Abstract
Interest in the incorporation of riparian buffers and forest farming were modeled following agricultural conservation and agroforestry adoption studies. Attitudes, individual characteristics, economic diversity of landowners’ household portfolio, and physical and ecological conditions were explanatory variables in Logit regression models of interest. Habitus and field, the values and institutions of farm operators, were included in the framework. Knowledge of the practice, perceived problems with the environment and attitude/habitus variables had a positive effect on the probability of being interested in riparian buffers. Knowledge of the practice was the most important factor in explaining interest in the case of forest farming, followed by attitudes about trees and concern for future generations, both habitus variables. Field variables like CRP payments representing familiarity with government programs that support conservation, had no significant effect on interest in riparian buffers. Older farmers were less interested in both practices, consistent with other findings. Existing economic diversification of the household portfolio had no effect on the probability of being interested in either practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Diversity index DI = 1/∑ pi2 where “i” is income activity and p is income share (Valdivia et al. 1996).
References
Abd-Ella MM, Hoiberg EO, Warren RD (1981) Adoption behavior in family farm systems: an Iowa Study. Rural Sociol 46(1):42–61
Alig RJ, Adams DM, McCarl BA (1998) Impacts of incorporating land exchanges between forestry and agriculture in sector models. J Agric Appl Econ 30(2):389–401
Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow DA, Krinke M, Westra J, Zimmerman J, Welle P (2005) Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55:27–38
Buck LE (1995) Agroforestry policy issues and research directions in the US and less developed countries: insights and challenges from recent experience. Agroforest Syst 30(1–2):57–73
Clearfield F, Osgood BT (1986) Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service
Cooper JC, Keim RW (1996) Incentive payments to encourage farmer adoption of water quality protection practices. Am J Agric Econ 78:54–64
Cutter BE, Rahmadi AI, Kurtz WB, Hodge S (1999) State policies for agroforestry in the United States. Agroforest Syst 46:217–227
Dobbs TL, Pretty JN (2004) Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and “multifunctionality”. Rev Agric Econ 26(2):220–237
Dosskey M, Everson A (1997) Can the EPA’s “319” program help launch your agroforestry project? Inside Agroforest 1–8
Ellis F (1998) Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. J Dev Stud 35(1):1–38
Ervin CA, Ervin DE (1982) Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypothesis, evidence, and policy implications. Land Econ 58(3):277–292
Festervand DF (1981) Soil survey of Cape Girardeau, Mississippi and Scott Counties, Missouri. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia
Gardner BL (2000) Economic growth and low incomes in agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 82(5):1059–1074
Godsey LD (2002) Funding incentives for agroforestry in Missouri. Agroforestry in action. University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry
Gold MA, Rietveld JW, Garrett HE (2000) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts and practices for the United States. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld JW, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy: Madison, pp 63–78
Gray AW, Boehlje MD, Gloy BA, Slinsky SP (2004) How US farm programs and crop revenue insurance affect returns to farm land. Rev Agric Econ 26(2):238–253
Hagan PT (1996) Evaluating determinants of participation in voluntary riparian buffer programs: a case study of Maryland’s buffer incentive program. Master’s thesis, University of Maryland
Hoppe RA, MacDonald JM (2001) America’s diverse family farms: assorted sizes, types, and situations. ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 769, 8 pp, May
Isik M, Yang W (2004) An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the conservation reserve program. J Agric Resour Econ 29(2):242–259
Knox County Historical Society (1981) History of Lewis, Clark, Knox, and Scotland Counties, Missouri. Wallsworth Publishing Company. Originally printed in 1887
Knutson RD, Smith EG, Anderson DP, Richardson JW (1998) Southern farmers’ exposure to income risk under the 1996 farm bill. J Agric Appl Econ 30(1):35–46
Konyar K, Osborn CT (1990) A national level economic analysis of conservation reserve program participation: a discrete choice approach. J Agric Econ Res 42(2):5–12
Koontz TM (2001) Money talks-but to whom? Financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions. Soc Nat Resour 14:51–65
Korsching PF, Stofferahn CW, Nowak PJ, Wagener DJ (1983) Adopter characteristics and adoption patterns of minimum tillage: implications for soil conservation programs. J Soil Water Conserv 38(5):428–431
Lynch L, Brown C (2000) Landowner decision making about riparian buffers. J Agric Appl Econ 32(3):585–596
Matthews S, Pease SM, Gordon AM, Williams PA (1993) Landowner perceptions and the adoption of agroforestry practices in Southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforest Syst 21:59–168
Mishra AK, Sandretto CL (2002) Stability of farm income and the role of nonfarm income in US agriculture. Rev Agric Econ 24(1):208–221
National Agroforestry Center (2003) Incentives for agroforestry. 2002 Farm Bill. USD Inside Agroforestry. Winter 2003. www.unl.edu/nac/ia/winter03/winter03.pdf
OSEDA (2002) An overview of rural Missouri 2002: the demographic, economic, cultural and geographic context for Missouri rural social science. UM Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, January
Pannell DJ (1999) Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems. Agroforest Syst 45:393–409
Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforest Syst 57:173–186
Raedeke A, Green J, Hodge S, Valdivia C (2003) Farmers’ perceptions of agroforestry: an application of Bordieus’ concepts of field and habitus. Rural Sociol 68(1):64–86
Reardon T, Delgado C, Matlon P (1992) Determinants and effects of income diversification amongst farm households in Burkina Faso. J Dev Stud 28(2):264–296
Scherr SJ (1995) Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns observed in Western Kenya. World Dev 23(5):787–804
Shucksmith M (1993) Farm household behavior and the transition to post-productivism. J Agric Econ 44(3):466–479
Skaggs RK, Kirskey RE, Harper WM (1994) Determinants and implications of post-CRP land use decisions. J Agric Resour Econ 19:299–312
Skees JR, Harwood J, Somwaru A, Perry J (1998) The potential for revenue insurance policies in the south. J Agric Appl Econ 30(1):47–61
Skelton P, Josiah SJ, Brandle J (2004) Adoption of riparian forest buffers on private lands: factors affecting their use in two Nebraska, USA Watersheds. In: Book of abstracts 1st world congress of agroforestry. 27 June–2 July, Orlando Florida, p 90
Soule MJ, Tegene A, Wiebe KD (2000) Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am J Agric Econ 82(4):993–1005
Strong NA, Jacobson MG (2004) An agroforestry for every reason: adoption potential in changing rural Pennsylvania. In: Book of abstracts 1st world congress of agroforestry. 27 June–2 July, Orlando, Florida, p 91
US Department of Agriculture (1998) A time to act: a report of the USDA National Commission on small farms. MP-1545, Washington, DC
USDA NASS (2002) 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/
United States Department of Agriculture (2001) Structural and financial characteristics of US farms: 2001 family farm report. Washington, DC
Valdivia C, Konduru K (2003) Interest in agroforestry practices, farmer diversification strategies and government transfers in Missouri’s northeast and southeast In: Sharrow S (ed) Proceedings 8th biennial conference on agroforestry in North America. June 22–25, Corvallis, OR, USA, pp 281–296
Valdivia C, Dunn E, Jetté C (1996) Diversification, a risk management strategy in an Andean agropastoral community. Am J Agric Econ 78(5):1329–1334
Valdivia C, Raedeke A, Hodge S, Green J, Godsey L (2000) The economic and social value of floodplain agroforestry for rural development: a baseline economic and social profile of producers in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agricultural economics working paper AEWP-2000-4. MU, Columbia
Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agroforest Syst 59:73–83
Acknowledgements
This work was funded through the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry under cooperative agreements 58-6227-1-004 with the ARS and C R 826704-01-2 with the US EPA. The results presented are the sole responsibility of the authors and/or MU and may not represent the policies or positions of the ARS or EPA. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the US Department of Agriculture. The authors acknowledge Sandra Hodge, Andrew Raedeke, and John Green, with whom Valdivia developed the survey and database used in this study. The authors thank Michael Gold for reviewing this document and providing helpful advice. We truly appreciate the comments of anonymous reviewers. All remaining mistakes are the responsibility of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Valdivia, C., Poulos, C. Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agroforest Syst 75, 61–71 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9129-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9129-2