Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Online
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About JSWC
    • Editorial Board
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Contact Us

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Online
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About JSWC
    • Editorial Board
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Contact Us
  • Follow SWCS on Twitter
  • Visit SWCS on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Section

Farmers and conservation programs: Explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states

A.P. Reimer, B.M. Gramig and L.S. Prokopy
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation March 2013, 68 (2) 110-119; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.68.2.110
A.P. Reimer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B.M. Gramig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L.S. Prokopy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

References

    1. Berry W.D.,
    2. Ringquist E.J.,
    3. Fording R.C.,
    4. Hanson R.L.
    . 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science 42:327-348.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Brace P.,
    2. Sims-Butler K.,
    3. Arceneaux K.,
    4. Johnson M.
    . 2002. Public opinion in the American states: New perspectives using national survey data. American Journal of Political Science 46(1):173-189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Claassen R.
    2003. Emphasis shifts in U.S. agri-environmental policy. Amber Waves, USDA Economic Research Service.
    1. Constance D.H.,
    2. Rikoon J.S.,
    3. Ma J.C.
    . 1996. Landlord involvement in environmental decision making on rented Missouri cropland: Pesticide use and water quality issues. Rural Sociology 61:577-605.
    OpenUrl
    1. Crotty P.M.
    1987. The New Federalism game: Primacy implementation of environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17:53-67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Dowd B.M.,
    2. Press D.,
    3. Los Huertos M.
    . 2008. Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: The case of California's central coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 128:151-161.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Dupont D.P.
    2010. Cost-sharing incentive programs for source water protection: The Grand River's Rural Water Quality Program. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(4):481-496.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Fairweather J.R.,
    2. Campbell H.R.
    . 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: Contrasting pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 20:287–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Federal Register
    . 2009. Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Interim final rule with request for comment. Federal Register 74(10):2293-2317.
    OpenUrl
    1. Franks J.
    2003. Revised agri-environment policy objectives: Implications for scheme design. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(3):443-466.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Gramig B.M.,
    2. Wolf C.A.,
    3. Lupi F.
    . 2010. Understanding adoption of livestock health management practices: The case of bovine leukosis virus. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58:343-360.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hays S.P.,
    2. Esler M.,
    3. Hays C.E.
    . 1996. Environmental commitment among the states: Integrating alternative approaches to state environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 26(2):41-58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hoornbeek J.A.
    2004. Runaway bureaucracies or congressional control?: Water pollution policies in the American states. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
    1. Jänicke M.
    2005. Trend-setters in environmental policy: The character and role of pioneer countries. European Environment 15:129-142.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Johnson M.,
    2. Brace P.,
    3. Arceneaux K.
    . 2005. Public opinion and dynamic representation in the American states: The case of environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 86(1): 87-108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Knowler D.,
    2. Bradshaw B.
    . 2007. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32:25-48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Kraft S.E.,
    2. Lant C.,
    3. Gillman K.
    . 1996. WQIP: An assessment of its chances for acceptance by farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51(6):494-498.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lambert D.,
    2. Sullivan P.,
    3. Claassen R.,
    4. Foreman L.
    . 2006. Conservation-compatible practices and programs: Who participates? USDA Economic Research Report #14. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/err14/err14_reportsummary.htm.
    1. Lambert D.M.,
    2. Sullivan P.,
    3. Claassen R.,
    4. Foreman L.
    . 2007. Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 24:72-88.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Loftus T.T.,
    2. Kraft S.E.
    . 2003. Enrolling conservation buffers in the CRP. Land Use Policy 20:73-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Long J.S.
    1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    1. Maybery D.,
    2. Crase L.,
    3. Gullifer C.
    . 2005. Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle. Journal of Economic Psychology 26:59-72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. McCann E.,
    2. Sullivan S.,
    3. Erickson D.,
    4. De Young R.
    . 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: A comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21(5):747-758.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Morris C.,
    2. Potter C.
    . 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1):51–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Napier T.L.
    2009. Grain scarcity: A new era of conservation policies and programs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(1):7A-10A, doi:10.2489/jswc.64.1.7A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Napier T.L.,
    2. Tucker M.,
    3. McCarter S.
    . 2000. Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):123-134.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Newmark A.J.,
    2. Witko C.
    . 2007. Pollution, politics, and preferences for environmental spending in the states. Review of Policy Research 24(4):291-308.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Norrander B.
    2001. Measuring state public opinion with the Senate National Election Study. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1(1):111-125.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pacheco J.
    2011. Using national surveys to measure dynamic U.S. state public opinion: A guideline for scholars and an application. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11(4):415-439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Papke L.E.,
    2. Woolridge J.M.
    . 2008. Panel data methods for fractional response variable with an application to test pass rates. Journal of Econometrics 145(1-2):121-133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Petrzelka P.,
    2. Marquart-Pyatt S.
    . 2011. Land tenure in the US: Power, gender, and consequences for conservation decision making. Agriculture and Human Values 28:549-560.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Prokopy L.S.,
    2. Floress K.,
    3. Klotthor-Weinkauf D.,
    4. Baumgart-Getz A.
    . 2008. Determinants of agricultural BMP adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(5):300-311, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.5.300.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Reimer A.P.,
    2. Thompson A.W.,
    3. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2012a. The multidimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: Implications for conservation adoption. Agriculture and Human Values.
    1. Reimer A.P.,
    2. Weinkauf D.K.,
    3. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2012b. The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: An examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1):118-128.
    OpenUrl
    1. Sullivan S.,
    2. McCann E.,
    3. De Young R.,
    4. Erickson D.
    . 1996. Farmers' attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(2):123-143.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Thompson A.W.
    2010. Views of agriculture: Understanding farmers' attitudes to identify strategies for improving rural landscape planning. PhD dissertation, Purdue University.
    1. USBEA (US Bureau of Economic Analysis)
    . 2011. GDP & Personal Income. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1.
    1. USDA
    . 2011. Budget summary and annual performance plan. www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf.
    1. USDA
    . 2009. 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. Volume 1, Part 51. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.
    1. USDA ARMS (USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey)
    . 2007. Farm Financial and Crop Production Practices. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/.
    1. USDA ERS (USDA Economic Research Service)
    . 2010. Farm Resource Regions. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#older.
    1. USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service)
    . 2009. Environmental Quality Incentives Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip.
    1. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)
    . 2011. Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads Information. http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/index.html.
    1. Warriner G.K.,
    2. Moul T.M.
    . 1992. Kinship and personal communication network influences on the adoption of agricultural conservation technology. Journal of Rural Studies 8(3):279-291.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Ye X.,
    2. Pendyala R.M.
    . 2005. A model of daily time use allocation using the fractional logit methodology. 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 9-13 2005, Washington, DC. Washington, DC: Transporation Research Board.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation: 68 (2)
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Vol. 68, Issue 2
March/April 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Farmers and conservation programs: Explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
15 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Farmers and conservation programs: Explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states
A.P. Reimer, B.M. Gramig, L.S. Prokopy
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Mar 2013, 68 (2) 110-119; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.68.2.110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Farmers and conservation programs: Explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states
A.P. Reimer, B.M. Gramig, L.S. Prokopy
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Mar 2013, 68 (2) 110-119; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.68.2.110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Farmer Transaction Costs of Participating in Federal Conservation Programs: Magnitudes and Determinants
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Smart control of agricultural water wells in western Iran: Application of the Q-methodology
  • Soil health through farmers’ eyes: Toward a better understanding of how farmers view, value, and manage for healthier soils
  • Policy process and problem framing for state Nutrient Reduction Strategies in the US Upper Mississippi River Basin
Show more Research Section

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Early Online
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

Info For

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers

Customer Service

  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions and Reprints
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy

SWCS

  • Membership
  • Publications
  • Meetings and Events
  • Conservation Career Center

© 2023 Soil and Water Conservation Society