Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
The question presented them with a predetermined payment level ($X), and the
question was repeated with different payment levels for each of the four systems.
If respondents answered that they would not participate, they were asked if they
would be willing to consider participating in exchange for a higher payment. The
questionnaire was sent out in 16 different versions that varied three experimental
factors: (1) the payment levels offered, (2) whether the payment came from the
government or a nongovernmental organization, and (3) whether the sequence of
cropping systems went from least complex (A) to most complex (D) or vice versa.
The sample of 3000 Michigan corn and soybean farms was stratified by farm size
into four levels: under 100 acres, 101-500 acres, 501-1000 acres, and over 1000
acres. The sampling and mailing lists were managed by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service Michigan field office. Usable responses were received from 1688
farms, representing a response rate of 56% (Jolejole 2009).
The econometric analysis of farmer willingness to change was divided into two
steps: willingness to consider participation in the program (probit statistical model)
and, for those willing to participate, the number of acres they would enroll (tobit
regression) (Ma et al. 2012). The determinants of farmers' willingness to adopt
these alternative systems differed sharply between the two levels of analysis.
Farmer conservation attitudes, prior experience, and equipment availability
largely drove their willingness to consider participating in the hypothetical program
to shift land into the proposed cropping systems in exchange for a payment (Ma
et al. 2012). Respondents who agreed with the statement “nature provides services
that improve my crop production” were 5% more likely to consider the program.
Likewise, farmers with prior experience in federal agricultural programs that pay
farmers for environmental stewardship practices were more likely to consider this
program (though farmers involved in a state environmental assurance program were
not). Not surprisingly, farmers who were already doing similar practices (such as
no-till or planting wheat) were more inclined to consider proposed practices that
were similar. This effect may be linked to the fact that farmers who owned the nec-
essary equipment (e.g., band applicator for fertilizer or pesticides) were more prone
to consider participating with the relevant practice than those who did not.
For those willing to consider participating in the program that would pay them
for changed cropping practices, how much land they would enroll depended chiefly
on benefit-cost and feasibility criteria (Ma et al. 2012). Most important was the size
of the payment offered. For the obvious feasibility reason, farmers with more total
cropland area would offer to enroll more land in the program. On the other hand,
farmers using moldboard plows tended to enroll smaller acreages in the program.
The supply of land that farmers were willing to dedicate to specific cropping
systems over a range of different subsidy payments represents their perceived
underlying costs and benefits from adopting those practices. Some of these were the
direct costs and opportunity costs discussed previously with the trade-off analysis
of MCSE systems. But the land area offered for conservation practices also reflects
the attitudes and preferences of individual farmers. The importance of attitudes was
illustrated by increased program enrollment of farmers who expressed the belief
that nature benefits the farm and who had previously participated in environmen-
tal programs. So the supply of land that respondents would devote to low-input
