Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:52:29.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Qualitative Choice Analysis of Factors Influencing Post-CRP Land Use Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Phillip N. Johnson ,
Sukant K. Misra  and
R. Terry Ervin
Phillip N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Sukant K. Misra
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
R. Terry Ervin
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The future use of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands is an important agricultural policy issue. To examine the effects of factors that influence landowners' post-contract use of CRP lands, a survey of Texas High Plains CRP contract holders was conducted in 1992. This study analyzes the results of the survey using a qualitative choice model. It was found that the presence of a livestock enterprise in the current contract holder's operation increases the probability of these acres remaining in the established cover. Contract holders who value the commodity base have an increased probability of returning their acres to crop production.

Keywords

agricultural policyConservation Reserve Programordered probit model
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , July 1997 , pp. 163 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1997

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

Atkinson, M.M., and Dicks, M.R.. “Post-CRP Land Use Decisions in Oklahoma.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Clark, R.T., Elmore, S.L., Baker, M., and Johnson, B.B.. “Nebraska's CRP Land-Producer Intentions for Future Use.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Dicks, M.R. “More Benefits with Fewer Acres Please!” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 42(1987): 170-73.Google Scholar
Diebel, PL., Cable, T.T., and Cook, P.S.. “The Future of Conservation Reserve Program Land in Kansas: A Landowner's View.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Ervin, R.T., and Johnson, P.N.. “Economic Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program in the Southern High Plains of Texas.” Report prepared for the Soil Conservation Service State Office for Texas, Temple TX, December 1992.Google Scholar
Ervin, R.T., and Lee, J.A.. “Impact of Conservation Practices on Airborne Dust in the Southern High Plains of Texas.” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 49(1994):430-35.Google Scholar
Goodman, B., and Hughes, B.. “Impact of Returning CRP Grassland in Alabama.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Greene, , LIMDEP, W.H.. Bellport NY: Econometric Software, Inc., 1990.Google Scholar
Gustafson, C, and Hill, C.. “Future Land Use Decisions of North Dakota Conservation Reserve Program Participants.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Janssen, L.L., and Ghebremicael, T.. “Post-Contract CRP Land Use Decisions in South Dakota: Results from a 1993 CRP Survey.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N.G., and Monson, M.. “An Analysis of Potential Conservation Efforts of CRP Participants in the State of Missouri: A Latent Variable Approach.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 26(1994):200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lant, C, Kraft, S.E., and Munyoka, K.. “The Plans of CRP Contract Holders for the Post-Contract Use of Their CRP Land.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. “Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice.” In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, eds., Manski, C.F. and McFadden, D., pp. 198–272. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Misra, S.K., Huang, C.L., and Ott, S.L.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Pesticide-Free Fresh Produce.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 16(1991):218-27.Google Scholar
Monson, M., and Lenkner, R.. “A Sample of CRP Contract Holders on Future Land Use.” In Proceedings of the NCT-163 Post-Conservation Reserve Program Land Use Conference, Denver CO, 10–11 January 1994.Google Scholar
Norris, P.E., and Batie, S.S.. “Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of To-bit Analysis.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 19(1987):79–90.Google Scholar
Nowak, P.J., Schnepf, M., and Barnes, R.. “When Conservation Reserve Program Contracts Expire: A National Survey of Farm Owners and Operators Who Have Enrolled Land in the Conservation Reserve.” Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny LA, 1991.Google Scholar
Osborn, C.T., Schnepf, M., and Keim, R.. “The Future Use of Conservation Reserve Program Acres: A National Survey of Farm Owners and Operators.” Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny IA, 1994.Google Scholar
Skaggs, R.K., Kirksey, R.E., and Harper, W.M.. “Determinants and Implications of Post-CRP Land Use Decisions.” J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 19(1994):299–312.Google Scholar
Young, C.B., and Osborn, C.B.. “The Conservation Reserve Program: An Economic Assessment.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 626, USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington DC, February 1990.Google Scholar