IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/200901010800001913.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices

Author

Listed:
  • Abdulla, Majd

Abstract

The structure of land ownership in Iowa is rapidly changing. More than half of the state's land is rented. The average age of land owners has increased over time. This study examines the differences in adoption of conservation practices between absentee owners and owner operators. Specifically, this study investigates hitherto unexplored differences between absentee owners and owner operators found in previous studies (e.g., absentee owners, sole ownership, proximity of habitation to farm and reasons for owning land) regarding decisions to conserve land.This study's 2006 survey data were analyzed using the non-parametric method (tau-b) and a parametric regression framework (logistic regressions). The results suggested that all conservation practices were not considered to be equal by landowners. Being an owner operator or absentee owner impacted the decision to use certain types of conservation practices. Absentee owners tend to adopt the structural (expensive) conservation practices more than owner operators, whereas both types of owners equally adopt inexpensive conservation practices. Being an absentee owner or owner operator does not impact the probability of having land enrolled in a government conservation program. Age, education, place of residence, owned agricultural land and reasons for owning land seem to affect the adoption of each practice individually. However, knowledge about the cost-share program does have a positive impact on adoption, regardless of the type of conservation practices.Ultimately, there is a need for more investigation to increase our knowledge of absentee owners, the reasons land owners choose to be absentee owners and their motivations to conserve land. This study found that landowners rarely used the internet for management information regarding their land. Similarly a very low percentage of landowners said the internet was their preferred way to receive such information. Reasons why the internet was not more widely used should be explored. Finally, policy makers should consider absentee owners as being strategically different from owner operators when creating conservation policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdulla, Majd, 2009. "The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001913, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:200901010800001913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9e224af6-8c3e-4d4e-86ef-6096748dfd97/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miranowski, John & Nielsen, E. & Morehart, M., 1989. "Investments in Soil Conservation and Land Improvements: Factors Explaining Farmers Decisions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11145, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell & Michael P. Burton, 2005. "Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 1-9, July.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1983. "An Economic Model of Soil Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-89.
    5. Miranowski, John & Hammes, B., 1984. "Implicit Prices of Soil Characteristics for Farmland in Iowa," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10706, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. V. Eldon Ball & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Richard Nehring & Agapi Somwaru, 1997. "Agricultural Productivity Revisited," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1045-1063.
    7. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1974. "Incentives and Risk Sharing in Sharecropping," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(2), pages 219-255.
    8. Allen M. Featherstone & Barry K. Goodwin, 1993. "Factors Influencing a Farmer's Decision to Invest in Long-Term Conservation Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 67-81.
    9. Raymond B. Palmquist & Leon E. Danielson, 1989. "A Hedonic Study of the Effects of Erosion Control and Drainage on Farmland Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 55-62.
    10. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 79-90, July.
    11. Hoover, Herbert & Witala, Marc, 1980. "Operator and Landlord Participation in Soil Erosion Control in the Maple Creek Watershed in Northeast Nebraska," Economics Statistics and Cooperative Services (ESCS) Reports 143687, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Linda K. Lee & William H. Stewart, 1983. "Landownership and the Adoption of Minimum Tillage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(2), pages 256-264.
    13. John A. Miranowski & Brian D. Hammes, 1984. "Implicit Prices of Soil Characteristics for Farmland in Iowa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(5), pages 745-749.
    14. Michael R. Rahm & Wallace E. Huffman, 1984. "The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(4), pages 405-413.
    15. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    16. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    17. Huffman, Wallace E. & Evenson, Robert E., 1993. "Science for Agriculture: A Long Term Perspective," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10997, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell, 1999. "A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 145-154, October.
    19. John F. Timmons, 1948. "Farm Ownership in the United States: An Appraisal of the Present Situation and Emerging Problems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 78-100.
    20. Bereket Araya & John Asafu‐Adjaye, 1999. "Returns to Farm‐Level Soil Conservation on Tropical Steep Slopes: The Case of the Eritrean Highlands," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 589-605, September.
    21. Cain, Zachary & Lovejoy, Stephen B., 2004. "History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1-6.
    22. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    23. Hoover, Herbert & Wiitala, Marc, 1980. "Operator And Landlord Participation In Soil Erosion Control In The Maple Creek Watershed In Northeast Nebraska," Staff Reports 278837, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    24. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    25. Tsur, Yacov & Sternberg, Menachem & Hochman, Eithan, 1990. "Dynamic Modelling of Innovation Process Adoption with Risk Aversion and Learning," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 336-355, April.
    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. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Zhang, Wendong & Plastina, Alejandro, 2019. "What drives landowners’ conservation decisions? Evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201905230700001082, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.

    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. Calatrava-Leyva, Javier & Franco, Juan Agustin & Gonzalez-Roa, Maria del Carmen, 2005. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Olive Groves: The Case of Spanish Mountainous Areas," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24661, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Burnett, Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2022. "Land tenure and conservation adoption: An analysis of contracts and incentives," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Pandey, Sushil, 1999. "Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 241-256, December.
    5. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2001. "Adoption Of Soil Conservation Practices: A Revealed Preference Approach," Working Papers 28609, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    9. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    10. Bockstael, N. & Costanza, R. & Strand, I. & Boynton, W. & Bell, K. & Wainger, L., 1995. "Ecological economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 143-159, August.
    11. Lichtenberg, Erik & Strand, Ivar E.Jr. & Lantin, Rhona M. & Lessley, Billy V., 1990. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Best Management Practices in Maryland," Working Papers 197616, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    13. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    14. 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.
    15. B. James Deaton & Chad Lawley & Karthik Nadella, 2018. "Renters, landlords, and farmland stewardship," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 521-531, July.
    16. Canales Medina, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Modeling the factors affecting farmers’ timing of adoption of in-field conservation cropping practices," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Díaz, José, 2012. "Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 54-62.
    18. Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Zhao, Jinhua, 2001. "The Subsidy For Adopting Conservation Tillage: Estimation From Observed Behavior," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20542, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Joanna Noelia Kamiche, 2005. "Los Pobres Y El Medio Ambiente: Análisis De La Condición De Pobreza Y Decisión De Uso De Fertilizantes En Los Hogares De Nicaragua," Documentos CEDE 3177, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    20. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.

    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:isu:genstf:200901010800001913. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.