Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:03:07.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Impacts of Adoption of Best Management Practices by Crawfish Producers: The Role of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Narayan P. Nyaupane ,
Jeffrey M. Gillespie  and
Krishna P. Paudel
Narayan P. Nyaupane
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Jeffrey M. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Krishna P. Paudel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates reasons for adoption of best management practices (BMP), crawfish farmers' participation in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and economic impacts of BMP adoption using data from a 2008 survey of crawfish producers. Most-cited reasons for BMP adoption are farmers' perceptions of increases in profit and long-run productivity. Land tenancy, education, double-cropping or crop rotation, and proximity to a stream influence EQIP participation. Perceptions of economic profits depend on the practices used. Participation in EQIP negatively impacts farmers' perceptions of profitability from adopting BMPs. The results underscore the importance of economic incentives in promoting BMP adoption.

Keywords

conservation practicesconservation programscrop rotationdouble-cropping
Type
Research Article
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , August 2012 , pp. 247 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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

Banerjee, S., Martin, S.W., Roberts, R.K., Larkin, S.L., Larson, J.A., Paxton, K.W., English, B.C., Marra, M.C., and Reeves, J.M. 2008. “A Binary Logit Estimation of Factors Affecting Adoption of GPS Guidance Systems by Cotton Producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(1): 345–355.Google Scholar
Beattie, B.R., Taylor, C.R., and Watts, M.J. 2009. The Economics of Production (2nd edition). Marabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Google Scholar
Bergtold, J.S., and Molnar, J.J. 2010. “Limited Access to Conservation: Limited Resource Farmer Participation in the Conservation Security Program in the Southeast.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42(2): 211–227.Google Scholar
Cooper, J.C., and Keim, R.W. 1996. “Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1): 54–64.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
El-Osta, H.S., and Morehart, M.J. 1999. “Technology Adoption Decisions in Dairy Production and the Role of Herd Expansion.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(1): 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D. 1985. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2): 255–298.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J.M., Davis, C.G., and Rahelizatovo, N.C. 2004. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Breeding Technologies in U.S. Hog Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(1): 35–47.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J., Kim, S.A., and Paudel, K. 2007. “Why Don't Producers Adopt Best Management Practices? An Analysis of the Beef Cattle Industry.” Agricultural Economics 36(1): 89–102.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J., and Nyaupane, N. 2010. “Tenancy Arrangements Used by Louisiana Crawfish Producers.” Aquaculture Economics and Management 41(3): 202–217.Google Scholar
Gould, B.W., Saupe, W.E., and Klemme, R.M. 1989. “Conservation Tillage: The Role of Farm and Operator Characteristics and the Perception of Soil Erosion.” Land Economics 65(2): 167–182.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H., 2008. Econometric Analysis (6th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Hausman, J.A. 1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica 46(6): 1251–1271.Google Scholar
Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. 2009. Louisiana Summary 2008. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Available at http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/publications/Publications+Catalog/Money+and+Business/Louisiana+Summary++Agriculture+and+Natural+Resources.htm (last accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
McBride, W.D., Short, S., and El-Osta, H. 2004. “The Adoption and Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on U.S. Dairy Farms.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(4): 472–488.Google Scholar
McLean-Meyinsse, P.E., Hui, J., and Joseph, R. 1994. “An Empirical Analysis of Louisiana Small Farmers’ Involvement in the Conservation Reserve Program.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(2): 379–385.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Census of Aquaculture, Volume 3, Special Studies Part 2. NASS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. “Introduction to EQIP.” NCRS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip (last accessed May 2012).Google Scholar
Nyaupane, N., and Gillespie, J.M. 2011. “Louisiana Crawfish Farmer Adoption of Best Management Practices.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66(1): 61–70.Google Scholar
Obubuafo, J., Gillespie, J.M., Paudel, K., and Kim, S. 2008. “Awareness of and Application to the Environmental Incentives Program by Cow-Calf Producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(1): 357–368.Google Scholar
Patrick, G.F., Peiter, A.J., Knight, T.O., Coble, K.H., and Baquet, A.E. 2007. “Hog Producers’ Risk Management Attitudes and Desire for Additional Risk Management Education.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(3): 671–687.Google Scholar
Paudel, K.P., Gauthier, W.M., Westra, J.V., and Hall, L.M. 2008. “Factors Influencing and Steps Leading to the Adoption of Best Management Practices by Louisiana Dairy Farmers.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(1): 203–222.Google Scholar
Pushkarskaya, H., and Vedenov, D. 2009. “Farming Exit Decision by Age Group: Analysis of Tobacco Buyout Impact in Kentucky.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(3): 653–662.Google Scholar
Rahelizatovo, N.C., and Gillespie, J.M. 2004. “The Adoption of Best-Management Practices by Louisiana Dairy Producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(1): 229–240.Google Scholar
Soule, M.J., Tegene, A., and Wiebe, K.D. 2000. “Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(4): 993–1005.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2010. “Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues.” CRS Report R40197, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Tauer, L.W. 2006. “Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin on Dairy Farm Cost of Production: Evidence from Multiyear Data.” AgBioForum 9(2): 79–83.Google Scholar
Valentin, L., Bernardo, D.J., and Kastens, T.L. 2004. “Testing the Empirical Relationship between Best Management Practice Adoption and Farm Profitability.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(4): 489–504.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zepeda, L. 1994. “Simultaneity of Technology Adoption and Productivity.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(1): 46–57.Google Scholar