Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T21:35:05.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Participation in Agricultural Land Preservation Programs: Parcel Quality and a Complex Policy Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Joshua M. Duke
Joshua M. Duke*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Management and Legal Studies, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware
Get access

Abstract

Data on owner and land characteristics are used to analyze factors affecting participation decisions in Delaware's agricultural lands preservation program, federal commodity programs, and federal conservation programs. A trivariate probit model estimates a set of random utility models of participation. Participation decisions at the state and federal levels are found to be driven by many of the same observed factors, but uncorrelated in unobserved characteristics. The important exceptions are that owners of small parcels under development pressure and with parcels of relatively low environmental quality tend to enroll in commodity programs rather than preservation. In part, the complex policy environment may therefore limit the effectiveness of programs seeking to preserve parcels with the highest environmental quality or facing the greatest development pressure.

Keywords

commodity programsConservation Reserve Programdevelopment pressureEnvironmental Quality Incentive Programmultivariate probitPurchase of Agricultural Conservation EasementsPurchase of Development Rights
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 34 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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., and Friedman, K. (1999). “The Political Economy of the Right to Farm.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3), 565–579.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, 488–500.Google Scholar
Batie, S. S. (2003). “The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Brooks, H. G., Aradhyula, S.V., and Johnson, S. R. (1992). “Land Quality and Producer Participation in U.S. Commodity Programs.” Review of Agricultural Economics 14(1), 105–115.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. G., and Foster, W. E. (1983). “Participation in the Farmer-Owned Reserve Program: A Discrete-Choice Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(1), 120–124.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
Cooper, J. C., and Obsorn, C. T. (1998). “The Effect of Rental Rates on the Extension of Conservation Reserve Program Contracts.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1), 184–194.Google Scholar
Delaware Department of Agriculture. (2003). “Farmland Preservation in Delaware.” Dover, DE. Online. Available at http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/aglands/lndpres.htm. [Last accessed May 29, 2003.]Google Scholar
Delaware Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Service. (2003). Delaware Agricultural Statistics Summary, 2001-2002. Dover, DE.Google Scholar
Dicks, M. R., Riely, P. L., and Shagam, S. D. (1987). “The Effects of Commodity Program Participation on Bidding in the Conservation Reserve Program.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 16(2), 144–152.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Duke, J. M., and Aull-Hyde, R. (2002). “Identifying Public Preferences for Land Preservation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Ecological Economics 42(1-2), 131–145.Google Scholar
Environmental Working Group. (2003). “Farm Subsidy Database.” EWG, Washington, DC. Online. Available at: http://www.ewg.org. [Last accessed May 30, 2003.]Google Scholar
Field, B. C., and Conrad, J. M. (1975). “Economics of Compensation in Development Rights Programs.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 4, 185–194.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. (1997). Econometric Analysis, 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2002). LIMDEP Version 8.0: Econometric Modeling Guide. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Just, R. E., and Antle, J. M. (1990). “Interactions Between Agricultural and Environmental Policies: A Conceptual Framework.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2), 197–202.Google Scholar
Khanna, M. (2001). “Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and Its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(1), 35–51.Google Scholar
Konyar, K., and Osborn, C. T. (1990). “A National-Level Economic Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participation: A Discrete Choice Approach.” Journal of Agricultural Economic Research 42(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
Libby, L., and Irwin, E. (2003). “Rural Amenities and Farmland Value.” In Moss, C. B. and Schmitz, A. (eds.), Government Policy and Farmland Markets: The Maintenance of Farmer Wealth (pp. 343–364). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, L., and Lovell, S. J. (2003). “Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land Preservation Programs.” Land Economics 79(2), 259–276.Google Scholar
Lynch, L., and Musser, W. N. (2001). “A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs.” Land Economics 77(5), 577–594.Google Scholar
McLean-Meyinsse, P. E., Hui, J., and Joseph, R. Jr. (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
Phipps, T. (1983). “Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application to Maryland.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 12(1), 61–65.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. G., Phipps, T., and Lessley, B. V. (1986). “Participation in Maryland's Agricultural Land Preservation Program: The Adoption of Innovative Agricultural Land Policy.” Landscape Journal 7(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
Poe, G. L. (1998). “Property Tax Distortions and Participation in Federal Easement Programs: An Exploratory Analysis of the Wetlands Reserve Program.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1), 117–124.Google Scholar
Poe, G. L., Bills, N. L., Bellows, B. C., Crosscombe, P., Koelsch, R. K., Kreher, M. J., and Wright, P. (2001). “Will Voluntary and Educational Programs Meet Environmental Objectives? Evidence from a Survey of New York Dairy Farms.” Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2), 473–491.Google Scholar
Poe, G. L., Welsh, M. P., and Champ, P. A. (1997). “Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent. Land Economics 73(2), 255–267.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Administration. (2003). List of Delaware Agricultural Lands Program (DALP) participant names and nonparticipant information. USDA/FSA, Washington, DC. Online. Available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp. [Last accessed May 30, 2003.]Google Scholar