IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v66y2018i2p331-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis L. Rollins
  • Stephanie R. Simpson
  • Peter C. Boxall

Abstract

We evaluate an agricultural extension program aimed at increasing on†farm biodiversity in Alberta. Using reports prepared for program participants by the extension agency, customized surveys were used to collect data on whether recommended practices were adopted. Data were also collected from producers who were willing but unable to participate in the program due to its unexpected cancellation. A count model compared the number of practices adopted by participants and nonparticipants to evaluate the program's efficacy, and a probit model using participants’ adoption data were used to understand factors affecting adoption. Simple, low†cost, and easily trialed practices were adopted at high rates, though some higher cost practices associated with observable benefits were also adopted at moderate or high rates. Farm†specific characteristics, such as size, tenure, or group membership were also significantly linked to the likelihood of adoption. Results suggest that the extension program was successful in encouraging adoption of environmentally beneficial practices with caveats; project completion and quality were not verified, and decreasing marginal returns to extension efforts may have been realized within the small participant pool. Nous évaluons un programme d'éducation permanente en agriculture visant l'augmentation de la biodiversité fermière en Alberta. Utilisant des rapports préparés par les agences d'éducation pour les participants de programmes, des sondages individualisés ont servi à la collecte de données concernant l'adoption de pratiques recommandées. Des données ont aussi été recueillies auprès de producteurs qui auraient voulu participer mais qui n'ont pas profité du programme suivant son annulation inattendue. Un modèle de comptage a servi à comparer le nombre de pratiques adoptées par les participants et non†participants pour évaluer l'efficacité du programme, et un modèle probit basé sur les données d'adoption par les participants a servi à comprendre les facteurs ayant un impact sur l'adoption. Les pratiques simples, peu coûteuses et faciles à tester ont été hautement adoptées. Certaines pratiques à coûts plus élevés, associées à des avantages observables, ont aussi vu des taux moyens et élevés d'adoption. Les caractéristiques spécifiques aux exploitations agricoles comme la taille, la longévité et l'adhésion à un groupe se sont aussi trouvées liées de façon significative aux probabilités d'adoption. Les résultats suggèrent que le programme d'éducation permanente a réussi à encourager l'adoption de pratiques bénéfiques pour l'environnement avec quelques bémols: la réalisation des projets et leur qualité n'ont pas fait l'objet de vérification, et la diminution des rendements marginaux en fonction des efforts d'éducation pourrait avoir été réalisée dans le cadre d'un petit bassin de participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis L. Rollins & Stephanie R. Simpson & Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 331-353, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:2:p:331-353
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    2. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    3. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    4. Nadella, Karthik & Deaton, Brady & Lawley, Chad & Weersink, Alfons, 2014. "Do farmers treat rented land differently than the land they own? A fixed effects model of farmer’s decision to adopt conservation practices on owned and rented land," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170633, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Miller, J. & Chanasyk, D. & Curtis, T. & Entz, T. & Willms, W., 2010. "Influence of streambank fencing with a cattle crossing on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern Alberta, Canada," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 247-258, February.
    6. Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J., 2000. "Agricultural extension policy in Australia: the good, the bad, and the misguided," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1-23.
    7. Rachael E. Goodhue & Karen Klonsky & Sandeep Mohapatra, 2010. "Can an Education Program Be a Substitute for a Regulatory Program That Bans Pesticides? Evidence from a Panel Selection Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 956-971.
    8. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven & Davidson, Debra, 2024. "How farmer preferences and climate change beliefs shape BMP adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    2. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    2. Clayton, Helena & Hingee, Kassel L. & Chancellor, Will & Lindenmayer, David & van Dijk, Albert & Vardon, Michael & Boult, Chris, 2024. "Private benefits of natural capital on farms across an endangered ecoregion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of Financial Incentives in Extension Programmes: Evidence From Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 781-795, September.
    4. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    5. Dominik Schreyer, 2019. "Football spectator no-show behaviour in the German Bundesliga," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(45), pages 4882-4901, September.
    6. S. Arunachalam & Sridhar N. Ramaswami & Pol Herrmann & Doug Walker, 2018. "Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 744-766, July.
    7. Timothy Erickson & Toni M. Whited, 2000. "Measurement Error and the Relationship between Investment and q," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(5), pages 1027-1057, October.
    8. Paul W. Miller & Barry R. Chiswick, 2002. "Immigrant earnings: Language skills, linguistic concentrations and the business cycle," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 15(1), pages 31-57.
    9. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    10. Rodrigo M. S. Moita & Claudio Paiva, 2013. "Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 94-121, February.
    11. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7172 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    14. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    15. MacKinnon, J G, 1989. "Heteroskedasticity-Robust Tests for Structural Change," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 77-92.
    16. Fenech, Jean-Pierre & Skully, Michael & Xuguang, Han, 2014. "Franking credits and market reactions: Evidence from the Australian convertible security market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-19.
    17. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    18. Benjamin M. Blau & Ryan J. Whitby, 2014. "Speculative Trading In Reits," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 37(1), pages 55-74, February.
    19. Bliss, Mark A. & Gul, Ferdinand A., 2012. "Political connection and leverage: Some Malaysian evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2344-2350.
    20. Gu, Chen & Kurov, Alexander & Wolfe, Marketa Halova, 2018. "Relief Rallies after FOMC Announcements as a Resolution of Uncertainty," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-18.
    21. Bierens, H.J. & Broersma, L., 1991. "The relation between unemployment and interest rate : some international evidence," Serie Research Memoranda 0112, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:2:p:331-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.