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
[51]   Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change [J].
Searchinger, Timothy D. ;
Wirsenius, Stefan ;
Beringer, Tim ;
Dumas, Patrice .
NATURE, 2018, 564 (7735) :249-+
[52]  
Simtowe F., 2016, AGR FOOD ECON, V4, P1, DOI [DOI 10.1186/S40100-016-0051-Z, 10.1186/s40100-016-0051-z, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0051-z]
[53]   Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices [J].
Soule, MJ ;
Tegene, A ;
Wiebe, KD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2000, 82 (04) :993-1005
[54]  
Steinfeld H., 2006, Renewable Resources Journal, V24, P15
[55]   Assessing optimal configurations of multi-paddock grazing strategies in tallgrass prairie using a simulation model [J].
Teague, Richard ;
Grant, Bill ;
Wang, Hsaio-Hsuan .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2015, 150 :262-273
[56]   Economic implications of maintaining rangeland ecosystem health in a semi-arid savanna [J].
Teague, W. R. ;
Kreuter, U. P. ;
Grant, W. E. ;
Diaz-Solis, H. ;
Kothmann, M. M. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (05) :1417-1429
[57]   Examining intensity of conservation practice adoption: Evidence from cover crop use on US Midwest farms [J].
Thompson, Nathanael M. ;
Reeling, Carson J. ;
Fleckenstein, Michelle R. ;
Prokopy, Linda S. ;
Armstrong, Shalamar D. .
FOOD POLICY, 2021, 101
[58]  
Tong BH, 2017, J AGRIC APPL ECON, V49, P491, DOI 10.1017/aae.2016.45
[59]   Environmental policy when consumers value conformity [J].
Ulph, Alistair ;
Ulph, David .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2021, 109
[60]  
Undersander D., 2002, PASTURES PROFIT GUID