[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea14/170633.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do farmers treat rented land differently than the land they own? A fixed effects model of farmer’s decision to adopt conservation practices on owned and rented land

Author

Listed:
  • Nadella, Karthik
  • Deaton, Brady
  • Lawley, Chad
  • Weersink, Alfons
Abstract
Approximately 40% of farmland is rented in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2011). In our survey, approximately ninety-five percent of the farmers that rent land also farm on their own land. This provides a unique empirical opportunity to assess the influence of ownership on farmers’ decision to adopt conservation practices. This empirical assessment is important given the conflicting results in previous literature. One group of studies find that owner-operators are more likely to adopt conservation practices than tenants (Belknap and Saupe, 1988; Lynne et al., 1988). This finding is consistent with the idea that owner-operators have a longer planning horizon than tenants and are therefore in a better position to realize the long-term benefits of current investment in conservation practices. However, another set of studies (Rahm and Huffman, 1984; Norris and Batie, 1987) find no differences between owner-operators and tenants with respect to the adoption of conservation practices like conservation tillage. This conflict in literature can be potentially explained by the differences in the present value of expected returns across conservation practices. The adoption of cover crops, for example, involves a tradeoff between costs which occur in the short term and increases in the productivity of the land which occur in the longer term. In our theoretical model the expected returns of long-term investments are influenced by a tenure security measure. Farmers are expected to face a lower level of tenure security on the land they rent relative to the land that they own and are therefore hypothesized to be less likely to plant cover crops on rented land. On the other hand, the adoption of conservation tillage could be profitable in the short-term once the farmer has acquired the machinery and might not be necessarily influenced by tenure status. The empirical analysis (fixed effects) regresses the adoption of conservation practices against a number of explanatory variables. Our data set allows us to examine this decision for the same farmer and thereby eliminates differences that may be explained by characteristics of the farmer. The key explanatory variable of interest is land tenure, which is modeled by observations regarding whether the land is owned or rented. We examine the sensitivity of this to alternative specifications of the model by accounting for the length of time the farmer has rented the land. The data for this analysis comes from a survey of 425 farmers who operate on both owned and rented land in Ontario and Manitoba. The data was collected over a two-week period in April 2013. Farmers provided information about their production practices on both owned and rented properties. (We also gather information from farmers who farm only their own land. This expands the data set to 810 observations.) The key dependent variable is the adoption of conservation practices: i.e., cover crops and conservation tillage. For example, 26% of farmers adopt cover crops on their own land while 15 % adopt cover crops on rented land. The key explanatory variables are measures of land tenure: e.g., whether the land is owned or rented. Additional explanatory variables include measures, which account for variation in land characteristics and crop choice. The data also allows for exploration of a number of important issues, for example, we are able to gather data on characteristics of the farmland owner. For instance, approximately 40% of the landlords in Ontario can be characterized as Non-Farmer Investors while approximately 11% can be characterized as widows or widowers. In total we group landlords into seven categories. In the linear probability model with fixed effects, tenure status is not found to be a statistically significant factor on the probability of the adoption of conservation tillage. However, tenure status is found to be a statistically significant factor on the probability of the adoption of cover crops. These results confirm the hypotheses generated by our theoretical model, which suggests that the influence of tenure status varies on the adoption of conservation practices varies depending on the type of practice that is being considered. These results are also found to be robust under different model specifications.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadella, Karthik & Deaton, Brady & Lawley, Chad & Weersink, Alfons, 2014. "Do farmers treat rented land differently than the land they own? A fixed effects model of farmer’s decision to adopt conservation practices on owned and rented land," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170633, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:170633
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.170633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/170633/files/AAEA_submission.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.170633?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    2. Linda K. Lee & William H. Stewart, 1983. "Landownership and the Adoption of Minimum Tillage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(2), pages 256-264.
    3. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Michael R. Rahm & Wallace E. Huffman, 1984. "The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(4), pages 405-413.
    5. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1983. "An Economic Model of Soil Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-89.
    6. Gary D. Lynne & J. S. Shonkwiler & Leandro R. Rola, 1988. "Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 12-19.
    7. John Belknap & William E. Saupe, 1988. "Farm Family Resources and the Adoption of No-Plow Tillage in Southwestern Wisconsin," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 13-23.
    8. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 79-90, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eric T. Micheels & Andreas Boecker, 2017. "Competitive strategies among Ontario farms marketing direct to consumers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Curtis L. Rollins & Stephanie R. Simpson & Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 331-353, June.
    3. Capmourteres, Virginia & Adams, Justin & Berg, Aaron & Fraser, Evan & Swanton, Clarence & Anand, Madhur, 2018. "Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: A case study from southern Ontario," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 176-185.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B. James Deaton & Chad Lawley & Karthik Nadella, 2018. "Renters, landlords, and farmland stewardship," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 521-531, July.
    2. Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Zhao, Jinhua, 2001. "The Subsidy For Adopting Conservation Tillage: Estimation From Observed Behavior," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20542, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2001. "Adoption Of Soil Conservation Practices: A Revealed Preference Approach," Working Papers 28609, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. Soule, Meredith J., 2001. "Soil Management And The Farm Typology: Do Small Family Farms Manage Soil And Nutrient Resources Differently Than Large Family Farms?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-10, October.
    5. Abdulla, Majd, 2009. "The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001913, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Lichtenberg, Erik & Strand, Ivar E.Jr. & Lantin, Rhona M. & Lessley, Billy V., 1990. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Best Management Practices in Maryland," Working Papers 197616, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Baidu-Forson, J., 1999. "Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in the Sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 231-239, May.
    8. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    9. Bockstael, N. & Costanza, R. & Strand, I. & Boynton, W. & Bell, K. & Wainger, L., 1995. "Ecological economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 143-159, August.
    10. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Díaz, José, 2012. "Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 54-62.
    12. Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2008. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures: A Case Study of Fijian Cane Farmers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, April.
    13. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    14. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Monson, Michael J., 1994. "An Analysis Of Potential Conservation Effort Of Crp Participants In The State Of Missouri: A Latent Variable Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-9, July.
    15. Goetz, Stephan J. & Debertin, David L. & Pagoulatos, Angelos, 1997. "Linkages Between Human Capital and the Environment: Implications for Sustainable Econmic Development," 1997 Occasional Paper Series No. 7 198195, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Gould, Brian W. & Saupe, William E. & Klemme, Richard M., 1988. "The Importance of Farm and Operator Characteristics in the Adoption and Use of Conservation Tillage in Southwestern Wisconsin," Staff Papers 200462, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2001. "Tenancy and Soil Conservation in Market Equilibrium," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20489, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Calatrava-Leyva, Javier & Franco, Juan Agustin & Gonzalez-Roa, Maria del Carmen, 2005. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Olive Groves: The Case of Spanish Mountainous Areas," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24661, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    20. Joanna Noelia Kamiche, 2005. "Los Pobres Y El Medio Ambiente: Análisis De La Condición De Pobreza Y Decisión De Uso De Fertilizantes En Los Hogares De Nicaragua," Documentos CEDE 3177, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:170633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.