Table 3. Model II estimated GEE coefficients for corn field-acreage allocation equations by field
structural practice (technology), and by conservation program participation.
[Model II: (Aj,p) = f(normalized input prices, technology class, installation, & socio-environmental variables)].
|
Equation/Variable____________________ |
________Program Non-Participants_______ |
Program Participants | ||
|
_________Estimate_______ |
T-Tests b |
Estimate |
T-Tests | |
|
Model II | ||||
|
Constant |
2.5478 |
1.04 |
4.4805 |
1.30 |
|
Corn Field Acres Planted (with): | ||||
|
EQ1: No structural practices: a | ||||
|
N price |
119.9414 * |
3.64 |
- 41.1041 |
- 0.62 |
|
Ag. wage |
0.4437 *** |
1.56 |
- 2.2255 * |
- 4.25 |
|
Diesel price |
- 21.7852 * |
- 3.37 |
15.5230 |
1.30 |
|
EQ2: Only infield structures: a | ||||
|
N price |
- 68.3726 * |
- 2.56 |
4.6041 |
0.10 |
|
Ag. wage |
0.1951 |
0.77 |
0.3661 |
0.75 |
|
Diesel price |
9.3637 ** |
1.96 |
- 4.5506 |
- 0.51 |
|
EQ3: Only perimeter-field structures: a | ||||
|
N price |
- 14.6446 |
- 0.94 |
29.8064 |
0.91 |
|
Ag. wage |
- 0.3468 * |
- 3.54 |
1.2607 * |
4.37 |
|
Diesel price |
6.1154 ** |
1.97 |
- 12.9867 * |
- 2.20 |
|
EQ4: Both structural practices: a | ||||
|
N price |
- 5.4257 |
- 0.98 |
- 25.2886 |
- 1.37 |
|
Ag. wage |
0.1431 |
0.93 |
0.2792 |
0.71 |
|
Diesel price |
________2.4690_______ |
1.20 |
0.8440 |
_________0.19 |
|
Technology class variables: |
Units_________________ |
Estimate |
______T-tests | |
|
Only infield structures |
(Yes = 1) |
- 0.9789 |
- 0.25 | |
|
Only perimeter-field structures |
(Yes = 1) |
- 4.1142 |
- 1.43 | |
|
Both structures |
(Yes = 1) |
- 4.5246 *** |
- 1.71 | |
|
Installation dummy variables: | ||||
|
Installed in 2005 |
(Yes = 1) |
0.0080 |
0.12 | |
|
Installed within last 10 years |
(Yes = 1) |
- 0.0088 |
- 0.20 | |
|
Installed prior to 1990 |
(Yes = 1) |
0.0213 |
0.19 | |
|
Socio-Environmental Variables: | ||||
|
Farm tenure rate |
(owned/operated acres) |
0.0735 |
1.04 | |
|
Farm cropland acres |
(acres) |
0.0001 * |
3.06 | |
|
Crop rotation |
(Yes = 1) |
- 0.2240 * |
- 2.46 | |
|
Gully erosion on field |
(Yes = 1) |
0.1264 *** |
1.52 | |
|
Field next to water body |
(Yes = 1) |
- 0.1150 ** |
- 1.98 | |
|
Surface drainage |
(Yes = 1) |
0.1811 * |
2.75 | |
|
Improve wildlife habitat |
(Yes = 1) |
- 0.1356 |
- 1.25 | |
|
Log Likelihood Value (L2) = - 2872.0891 |
R2 = 0.10 Likelihood Ratio (L1:L2) = 68.10, d.f. = 7, |
p = .05 | ||
a State average per unit prices (2005) for nitrogen ($/lb.), agricultural wage ($/hr.), and diesel ($/gal.) were normalized using State average
2005 corn price ($/bu.).
b Critical values for the t tests are 1.52 (***), 1.76 (**), and 2.14 (*) for the 15 %, 10 %, and 5 % significance levels, respectively.
Standard errors were computed using the delete-a-group Jackknife approach (Dubman, 2000).
Note: Infield conservation structural practices included terraces, grassed waterways, vegetative buffers, contour buffers, filter strips, and grade
stabilization structures. Perimeter-field conservation structural practices included hedgerow plantings, stream-side forest buffers, stream-
side herbaceous buffers, windbreaks or herbaceous wind barriers, field borders, and critical area plantings.
Source: 2005 CEAP-ARMS Phase II data (for corn), Economic Research Service, USDA.
29
More intriguing information
1. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands2. Growth and Technological Leadership in US Industries: A Spatial Econometric Analysis at the State Level, 1963-1997
3. An institutional analysis of sasi laut in Maluku, Indonesia
4. The name is absent
5. Empirically Analyzing the Impacts of U.S. Export Credit Programs on U.S. Agricultural Export Competitiveness
6. The name is absent
7. GOVERNANÇA E MECANISMOS DE CONTROLE SOCIAL EM REDES ORGANIZACIONAIS
8. ISSUES IN NONMARKET VALUATION AND POLICY APPLICATION: A RETROSPECTIVE GLANCE
9. The name is absent
10. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California