Explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states
Added on 2022-11-13
10 Pages10857 Words240 Views
110JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONMARCH/APRIL 2013 — V O L . 68,NO.2
Adam P. Reimer is a postdoctoral fellow at the
National Agricultural and Rural Development
Policy Center, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan. Benjamin M. Gramig is an
assistant professor in the Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, and Linda S. Prokopy is an as-
sociate professor in the Department of Forestry
and Natural Resources at Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana.
Farmers and conservation programs:
Explaining differences in Environmental
Quality Incentives Program applications
between states
A.P. Reimer, B.M. Gramig, and L.S. Prokopy
Abstract: Despite its economic and social benefits, agriculture is now a leading source of
water pollution in the United States. While significant research effort has attempted to
understand adoption of conservation practices on agricultural lands, relatively little research
has explored the operation of specific agri-environmental policies in the United States. This
research attempts to gain an understanding of how differing agricultural and sociopolitical
contexts across the United States influence attempted participation in national agricultural
conservation programs. Application rates in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) differ across the 50 states, indicating potentially important differences in state setting
that influence behavior of individual farm operators. A variety of agricultural and sociopoliti-
cal measures were included in a fractional logit model to assess factors contributing to varying
rates of application to EQIP. Significant explanatory variables included high sales farm prev-
alence, tenancy rates, and views on federal environmental spending. There also appears to be
a large regional effect, with states in the Southeast, Mountain West, and Northeast having
higher application rates than those in the Corn Belt. The results of this analysis indicate that
certain types of farmers are more likely to seek participation in this large agricultural conser-
vation program. Further research is needed to assess the role of government agencies (federal,
state, and local) in influencing participation rates and what role individual political opinion
may play in decisions related to federal cost share programs.
Key words: application rate—best management practice adoption—conservation program—
Environmental Quality Incentives Program—state implementation
Environmental damages resulting from
agricultural production systems are a
serious and increasing problem in many
parts of the world, including the United
States. Decreases in water and air quality
in the rural environment, as well as destruc-
tion of soil fertility and wildlife habitat, are
all unintended consequences of modern
agriculture. Public policies and programs
in the United States seek to address these
problems primarily through voluntary
action by farmers and rural land managers
(Dowd et al. 2008; Napier 2009); this vol-
untary participation is believed to be a key
to program effectiveness (Franks 2003). Soil
and water conservation programs address-
ing these problems have existed since the
1930s and have typically involved remov-
ing environmentally sensitive or degraded
lands from agricultural production (Napier
2009). In 2010, the US federal budget for
conservation programs on agricultural lands
exceeded US$5.7 billion (USDA 2011).
The most recent shift in conservation in the
United States has been from land retirement
programs to so-called “working lands” pro-
grams, which seek to change the behavior
of farmers during agricultural production
(Claassen 2003). In order to achieve the
stated goals of improving environmental
quality, these programs incentivize adoption
of different types of management practices,
as well as provide technical assistance to
allow farmers to adopt them.
The Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is the largest working lands
program in the US portfolio of agricul-
tural conservation programs (Claasen 2003;
USDA 2011). Traditionally focusing pri-
marily on soil and water quality, especially
related to livestock production, EQIP has
recently expanded its role to include increas-
ing wildlife habitat and quality, improving air
quality, and increasing water use efficiency.
The basic premise of EQIP is that envi-
ronmental quality can be improved in the
rural landscape by increasing the use of best
management practices (BMPs) by farmers
on active farmland. To increase the imple-
mentation of these practices, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
offers technical assistance, cost-share, and
incentive payments to farmers. Farmers
apply for a contract with NRCS in which
a set cost-share or rental payment is given
in exchange for implementation of one or
multiple BMPs. Contracts can last from one
to ten years depending on the practice(s) in
the contract (Federal Register 2009).
Given the increasing reliance on work-
ing lands programs in the United States, it is
important to gain an understanding of how
these programs function and how they influ-
ence the conservation behavior of farmers.
The governance structure through which
EQIP is implemented offers opportunities
for research. NRCS is a federal agency, but
each state office operates with some degree
of independence. As it concerns EQIP, each
state has some latitude over which practices
to fund and promote, how to promote those
practices and the program in general, and
how to identify the major environmental
problems within the state. Variation exists
in application rate by farmers between the
states (figure 1). Some states consistently
have a higher proportion of their farming
population attempting to participate in the
program. EQIP and other conservation pro-
grams inherently rely on voluntary farmer
participation to achieve environmental goals.
This study adds to the body of literature con-
cerning participation by investigating factors
doi:10.2489/jswc.68.2.110
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Adam P. Reimer is a postdoctoral fellow at the
National Agricultural and Rural Development
Policy Center, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan. Benjamin M. Gramig is an
assistant professor in the Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, and Linda S. Prokopy is an as-
sociate professor in the Department of Forestry
and Natural Resources at Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana.
Farmers and conservation programs:
Explaining differences in Environmental
Quality Incentives Program applications
between states
A.P. Reimer, B.M. Gramig, and L.S. Prokopy
Abstract: Despite its economic and social benefits, agriculture is now a leading source of
water pollution in the United States. While significant research effort has attempted to
understand adoption of conservation practices on agricultural lands, relatively little research
has explored the operation of specific agri-environmental policies in the United States. This
research attempts to gain an understanding of how differing agricultural and sociopolitical
contexts across the United States influence attempted participation in national agricultural
conservation programs. Application rates in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) differ across the 50 states, indicating potentially important differences in state setting
that influence behavior of individual farm operators. A variety of agricultural and sociopoliti-
cal measures were included in a fractional logit model to assess factors contributing to varying
rates of application to EQIP. Significant explanatory variables included high sales farm prev-
alence, tenancy rates, and views on federal environmental spending. There also appears to be
a large regional effect, with states in the Southeast, Mountain West, and Northeast having
higher application rates than those in the Corn Belt. The results of this analysis indicate that
certain types of farmers are more likely to seek participation in this large agricultural conser-
vation program. Further research is needed to assess the role of government agencies (federal,
state, and local) in influencing participation rates and what role individual political opinion
may play in decisions related to federal cost share programs.
Key words: application rate—best management practice adoption—conservation program—
Environmental Quality Incentives Program—state implementation
Environmental damages resulting from
agricultural production systems are a
serious and increasing problem in many
parts of the world, including the United
States. Decreases in water and air quality
in the rural environment, as well as destruc-
tion of soil fertility and wildlife habitat, are
all unintended consequences of modern
agriculture. Public policies and programs
in the United States seek to address these
problems primarily through voluntary
action by farmers and rural land managers
(Dowd et al. 2008; Napier 2009); this vol-
untary participation is believed to be a key
to program effectiveness (Franks 2003). Soil
and water conservation programs address-
ing these problems have existed since the
1930s and have typically involved remov-
ing environmentally sensitive or degraded
lands from agricultural production (Napier
2009). In 2010, the US federal budget for
conservation programs on agricultural lands
exceeded US$5.7 billion (USDA 2011).
The most recent shift in conservation in the
United States has been from land retirement
programs to so-called “working lands” pro-
grams, which seek to change the behavior
of farmers during agricultural production
(Claassen 2003). In order to achieve the
stated goals of improving environmental
quality, these programs incentivize adoption
of different types of management practices,
as well as provide technical assistance to
allow farmers to adopt them.
The Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is the largest working lands
program in the US portfolio of agricul-
tural conservation programs (Claasen 2003;
USDA 2011). Traditionally focusing pri-
marily on soil and water quality, especially
related to livestock production, EQIP has
recently expanded its role to include increas-
ing wildlife habitat and quality, improving air
quality, and increasing water use efficiency.
The basic premise of EQIP is that envi-
ronmental quality can be improved in the
rural landscape by increasing the use of best
management practices (BMPs) by farmers
on active farmland. To increase the imple-
mentation of these practices, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
offers technical assistance, cost-share, and
incentive payments to farmers. Farmers
apply for a contract with NRCS in which
a set cost-share or rental payment is given
in exchange for implementation of one or
multiple BMPs. Contracts can last from one
to ten years depending on the practice(s) in
the contract (Federal Register 2009).
Given the increasing reliance on work-
ing lands programs in the United States, it is
important to gain an understanding of how
these programs function and how they influ-
ence the conservation behavior of farmers.
The governance structure through which
EQIP is implemented offers opportunities
for research. NRCS is a federal agency, but
each state office operates with some degree
of independence. As it concerns EQIP, each
state has some latitude over which practices
to fund and promote, how to promote those
practices and the program in general, and
how to identify the major environmental
problems within the state. Variation exists
in application rate by farmers between the
states (figure 1). Some states consistently
have a higher proportion of their farming
population attempting to participate in the
program. EQIP and other conservation pro-
grams inherently rely on voluntary farmer
participation to achieve environmental goals.
This study adds to the body of literature con-
cerning participation by investigating factors
doi:10.2489/jswc.68.2.110
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
111MARCH/APRIL 2013 — V O L . 68,NO.2JOURNALOFSOILANDWATERCONSERVATION
Figure 1
2007 application rates to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Non-urban/rural
Urban/suburban
Legend
0% to 2%
2% to 5%
5% to 8%
8% to 10%
10% to 15%
influencing application rates in EQIP at the
state level in the United States.
Participation in Agri-Environmental
Programs. Earlier research has indicated
several significant factors influencing both
willingness to participate in government
programs and adoption of conservation prac-
tices. The level and form of incentive offered
is an important aspect of program design
influencing participation (Dupont 2010;
Franks 2003; Kraft et al. 1996). However,
simply offering financial incentives has not
proved to be effective by itself (Dupont
2010; Maybery et al. 2005). Farmer deci-
sion making is complex and involves other,
nonfinancial criteria that may or may not
be addressed by conservation programs
(Maybery et al. 2005; Reimer et al. 2012a).
There is also an information component
to decision making, and programs attempt
to lower the barriers to adoption by assist-
ing with technical aspects of implementing
practices. The exact impact of this technical
assistance is uncertain (Napier 2009).
Studies investigating willingness to par-
ticipate in conservation programs have been
conducted in a variety of contexts, both in
the United States and in other countries.
Franks (2003) identifies a number of variables
that influence participation in addition to the
level of financial incentive offered. Franks
organizes these into three categories: farm
factors (farm size, land tenure, and amount
of nonintensively used farmland), farmer
factors (age, education, succession arrange-
ments, and attitudes), and community factors
(neighbor participation, influence of com-
munity leaders, and access to information
networks). Management restrictions, or the
requirements that go along with participa-
tion in conservation programs, play as large
a role in farmer participation as the payment
rate (Franks 2003). Farmer attitudes towards
government, farmer education, contact with
NRCS staff, land tenure, and whether the
farmer grew specialty crops all influenced
willingness to participate in the Water
Quality Incentives Program, a predecessor
of EQIP in the United States (Kraft et al.
1996). Small farms were found to be more
likely to participate in a Canadian conser-
vation program that, while operating in a
different context, is similar to US programs
(Dupont 2010).
Recent reviews of the conservation
adoption literature (Knowler and Bradshaw
2007; Prokopy et al. 2008) found that few
demographic and farm variables consistently
explained adoption in academic studies.
While most of the studies included in these
reviews were examining practice adoption
rates and not conservation program partic-
ipation, these two dependent variables are
closely related. If pure financial motivation
were all that influenced farmer adoption of
conservation practices, it would likely be
seen as a consistent theme in adoption stud-
ies through common farm situation variables,
such as debt or farm size. Rather, decisions
are made in a complex manner and involve
more deeply held attitudes toward the envi-
ronment and farming in general (Reimer et
al. 2012b). A number of studies have indi-
cated that deeply held environmental and
farming values all play a role in influencing
conservation practice adoption (Maybery et
al. 2005; McCann et al. 1997; Reimer et al.
2012a; Sullivan et al. 1996).
Other studies (Dupont 2010; Franks
2003) have defined participation as the num-
ber of individuals actively receiving program
benefits (i.e., cost share, technical assistance,
etc.), which for EQIP would equate to the
number of funded contracts per state. To
understand what factors influence an indi-
vidual land manager’s decision to participate
in agri-environmental programs, it may be
more important to investigate attempted par-
ticipation than actual participation. EQIP is
limited in the total amount of funds avail-
able, leaving many willing participants
without funded contracts. This research
attempts to understand what influences the
rate at which farmers in a given state apply
for EQIP funding. The hypothesis tested is
that the agricultural and sociopolitical setting
in a state influences state EQIP application
rates. Individual farmer willingness to partic-
ipate is also of interest, but falls outside the
scope of the current paper and is left to future
research. Addressing this would require indi-
vidual applicant data for farmers who receive
funding and for those who apply but do not
receive funding due to EQIP budget limits
in the states.
EQIP is designed to be adjusted to
local conditions, a necessary requirement
for addressing the varied environmen-
tal problems that arise from a wide range
of agricultural contexts across the country.
The variation in state participation allows
for investigation of what differences in state
characteristics might lead to differences in
participation. EQIP may be more appeal-
ing to certain types of farmers, making some
states more likely to have higher application
rates. Previous research demonstrates the
types of factors that can influence individual
conservation behavior, but a nation-wide
N
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Figure 1
2007 application rates to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Non-urban/rural
Urban/suburban
Legend
0% to 2%
2% to 5%
5% to 8%
8% to 10%
10% to 15%
influencing application rates in EQIP at the
state level in the United States.
Participation in Agri-Environmental
Programs. Earlier research has indicated
several significant factors influencing both
willingness to participate in government
programs and adoption of conservation prac-
tices. The level and form of incentive offered
is an important aspect of program design
influencing participation (Dupont 2010;
Franks 2003; Kraft et al. 1996). However,
simply offering financial incentives has not
proved to be effective by itself (Dupont
2010; Maybery et al. 2005). Farmer deci-
sion making is complex and involves other,
nonfinancial criteria that may or may not
be addressed by conservation programs
(Maybery et al. 2005; Reimer et al. 2012a).
There is also an information component
to decision making, and programs attempt
to lower the barriers to adoption by assist-
ing with technical aspects of implementing
practices. The exact impact of this technical
assistance is uncertain (Napier 2009).
Studies investigating willingness to par-
ticipate in conservation programs have been
conducted in a variety of contexts, both in
the United States and in other countries.
Franks (2003) identifies a number of variables
that influence participation in addition to the
level of financial incentive offered. Franks
organizes these into three categories: farm
factors (farm size, land tenure, and amount
of nonintensively used farmland), farmer
factors (age, education, succession arrange-
ments, and attitudes), and community factors
(neighbor participation, influence of com-
munity leaders, and access to information
networks). Management restrictions, or the
requirements that go along with participa-
tion in conservation programs, play as large
a role in farmer participation as the payment
rate (Franks 2003). Farmer attitudes towards
government, farmer education, contact with
NRCS staff, land tenure, and whether the
farmer grew specialty crops all influenced
willingness to participate in the Water
Quality Incentives Program, a predecessor
of EQIP in the United States (Kraft et al.
1996). Small farms were found to be more
likely to participate in a Canadian conser-
vation program that, while operating in a
different context, is similar to US programs
(Dupont 2010).
Recent reviews of the conservation
adoption literature (Knowler and Bradshaw
2007; Prokopy et al. 2008) found that few
demographic and farm variables consistently
explained adoption in academic studies.
While most of the studies included in these
reviews were examining practice adoption
rates and not conservation program partic-
ipation, these two dependent variables are
closely related. If pure financial motivation
were all that influenced farmer adoption of
conservation practices, it would likely be
seen as a consistent theme in adoption stud-
ies through common farm situation variables,
such as debt or farm size. Rather, decisions
are made in a complex manner and involve
more deeply held attitudes toward the envi-
ronment and farming in general (Reimer et
al. 2012b). A number of studies have indi-
cated that deeply held environmental and
farming values all play a role in influencing
conservation practice adoption (Maybery et
al. 2005; McCann et al. 1997; Reimer et al.
2012a; Sullivan et al. 1996).
Other studies (Dupont 2010; Franks
2003) have defined participation as the num-
ber of individuals actively receiving program
benefits (i.e., cost share, technical assistance,
etc.), which for EQIP would equate to the
number of funded contracts per state. To
understand what factors influence an indi-
vidual land manager’s decision to participate
in agri-environmental programs, it may be
more important to investigate attempted par-
ticipation than actual participation. EQIP is
limited in the total amount of funds avail-
able, leaving many willing participants
without funded contracts. This research
attempts to understand what influences the
rate at which farmers in a given state apply
for EQIP funding. The hypothesis tested is
that the agricultural and sociopolitical setting
in a state influences state EQIP application
rates. Individual farmer willingness to partic-
ipate is also of interest, but falls outside the
scope of the current paper and is left to future
research. Addressing this would require indi-
vidual applicant data for farmers who receive
funding and for those who apply but do not
receive funding due to EQIP budget limits
in the states.
EQIP is designed to be adjusted to
local conditions, a necessary requirement
for addressing the varied environmen-
tal problems that arise from a wide range
of agricultural contexts across the country.
The variation in state participation allows
for investigation of what differences in state
characteristics might lead to differences in
participation. EQIP may be more appeal-
ing to certain types of farmers, making some
states more likely to have higher application
rates. Previous research demonstrates the
types of factors that can influence individual
conservation behavior, but a nation-wide
N
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
112JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONMARCH/APRIL 2013 — V O L . 68,NO.2
analysis of determinants of state-level partic-
ipation is lacking.
Conceptual Model. The existing litera-
ture on conservation practice adoption and
conservation program participation has not
resulted in a clear model of farmer decision
making concerning programs. The research
presented here explores state-level appli-
cation rates, which represent aggregated
decision making of farmers in each state.
This requires drawing on existing research
on individual conservation decisions as well
as other research that explores state-level
decision making. The individual decision to
apply to EQIP can be looked at as a discrete
choice to apply or not.This individual choice
is based on a potentially complex set of fac-
tors and has been explored extensively in
research on conservation practice adoption.
Aggregated state-level behavior, however,
requires a different theoretical model from
traditional discrete-choice models.
A theoretical model of factors influencing
state-level EQIP application rates is given by
Ai = Pi + Wi + Qi + Ri, (1)
where A is the application rate in a state i.
The application rate is a function of mul-
tiple factors, including the state agricultural
characteristics (P), water quality problem
severity (W), the sociopolitical characteristics
in a state (Q), and other factors that may vary
by the region where the state is located (R).
The design of EQIP may be more appealing
or more acceptable to a certain type of farm
operation. States with more of these types
of farm operations are more likely to have
higher application rates. This model is for a
single point in time and does not account for
dynamic application behavior, which might
be explored if individual applicants were the
unit of study instead of individual states (i).
The agricultural characteristics vector P
= [F,V,L,T,G] is composed of several ele-
ments that describe the agricultural sector
in a given state. Past research has indicated
the types of farmers who are more likely
to participate in similar agri-environmental
schemes (Dupont 2010; Franks 2003; Kraft
et al. 1996), and this is the basis for the ele-
ments of P. Farm size and farm financial
capacity (F) have been shown to be signifi-
cant positive factors in program participation
and conservation practice adoption (Franks
2003; Lambert et al. 2006). Vegetable pro-
duction (V) was previously shown to be a
positive predictor of individual conservation
program participation (Kraft et al. 1996).
The ongoing focus on livestock-related
practices in EQIP is expected to lead to a
positive relationship between livestock pro-
duction in a state (L) and application rate, as
there may be higher funding levels available
as well as more recruitment of livestock pro-
ducers. Land tenure has been demonstrated
to influence individual program application
behavior, with full tenant farmers shown to
be the group with highest participation rates
in other conservation programs (Kraft et al.
1996). The amount of land operated by full
tenant farmers (T) is expected to positively
impact state application rates. The relative
size of the agricultural sector in a state’s
economy (G) is expected to influence appli-
cation rates; states with large, well-organized
agricultural sectors may have more active
networks and more professionalized farm-
ers who more aggressively pursue cost-share
funding (Warriner and Moul 1992).
The level of environmental damage in a
state can influence program implementation
in several ways. State and international pol-
icy adoption literature has shown problem
severity to be an important factor in envi-
ronmental policy adoption, spurring action
by governments to both create and imple-
ment environmental protection policies
(Janicke 2005; Hays et al. 1996; Hoornbeek
2004). Environmental conditions have been
shown to be related to public opinions about
environmental spending and the salience of
environmental issues (Johnson et al. 2005).
Nonpoint source water pollution has been
an increasing focus of EQIP and other con-
servation programs (Claassen 2003). The
severity of water pollution in a state (W) is
expected to positively influence application
rates as government entities (both NRCS
and state and local governments) and indi-
viduals become more concerned with
environmental problems and seek to address
them through existing programs.
Sociopolitical factors are also expected to
influence state application rates. Individual
farmer conservation decisions are based on
a mixture of financial/operational concerns
and beliefs related to the environment and
government programs (Franks 2003; Morris
and Potter 1995; Reimer et al. 2012b;
Thompson 2010). State sociopolitical factors
have been shown to impact policy making
and policy implementation, including in the
realm of environmental policy (Hoornbeek
2004). The state sociopolitical setting vector
Q = [C, J ] is composed of two elements. On
an individual farmer level, beliefs about the
environment and government actions have
been shown to be significant predictor of
conservation behavior (Thompson 2010).
At the aggregated state level, greater concern
for the environment (C) and more positive
views about government (J) are expected
to positively impact application patterns.
State-level opinion concerning environ-
mental issues and government intervention
both represent aggregated views of poten-
tial participants, but also the sociopolitical
environment in which resource concerns are
identified and programs promoted within
the states. While the impact of public opin-
ion on federal policy implementation in the
states is less clear than in cases of state pol-
icymaking, the effects may still be seen on
aggregate state-level application behavior. In
addition to the factors contributing to aggre-
gated views of the program, the region the
state is in (R) may account for geographic
heterogeneity that is not captured by the
other factors that determine the application
rate in the model described by equation 1.
Materials and Methods
Dependent Variable and Model Selection.
This study investigates state-level agricultural
sector factors influencing application rates in
EQIP.The approach chosen utilizes a statisti-
cal analysis of data collected from a variety of
sources. For this approach, application rate is
defined as the proportion of a state’s farming
population applying for an EQIP contract in
a given year. This could also be viewed as the
offer rate or the attempted participation rate
in a given state. This rate was calculated by
adding the number of funded contracts for a
state with the number of unfunded contracts
for a state (the total submitted applications
for a year) and dividing by a measure of the
total number of farmers in the state (the total
potential applicant pool). Application data
is available for most years on the national
NRCS website (USDA NRCS 2009).
Total farmer numbers are available through
the US Census of Agriculture conducted
by the USDA (USDA 2009). This measure
reflects any individual generating more than
US$1,000 in gross revenue from an agricul-
tural source. The most recent US Census of
Agricultural data available are for 2007, a year
for which application data were also available
at the time the research was conducted. In
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
analysis of determinants of state-level partic-
ipation is lacking.
Conceptual Model. The existing litera-
ture on conservation practice adoption and
conservation program participation has not
resulted in a clear model of farmer decision
making concerning programs. The research
presented here explores state-level appli-
cation rates, which represent aggregated
decision making of farmers in each state.
This requires drawing on existing research
on individual conservation decisions as well
as other research that explores state-level
decision making. The individual decision to
apply to EQIP can be looked at as a discrete
choice to apply or not.This individual choice
is based on a potentially complex set of fac-
tors and has been explored extensively in
research on conservation practice adoption.
Aggregated state-level behavior, however,
requires a different theoretical model from
traditional discrete-choice models.
A theoretical model of factors influencing
state-level EQIP application rates is given by
Ai = Pi + Wi + Qi + Ri, (1)
where A is the application rate in a state i.
The application rate is a function of mul-
tiple factors, including the state agricultural
characteristics (P), water quality problem
severity (W), the sociopolitical characteristics
in a state (Q), and other factors that may vary
by the region where the state is located (R).
The design of EQIP may be more appealing
or more acceptable to a certain type of farm
operation. States with more of these types
of farm operations are more likely to have
higher application rates. This model is for a
single point in time and does not account for
dynamic application behavior, which might
be explored if individual applicants were the
unit of study instead of individual states (i).
The agricultural characteristics vector P
= [F,V,L,T,G] is composed of several ele-
ments that describe the agricultural sector
in a given state. Past research has indicated
the types of farmers who are more likely
to participate in similar agri-environmental
schemes (Dupont 2010; Franks 2003; Kraft
et al. 1996), and this is the basis for the ele-
ments of P. Farm size and farm financial
capacity (F) have been shown to be signifi-
cant positive factors in program participation
and conservation practice adoption (Franks
2003; Lambert et al. 2006). Vegetable pro-
duction (V) was previously shown to be a
positive predictor of individual conservation
program participation (Kraft et al. 1996).
The ongoing focus on livestock-related
practices in EQIP is expected to lead to a
positive relationship between livestock pro-
duction in a state (L) and application rate, as
there may be higher funding levels available
as well as more recruitment of livestock pro-
ducers. Land tenure has been demonstrated
to influence individual program application
behavior, with full tenant farmers shown to
be the group with highest participation rates
in other conservation programs (Kraft et al.
1996). The amount of land operated by full
tenant farmers (T) is expected to positively
impact state application rates. The relative
size of the agricultural sector in a state’s
economy (G) is expected to influence appli-
cation rates; states with large, well-organized
agricultural sectors may have more active
networks and more professionalized farm-
ers who more aggressively pursue cost-share
funding (Warriner and Moul 1992).
The level of environmental damage in a
state can influence program implementation
in several ways. State and international pol-
icy adoption literature has shown problem
severity to be an important factor in envi-
ronmental policy adoption, spurring action
by governments to both create and imple-
ment environmental protection policies
(Janicke 2005; Hays et al. 1996; Hoornbeek
2004). Environmental conditions have been
shown to be related to public opinions about
environmental spending and the salience of
environmental issues (Johnson et al. 2005).
Nonpoint source water pollution has been
an increasing focus of EQIP and other con-
servation programs (Claassen 2003). The
severity of water pollution in a state (W) is
expected to positively influence application
rates as government entities (both NRCS
and state and local governments) and indi-
viduals become more concerned with
environmental problems and seek to address
them through existing programs.
Sociopolitical factors are also expected to
influence state application rates. Individual
farmer conservation decisions are based on
a mixture of financial/operational concerns
and beliefs related to the environment and
government programs (Franks 2003; Morris
and Potter 1995; Reimer et al. 2012b;
Thompson 2010). State sociopolitical factors
have been shown to impact policy making
and policy implementation, including in the
realm of environmental policy (Hoornbeek
2004). The state sociopolitical setting vector
Q = [C, J ] is composed of two elements. On
an individual farmer level, beliefs about the
environment and government actions have
been shown to be significant predictor of
conservation behavior (Thompson 2010).
At the aggregated state level, greater concern
for the environment (C) and more positive
views about government (J) are expected
to positively impact application patterns.
State-level opinion concerning environ-
mental issues and government intervention
both represent aggregated views of poten-
tial participants, but also the sociopolitical
environment in which resource concerns are
identified and programs promoted within
the states. While the impact of public opin-
ion on federal policy implementation in the
states is less clear than in cases of state pol-
icymaking, the effects may still be seen on
aggregate state-level application behavior. In
addition to the factors contributing to aggre-
gated views of the program, the region the
state is in (R) may account for geographic
heterogeneity that is not captured by the
other factors that determine the application
rate in the model described by equation 1.
Materials and Methods
Dependent Variable and Model Selection.
This study investigates state-level agricultural
sector factors influencing application rates in
EQIP.The approach chosen utilizes a statisti-
cal analysis of data collected from a variety of
sources. For this approach, application rate is
defined as the proportion of a state’s farming
population applying for an EQIP contract in
a given year. This could also be viewed as the
offer rate or the attempted participation rate
in a given state. This rate was calculated by
adding the number of funded contracts for a
state with the number of unfunded contracts
for a state (the total submitted applications
for a year) and dividing by a measure of the
total number of farmers in the state (the total
potential applicant pool). Application data
is available for most years on the national
NRCS website (USDA NRCS 2009).
Total farmer numbers are available through
the US Census of Agriculture conducted
by the USDA (USDA 2009). This measure
reflects any individual generating more than
US$1,000 in gross revenue from an agricul-
tural source. The most recent US Census of
Agricultural data available are for 2007, a year
for which application data were also available
at the time the research was conducted. In
Copyright © 2013 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
www.swcs.org68(2):110-119Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Healthy Soil and Climate Change Mitigation - PDFlg...
|6
|603
|57