other-hand, the adjustment for program participants likely encourages greater program participation,
with an emphasis on increased adoption of perimeter-field structural practices. However, for
higher relative agricultural wage costs, the conservation adjustment is slightly different. Here, the
stronger effect appears to be focused on reduced adoption of perimeter-field structures by non-
participants, while program participants likely increase adoption of these structures. For higher
relative diesel-fuel prices, non-participants will tend to adjust their conservation behavior by
increasing acres devoted to both infield and perimeter-field structural practices, while increased
energy costs also tend to discourage conservation program participation (most likely due to a field
scale effect associated with a rising energy cost environment).
Increased relative prices for nitrogen and agricultural wages appear to affect producer
conservation practice behavior largely through producer recognition of an adoption decision’s
impact on field productivity and/or profitability. For increased diesel-fuel prices, conservation
behavior may be more influenced by producer recognition of field-level cost (or scale) affects.
Most corn producers, particularly program non-participants, appear to recognize the
productivity/profitability benefits of infield structures as sufficient to promote their adoption
without program incentives. However, it is likely that because the benefits of perimeter-field
structures are often viewed as being off-site, program incentives may be necessary to encourage
their adoption.
The robustness of parameter estimates for Model II results confirm Model I results and
demonstrate the importance of including field, farm, and environmental decision covariates in the
cost-function derived behavioral model. However, the greater benefit of accounting for the
influence of these factors is their likely impact on estimates of producer input-price elasticity of
acreage response for corn-field acres under alternative conservation structural practices. The results
here suggest that failure to account for appropriate field, farm, and environmental decision factors
23
More intriguing information
1. Iconic memory or icon?2. Imperfect competition and congestion in the City
3. Moi individuel et moi cosmique Dans la pensee de Romain Rolland
4. Quality practices, priorities and performance: an international study
5. The name is absent
6. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
7. Towards a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa
8. Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation
9. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras’ Coffee Value Chain. Public and Private Influence on the Use of New Knowledge and Technology among Coffee Growers
10. The name is absent