Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Farmers were presented with four increasingly demanding cropping systems with
similarly increasing environmental benefits that ranged from a chisel-tilled corn-
soybean rotation fertilized according to university recommendations (including a
nitrate soil test) to a corn-soybean-wheat rotation with winter cover crops and
reduced chemical inputs. The respondents were asked how much land they might
enroll in each system for a predetermined payment level.
Three farmer traits—the belief that their production could benefit from nature,
their years of prior experience, and the availability of suitable equipment—
were collectively the best predictor of farmers' willingness to shift land into the
more complex cropping systems associated with reduced chemical inputs (Ma
et al. 2012). Not surprisingly, the simplest system attracted the most participa-
tion, regardless of farm size. However, among those willing to adopt the most
environmentally beneficial system, farmers with over 200 ha were much more
willing than were farmers with smaller farms to offer more acreage at higher
payment levels. These larger farms are therefore most likely to be providers of
environmental services at the lowest cost (Swinton et al. 2015b, Chapter 13 in
this volume). This is probably related to economies of scale: Not only do larger
farms have more land to enroll, but the additional fixed costs of no-till, banding,
and cultivation equipment can be spread out over larger areas, therefore lowering
capitalization barriers.
Clear from this research is that the provision of ecosystem services in agriculture
will require incentives. Education is not the issue; most farmers are aware of the
environmental benefits of alternative practices (except for greenhouse gas mitiga-
tion benefits). Indeed, those farmers who strongly valued environmental steward-
ship were willing to accept lower cost incentives to adopt the alternative practices
(Ma et al. 2012). But almost all of the farmers—especially those with large farms—
were willing to accept payments for services. This, then, raises the question: Are
consumers willing to pay for such services? Regardless of the mechanisms whereby
payments are made—direct payments to farmers through government or private
programs, tax abatements, or higher prices to consumers from taxes on polluting
inputs or tradable pollution credits (Lipper et al. 2009)—the cost of payments for
ecosystem services must ultimately be borne by society.
The 2009 Michigan Environmental Survey (Chen 2010; Swinton et al. 2015b,
Chapter 13 in this volume) provides insight on society's willingness to pay. The
survey was returned by ~2400 households from every county in Michigan, strati-
fied by population. The respondents were asked about their willingness to support
a personal income tax increase to pay land managers to enroll in one of three stew-
ardship programs that would, to varying degrees, reduce lake eutrophication and/or
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The responses to the survey showed substantial public willingness to finance
policies that would pay farmers to adopt practices to abate lake eutrophication.
In aggregate, the respondents were willing to pay $175 per household for a com-
bined reduction of 170 eutrophic lakes and 0.5% lower greenhouse gas emissions.
However, most of the households were unwilling to pay farmers for reduced green-
house gas emissions alone. Over 60% of the households in 2009 were uncon-
cerned about climate change. Of the 40% that were concerned, however, the mean
