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

slightly larger for program participants than for non-participants, depending upon the field
production technology choice.

Consistent with the earlier interpretation of equation-specific parameter estimates, elasticity
estimates for Model II also illustrate that program participants and non-participants react differently
to specific input-price changes, depending upon the technology choice being made. These results
highlight not only that producers account for socio-environmental factors when making structural
conservation-practice decisions, but that these decisions may vary across economic parameters.
This response variance is complicated by the interaction of producer perceptions on how alternative
structural practices affect field-level productivity, costs, and off-site benefits.

Summary and Conclusions

While retirement of fragile lands remains a key component of USDA conservation policy,
greater emphasis on working-land conservation practices, particularly since passage of the 2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, highlights the need to understand the likely impact of
USDA’s EQIP and Conservation Security Programs on farm well-being and agriculture’s
relationship to the environment. In 2004 and 2005, USDA integrated two field/farm surveys, CEAP
and ARMS, to extend its ability to assess the impact of working-lands programs beyond just
associating practices with environmental outcomes, but to also account for the impact of other
producer behavioral and economic factors affecting producer production practice decisions.
Development of CEAP-ARMS reflected recognition of the fact that producers adopt conservation
practices for reasons other than program incentives. To appropriately identify the impact of
conservation programs, one needs to identify the role of other producer decision factors, including a
broad range of farm, economic, and environmental factors affecting producer practice decisions.

We first used the 2005 CEAP-ARMS for corn to summarize the characteristic differences
between conservation program participants and non-participants, by farm-size class. Because of the

20

<<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   >>

More intriguing information