Will adoption occur if a practice is win-win for profit and the environment? An application to a rancher?s grazing practice choices

被引:3
作者
Che, Yuyuan [1 ]
Feng, Hongli [2 ]
Hennessy, David A. [3 ]
机构
[1] North Carolina State Univ, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, 3345 Nelson Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[2] Iowa State Univ, Dept Econ, 578C Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[3] Iowa State Univ, Dept Econ, 568F Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
Adoption gap; capital constraints; ecosystem services; rotational grazing; CONSERVATION PRACTICES; FARMERS ADOPTION; SOCIAL NETWORKS; RENTED LAND; EFFICIENCY; TECHNOLOGY; MANAGEMENT; BARRIERS; AGRICULTURE; PRODUCERS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107826
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Rotational grazing has the potential to provide both economic and environmental benefits; however, the set of ranchers that adopts is much smaller than the set that regards rotational grazing as a win-win practice. To investigate this adoption gap and learn about adoption decisions and motivations, we survey 874 ranchers on the U.S. Great Plains. We find that a large proportion of surveyed ranchers who view rotational grazing as win-win for both profit and the environment do not adopt the practice. We also find that win-win non-adopters are a constrained group for most potential challenges to rotational grazing adoption, especially regarding high initial costs, water resource limitations, and ranch conditions. Some of these impediments could be relieved by capital to which, however, win-win non-adopters have limited access. Win-win non-adopters are more likely to adopt rotational grazing than others when a one-time subsidy is offered, suggesting that win-win non-adopters hold promise as a target group for subsidies to reduce the cost of adoption. Our analysis shows the importance of understanding the specifics of an adoption gap when making and implementing policies.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]   The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application [J].
Abdulai, Awudu ;
Huffman, Wallace .
LAND ECONOMICS, 2014, 90 (01) :26-43
[2]   The effect of information sources on technology adoption and modification decisions [J].
Adegbola, Patrice ;
Gardebroek, Cornelis .
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 37 (01) :55-65
[3]   Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems [J].
Alkemade, Rob ;
Reid, Robin S. ;
van den Berg, Maurits ;
de Leeuw, Jan ;
Jeuken, Michel .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2013, 110 (52) :20900-20905
[4]   Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap? [J].
Allcott, Hunt ;
Greenstone, Michael .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2012, 26 (01) :3-28
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2017, NASS - Quick Stats
[6]   Adoption Gaps of Environmental Adaptation Technologies with Public Effects [J].
Antoci, Angelo ;
Borghesi, Simone ;
Galdi, Giulio ;
Vergalli, Sergio .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2022, 83 (02) :313-339
[7]   Extending the energy efficiency gap [J].
Backlund, Sandra ;
Thollander, Patrik ;
Palm, Jenny ;
Ottosson, Mikael .
ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 51 :392-396
[8]   Multidimensional goals of beef and dairy producers: an inter-industry comparison [J].
Basarir, Aydin ;
Gillespie, Jeffrey M. .
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 35 (01) :103-114
[9]   A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice [J].
Bergtold, Jason S. ;
Ramsey, Steven ;
Maddy, Lucas ;
Williams, Jeffery R. .
RENEWABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS, 2019, 34 (01) :62-76
[10]   Conservation practice complementarity and timing of on-farm adoption [J].
Canales, Elizabeth ;
Bergtold, Jason S. ;
Williams, Jeffery R. .
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2020, 51 (05) :777-791