Structural Conservation Practices in U.S. Corn Production: Evidence on Environmental Stewardship by Program Participants and Non-Participants



ownership perceptions, where farms with higher ownership rates are hypothesized to be more likely
to allocate smaller parcels of cropland to working-land conservation structures. Field management,
specifically the use of a crop rotation plan for the field, is hypothesized to capture the marginal
effects of farm operator concerns with longer-term crop productivity for the field.

Four covariates were included in Model II to capture the influence of site-specific
environmental attributes, including the use of surface drainage structures, the occurrence of gully
erosion on the field, whether the field was adjacent to a water body, intermittent stream or wetland,
and whether the farm operator expressed a concern with improving the quality of nearby fish or
wildlife habitat. Surface drainage and gully erosion are likely indicators of field-level soil fragility.
Covariates identifying the proximity of a field to nearby water sources and producer concerns for
fish and wildlife are likely indicators of conservation structures installed to improve offsite
environmental benefits.

Both models were estimated using the integrated Phase II/NRI 2005 CEAP-ARMS data for
corn (380 field/farm observations representing 39 million planted corn acres across the 4 surveyed
States).9 Weights were provided by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Empirical Results

Estimated GEE coefficients for Model I and their significance tests indicate that relative
prices do explain producer choices in allocating field acres between corn production, and infield and
perimeter-field conservation structural practices (table 2). It is not surprising that estimation results
demonstrate stronger statistical significance across coefficients for conservation program non-
participant equations, since these producers accounted for 86 percent of the farms growing corn
across the study area in 2005. For program non-participants, estimated coefficients for nitrogen

8 State-level average input/output prices for 2005 were USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service statistics
acquired through the Market & Trade Economics Division, ERS, USDA.

14



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. WP 92 - An overview of women's work and employment in Azerbaijan
6. A multistate demographic model for firms in the province of Gelderland
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Importing Feminist Criticism
10. Personal Experience: A Most Vicious and Limited Circle!? On the Role of Entrepreneurial Experience for Firm Survival
11. The name is absent
12. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
13. Benchmarking Regional Innovation: A Comparison of Bavaria, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
14. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
15. Geography, Health, and Demo-Economic Development
16. Disentangling the Sources of Pro-social Behavior in the Workplace: A Field Experiment
17. The name is absent
18. Examining the Regional Aspect of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries
19. FDI Implications of Recent European Court of Justice Decision on Corporation Tax Matters
20. The Evolution