Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:19:59.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landowner Decision Making about Riparian Buffers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Lori Lynch  and
Cheryl Brown
Lori Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2200 Symons Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742-5535
Cheryl Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza MS 6100, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Get access

Abstract

A two-stage model is used to examine a landowner's decision to use riparian buffers. First, the farmer chooses whether to continue farming or to sell the land for development. If the farmer continues farming, then he or she must decide whether or not to plant a buffer. If the farmer plants a buffer, he or she must choose its type: trees or grass. Simulations of a representative farmer determine the parameters and parameter values that affect each decision. The farmer chooses to plant a buffer unless the net crop price is high or the land rental rate is low. The choice of buffer type is affected by crop price, farm size, relative incentive payments, relative cost share rates, and amount of deer damage.

Keywords

Agricultural land-useConservation Reserve Enhancement Programenvironmental policyland-useriparian buffers
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 585 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2000

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

Applied Research Systems, Inc. Qualitative evaluation of the continuous sign-up program: results of five focus groups. Prepared for the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Madison, Wisconsin, 1996.Google Scholar
Chambers, Robert G. and Foster, William E.. “Participation in the farmer-owned reserve program: a discrete choice model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65,1(1983):120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correli, David L.Buffer zones and water quality protection: general principles. Paper presented at Riparian buffer systems: a training program for resource managers, Wye Mills, Maryland, 1997.Google Scholar
Day, Rick L., Richards, Paul L., and Brooks, Robert L.. Chesapeake Bay riparian forest buffer inventory: final report. The Pennsylvania State University. 1996.Google Scholar
Eastern Shore Tributary Teams: Upper Eastern Shore, Choptank, Lower Eastern Shore. Riparian forest buffers: Values and challenges for the eastern shore. Summary report of eastern shore tributary strategy teams' workshop, Maryland, 1997.Google Scholar
Gasson, R., and Potter, C., “Conservation Through Land Diversion: A Survey of Farmers' Attitudes.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 39,3(1988):340–351.Google Scholar
Hagan, Patrick Thomas. Evaluating determinants of participation in voluntary riparian buffer programs: a case study of Maryland's buffer incentive program. Master's thesis. University of Maryland, 1996.Google Scholar
Hansen, D.E., and Schwartz, S.I.. “Landowner behavior at the rural urban fringe in response to preferential property taxation.” Land Economics 51(1975):341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Phillip N., Sukant Misra, K., and Terry, R. Ervin. “A qualitative choice analysis of factors influencing post-CRP land use decisions.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 29,1(1997):163–173.Google Scholar
Konyar, Kazim and Tim Osborn, C.. “A national-level economic analysis of conservation reserve program participation: a discrete choice approach.” Journal of Agricultural Economic Research 42,2(1990):5–12.Google Scholar
McNew, Kevin and Curtis, John. “Maryland farmers lose bucks on deer-damaged crops.” Economic Viewpoints 2,2(1997) College Park, Maryland: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
State of the Chesapeake Bay, 1995: Land use, population, and pollution. Annapolis, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Program, 1997.Google Scholar
Templin Forestry. “Consulting foresters—a breed apart.” The Landowner Leader. 4,2(1993). http://www.templinforestry.com/vol4no1.htm.Google Scholar
Venkatarao, Nagubadi, McNamara, Kevin T., Hoover, William L., and Mills, Walter L. Jr. “Program participation behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners: a probit analysis,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28,2(1996):323–336.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, Memo to Ed Sanders of Maryland Department of Agriculture from Livia Marques-Cooper of NRCS, RE: Flat Rates for Practice Standard 327 Under SEP, October 14, 1997.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service-Maryland, Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, September 1998.Google Scholar