “The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 576, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Nkamleu, G.B., and Adesina, A.A. 2000. “Determinants of Chemical Input Use in Peri-Urban Lowland Systems: Bivariate Probit Analysis in Cameroon.Agricultural Systems 63(2): 111121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offermann, F., and Nieberg, H. 2000. “Economic Performance of Organic Farms in Europe.Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy 5: 1198.Google Scholar
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., and Huirne, R. 2002. “Evaluation of Sustainability of Organic, Integrated and Conventional Farming Systems: A Farm and Field-Scale Analysis.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95(1): 273288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padel, S. 2001. “Conversion to Organic Farming: A Typical Example of the Diffusion of an Innovation?Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 4061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, K.M., and Young, D.L. 1995. “Combining Alternative and Conventional Systems for Environmental Gains.American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(2): 8896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, T.A., and Lohr, L. 1996. “Supply and Demand Factors for Organic Produce.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(3): 647655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendleman, C.M. 1991. “Agrichemical Reduction Policy: Its Effect on Income and Income Distribution.Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 43(4): 39.Google Scholar
Rigby, D., and Caceres, D. 2001. “Organic Farming and the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems.Agricultural Systems 68(1): 2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serra, T., Zilberman, D., Goodwin, B., and Featherstone, A. 2006. “Effects of Decoupling on the Mean and Variability of Output.European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(3): 269288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, G.D. 1998. “Consumer Demand for Organic Foods: What We Know and What We Need to Know.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 11131118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. “U.S. Fertilizer Use and Prices.” Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/ (accessed August 12, 2007).Google Scholar
Van Driesche, R.G., Carlson, J., Ferro, D.N., and Clark, J.M. 1987. “Pesticides and Suburban Agriculture.” In Lockeretz, W., ed., Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.Google Scholar
Weaver, R., Evans, D., and Luloff, A.E. 1992. “Pesticide Use in Tomato Production: Consumer Concerns and Willingness to Pay.Agribusiness 8(2): 2235.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, G., Lin, B., and Vasavada, U. 1995. “Restricting Pesticide Use: The Impact on Profitability by Farm Size.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(2): 352362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y.-H., Yao, J., Hu, S., and Qi, Y. 2000. “Effects of Agricultural Chemicals on DNA Sequence Diversity of Soil Microbial Community: A Study with RAPD Marker.Microbial Ecology 39(1): 7279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Chemical Use Reductions in Urban Fringe Agriculture
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Chemical Use Reductions in Urban Fringe Agriculture
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Chemical Use Reductions in Urban Fringe Agriculture
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *