Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T00:22:53.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do farmers who adopt multiple conservation practices differ from their neighbors?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Bharat M. Upadhyay ,
Douglas L. Young ,
Holly H. Wang  and
Philip Wandschneider
Bharat M. Upadhyay
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164–6210
Douglas L. Young*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164–6210
Holly H. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164–6210
Philip Wandschneider
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164–6210
*
D.L. Young (dlyoung@wsu.edu)
Get access

Abstract

Wind erosion is a serious environmental problem in the inland Pacific Northwest, US. In addition to onfarm damage to soil and crop quality, it causes off-farm damage, including human respiratory illness, traffic accidents and diminished recreational values. Three key practices for effectively controlling wind erosion in eastern Washington are reduced tillage, continuous spring cropping and vegetative wind strips. Although these are effective in controlling wind erosion, their adoption by farmers in the region has been slow. Technology adoption theory has been classified into three paradigms: income, utility and innovation-adoption. This study on adoption of wind erosion control practices draws from all three paradigms. However, unlike most past research, this study distinguishes between single-practice adopters and multiple-practice adopters, and compares single-practice adopters with zero-practice adopters. Data were obtained from a random sample survey of 266 farmers in six semi-arid counties in a region of east-central Washington State prone to wind erosion. Statistical results revealed: (1) that adopters of multiple conservation practices contrast more sharply with non-adopters than do adopters of a single conservation practice; and (2) adopters of a single practice differ more from zero-practice adopters than they do from all other farmers (including adopters of other practices). More specifically, this study recognizes heterogeneity among ‘adopters’ in erosion control, and suggests that there may be some hierarchy among adopters in strength of innovation. It also supports earlier findings-by sociologists that early adopters have more financial resources or larger farms and that education may aid adoption. Adopters were more aware of an erosion control educational program. Multiple-practice adopters are a distinct identifiable group, who may play a key role as innovators who can influence neighbors to adopt effective conservation practices. These individuals also possess unique information on the comparative cost, yields and technical challenges of alternative conservation practices that could be used on farms with similar soil and climatic conditions. Knowledge of the attributes associated with innovative multiple-practice adopters may permit soil conservation policymakers and field staff to target educational programs more accurately during the early stages of technology dissemination. Conservation-practice dissemination strategies may benefit by including innovative farmers in leadership roles in the initial stage of conservation education programs.

Keywords

adoptionconservationlogitmultiple adopterssingle adopterssoil conservationtechnology adoptionwind erosion
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 27 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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

Bultena, G.L., and Hoiberg, E.O.. 1983. Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38(3):281–284.Google Scholar
Busacca, A.J., Wagoner, L., Mehringer, P. Jr., and Bacon, M.. 1998. Effect of human activity on dustfall: A 1,300-year lakecore record of dust deposition on the Columbia Plateau. Pacific Northwest USA. In Busacca, A. J. (ed.). Dust Aerosols. Loess Soils, and Global Change. College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Miscellaneous Publication No. MISC0190, Washington State University, Pullman, p. 8–11.Google Scholar
Byerlee, D., and de Polanco, E.H.. 1986. Farmers stepwise adoption of technological packages: evidence from the Mexican Altiplano. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 68(3):519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cary, J.W., and Wilkinson, R.L.. 1997. Perceived profitability and fanners' conservation behaviour. J. Agric. Econ. 48(1):13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caviglia, J.L., and Kahn, J.R.. 2001. Diffusion of sustainable agriculture in the Brazilian tropical rain forest: A discrete choice analysis. Econ. Development and Cultural Change 49(2):311–333.Google Scholar
Cornejo, J.F., Beach, E.D., and Huang, W.Y.. 1994. The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas. J. Agrie, and Applied Econ. 26(1): 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CTIC (Conservation Tillage Information Center). 1998. Web site http://www.ctic.purdue.edu (09 2001).Google Scholar
Diebel, P.L., Taylor, D.B., and Batie, S.S.. 1993. Barriers to lowinput agriculture adoption: A case study of Richmond County, Virginia. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8(3): 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Survey: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A., and Carlson, J.E.. 1982. Influence of absentee landlords on soil erosion control practices. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 37(1):37–41.Google Scholar
Ervin, C.A., and Ervin, D.E.. 1982. Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications. Land Econ. 58(3):277–292.Google Scholar
Feder, G., and Umali, D.L.. 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43:215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D.. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ. Development and Cultural Change 33(2):255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, B.W., Saupe, W.E., and Klemme, R.M.. 1989. Conservation tillage: the role of operator characteristics and perception of soil erosion. Land Econ. 65(2): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25(4):501–522.Google Scholar
Gujarati, D.N. 1992. Basic Econometrics. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Hansen, D.O., Erbaugh, J.M., and Napier, T.L.. 1987. Factors related to soil conservation practices in the Dominican Republic. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 42(5):367–369.Google Scholar
Harper, D. 1991. On methodological monism in rural sociology. Rural Sociol. 56(1):70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J.K., Rister, M.E., Mjelde, J.W., Drees, B.M., and Way, M.O., 1990. Factors influencing the adoption of insect management technology. Amer. J. Agrie. Econ. 72(4):997–1005.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. 1982. Adoption and diffusion of an innovation of uncertain profitability. J. Economic Theory 27(1):182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B.H. 1998. Regional air quality modeling of PM10 due to windblown dust on the Columbia plateau. MS thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Lee, L.K., and Stewart, W.H.. 1983. Land ownership and the adoption of minimum tillage. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 65(2):256–264.Google Scholar
Lockeretz, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? J. Soil and Water Conserv. 45(5):517–523.Google Scholar
Napier, T.L., and Camboni, S.M.. 1993. Use of conventional and conservation practices among farmers in the Scioto River Basin of Ohio. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 48(3):231–237.Google Scholar
Napier, T.L., Tucker, M., and McCarter, S.. 2000. Adoption of conservation production systems in three midwest watersheds. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 55(2): 123–134.Google Scholar
Neill, S.P., and Lee, D.R.. 2001. Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable agriculture: the case of cover crops in northern Honduras. Econ. Development and Cultural Change 49(4):793–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P.E., and Batie, S.S.. 1987. Virginia farmers' soil conservation decisions: An application of tobit analysis. Southern J. Agric. Econ. 19(1):79–90.Google Scholar
Nowak, P.J. 1987. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociol. 52(2):208–220.Google Scholar
Papendick, R.I., and Miller, D.E.. 1977. Conservation tillage in the Pacific Northwest. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 32(1):49–56.Google Scholar
Papendick, R.I. (ed.). 1998. Farming with the wind. Miscellaneous Publication No. MISC0208, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Rahm, M.R., and Huffman, W.E.. 1984. The adoption of reduced tillage: The role of human capital and other variables. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 66(4):405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rikoon, J.S., Constance, D.H., and Geletta, S.. 1996. Factors affecting farmers use and rejection of banded pesticide applications. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 51(4):322–328.Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V.W. 1996. What happened to technology adoptiondiffusion research? Sociol. Ruralis 36(1):51–73.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J. 1996. Air pollution and hospital admissions for respiratory disease. Epidemiology 7:20–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, R.D., Wandschneider, P., Fultz, D., and Klungland, M.. 1997. Focusing on wind erosion and PM-10 knowledge and practices: A dry land farmer survey. Monograph, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Smale, M., Just, R.E., and Leathers, H.D.. 1994. Land allocation in HYV adoption models: An investigation of alternative explanations. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 76(3):535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D., and Miller, W.. 1978. The adoption process and environmental innovations: A case study of a government project. Rural Sociol. 43(4):634–648.Google Scholar
Traore, N., Landry, R., and Amara, N.. 1998. On-farm adoption of conservation practices: The role of farm and fanner characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Econ. 74(1): 114–127.Google Scholar
Veseth, R.J., Klungland, M., and Marchant, D.. 1994. Controlling cropland wind erosion and off-site impacts in the Pacific Northwest: A proactive approach. Miscellaneous Publication No. MISCO177, Cooperative Extension, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Wandel, J., and Smithers, J.. 2000. Factors affecting the adoption of conservation tillage on clay soils in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 15(4):181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar