Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:02:15.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Potential Conservation Effort of CRP Participants in the State of Missouri: A Latent Variable Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

N.G. Kalaitzandonakes  and
M. Monson
N.G. Kalaitzandonakes
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
M. Monson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of economic, personal, and attitudinal factors on the intended conservation effort of a sample of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract holders after their contracts have expired. Economic factors were found to dominate the decision about future conservation effort. Attitudes towards conservation were found to have no significant influence on the decision. This fact may relate to the recent changes in the regulatory environment brought about by the 1985 Food Security Act which changed conservation from a voluntary to regulated nature.

Keywords

conservation attitudesconservation effortCRPMIMICMissouri
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , July 1994 , pp. 200 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

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

Bern, D.J. “Self Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena.” Psychological Rev. 74:183–200, 1967.Google Scholar
Bollen, K.A.Structural Equations with Latent Variables John Willey, New York, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicks, M.R. “Southern Great Plains CRP lands: Future Use and Impacts.” Current Farm Econ. 63(4):43–57, 1990.Google Scholar
Ervin, C.A., and Ervin, D.E.. “Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” Land Econ. 58:277–92, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L.A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Standford University Press, Standford, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L.K., and Stewart, W.H.. “Land Ownership and Adoption of Minimum Tillage.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 65:256–64, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiller, J.S., and Rolla, L.R.. “Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behavior.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 70:12–19, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P.E., and Batie, S.S.. “Virginia Farmer's Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis.” So. J. Agr. Econ. 19:79–90, 1987.Google Scholar
Nowak, J., Schnepf, M., and Barnes, R.. “When Conservation Reserve Program Contracts Expire..” Soil and Water Conservation Society Report, 1991.Google Scholar
Rahm, M.R., and Huffman, W.E.. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 60:405–13, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicklund, R., and Brehm, J.. Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, New Jersey, 1976.Google Scholar
Young, C.E. and Osborn, C.T.. “An Economic Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program” Agriculture-Food Policy Review: U.S. Agricultural Policies in a Changing World USDA/ERS, AER 620: 125–142, 1989.Google Scholar