Factors affecting farm operators' interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri

Agroforestry Systems

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 61-71

  Valdivia, Corinne ^a   Poulos, Christine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adoption; Bank erosion; Diversification; Field; Forest farming; Habitus

Indexed keywords

BANK EROSION; BUFFER ZONE; FARMERS ATTITUDE; LANDOWNER; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RIPARIAN FOREST;

MISSOURI; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58149200043     PISSN: 01674366     EISSN: 15729680     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-008-9129-2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (47)

1. MM Abd-Ella EO Hoiberg RD Warren 1981 Adoption behavior in family farm systems: an Iowa Study Rural Sociol 46 1 42 61
2. RJ Alig DM Adams BA McCarl 1998 Impacts of incorporating land exchanges between forestry and agriculture in sector models J Agric Appl Econ 30 2 389 401
3. G Boody B Vondracek DA Andow M Krinke J Westra J Zimmerman P Welle 2005 Multifunctional agriculture in the United States BioScience 55 27 38
4. LE Buck 1995 Agroforestry policy issues and research directions in the US and less developed countries: insights and challenges from recent experience Agroforest Syst 30 1-2 57 73
5. Clearfield F, Osgood BT (1986) Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service
6. JC Cooper RW Keim 1996 Incentive payments to encourage farmer adoption of water quality protection practices Am J Agric Econ 78 54 64
7. BE Cutter AI Rahmadi WB Kurtz S Hodge 1999 State policies for agroforestry in the United States Agroforest Syst 46 217 227
8. TL Dobbs JN Pretty 2004 Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and "multifunctionality" Rev Agric Econ 26 2 220 237
9. Dosskey M, Everson A (1997) Can the EPA's "319" program help launch your agroforestry project? Inside Agroforest 1-8
10. F Ellis 1998 Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification J Dev Stud 35 1 1 38
11. CA Ervin DE Ervin 1982 Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypothesis, evidence, and policy implications Land Econ 58 3 277 292
12. Festervand DF (1981) Soil survey of Cape Girardeau, Mississippi and Scott Counties, Missouri. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia
13. BL Gardner 2000 Economic growth and low incomes in agriculture Am J Agric Econ 82 5 1059 1074
14. Godsey LD (2002) Funding incentives for agroforestry in Missouri. Agroforestry in action. University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry
15. Gold MA, Rietveld JW, Garrett HE (2000) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts and practices for the United States. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld JW, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy: Madison, pp 63-78
16. AW Gray MD Boehlje BA Gloy SP Slinsky 2004 How US farm programs and crop revenue insurance affect returns to farm land Rev Agric Econ 26 2 238 253
17. Hagan PT (1996) Evaluating determinants of participation in voluntary riparian buffer programs: a case study of Maryland's buffer incentive program. Master's thesis, University of Maryland
18. Hoppe RA, MacDonald JM (2001) America's diverse family farms: assorted sizes, types, and situations. ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 769, 8 pp, May
19. M Isik W Yang 2004 An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the conservation reserve program J Agric Resour Econ 29 2 242 259
20. Knox County Historical Society (1981) History of Lewis, Clark, Knox, and Scotland Counties, Missouri. Wallsworth Publishing Company. Originally printed in 1887
21. RD Knutson EG Smith DP Anderson JW Richardson 1998 Southern farmers' exposure to income risk under the 1996 farm bill J Agric Appl Econ 30 1 35 46
22. K Konyar CT Osborn 1990 A national level economic analysis of conservation reserve program participation: a discrete choice approach J Agric Econ Res 42 2 5 12
23. TM Koontz 2001 Money talks-but to whom? Financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions Soc Nat Resour 14 51 65
24. PF Korsching CW Stofferahn PJ Nowak DJ Wagener 1983 Adopter characteristics and adoption patterns of minimum tillage: implications for soil conservation programs J Soil Water Conserv 38 5 428 431
25. L Lynch C Brown 2000 Landowner decision making about riparian buffers J Agric Appl Econ 32 3 585 596
26. S Matthews SM Pease AM Gordon PA Williams 1993 Landowner perceptions and the adoption of agroforestry practices in Southern Ontario, Canada Agroforest Syst 21 59 168
27. AK Mishra CL Sandretto 2002 Stability of farm income and the role of nonfarm income in US agriculture Rev Agric Econ 24 1 208 221
28. National Agroforestry Center (2003) Incentives for agroforestry. 2002 Farm Bill. USD Inside Agroforestry. Winter 2003. www.unl.edu/nac/ia/winter03/ winter03.pdf
29. OSEDA (2002) An overview of rural Missouri 2002: the demographic, economic, cultural and geographic context for Missouri rural social science. UM Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, January
30. DJ Pannell 1999 Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems Agroforest Syst 45 393 409
31. SK Pattanayak DE Mercer E Sills J Yang 2003 Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies Agroforest Syst 57 173 186
32. A Raedeke J Green S Hodge C Valdivia 2003 Farmers' perceptions of agroforestry: an application of Bordieus' concepts of field and habitus Rural Sociol 68 1 64 86
33. T Reardon C Delgado P Matlon 1992 Determinants and effects of income diversification amongst farm households in Burkina Faso J Dev Stud 28 2 264 296
34. SJ Scherr 1995 Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns observed in Western Kenya World Dev 23 5 787 804
35. M Shucksmith 1993 Farm household behavior and the transition to post-productivism J Agric Econ 44 3 466 479
36. RK Skaggs RE Kirskey WM Harper 1994 Determinants and implications of post-CRP land use decisions J Agric Resour Econ 19 299 312
37. JR Skees J Harwood A Somwaru J Perry 1998 The potential for revenue insurance policies in the south J Agric Appl Econ 30 1 47 61
38. Skelton P, Josiah SJ, Brandle J (2004) Adoption of riparian forest buffers on private lands: factors affecting their use in two Nebraska, USA Watersheds. In: Book of abstracts 1st world congress of agroforestry. 27 June-2 July, Orlando Florida, p 90
39. MJ Soule A Tegene KD Wiebe 2000 Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices Am J Agric Econ 82 4 993 1005
40. Strong NA, Jacobson MG (2004) An agroforestry for every reason: adoption potential in changing rural Pennsylvania. In: Book of abstracts 1st world congress of agroforestry. 27 June-2 July, Orlando, Florida, p 91
41. US Department of Agriculture (1998) A time to act: a report of the USDA National Commission on small farms. MP-1545, Washington, DC
42. USDA NASS (2002) 2002 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/
43. United States Department of Agriculture (2001) Structural and financial characteristics of US farms: 2001 family farm report. Washington, DC
44. Valdivia C, Konduru K (2003) Interest in agroforestry practices, farmer diversification strategies and government transfers in Missouri's northeast and southeast In: Sharrow S (ed) Proceedings 8th biennial conference on agroforestry in North America. June 22-25, Corvallis, OR, USA, pp 281-296
45. C Valdivia E Dunn C Jetté 1996 Diversification, a risk management strategy in an Andean agropastoral community Am J Agric Econ 78 5 1329 1334
46. Valdivia C, Raedeke A, Hodge S, Green J, Godsey L (2000) The economic and social value of floodplain agroforestry for rural development: a baseline economic and social profile of producers in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agricultural economics working paper AEWP-2000-4. MU, Columbia
47. SW Workman ME Bannister PKR Nair 2003 Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals Agroforest Syst 59 73 83