Farmers' Decisions Regarding Carbon Sequestration: A Metaeconomic View

Abstract

This article proposes a novel theoretical vision on the motivations behind the usage of conservation tillage technology. The metaeconomic model focuses on the two basic driving factors of individual behavior: the drive for closeness/unity with the environment that is shared with others, and a desire to control the environment while pursuing self-interest. This model integrates a more conventional approach to studying conservation with advances in sociology and psychology and suggests the presence of dual, often conflicting yet joint motives. Both the shared other-interest and the preference for control over outcomes temper the self-interest, as posited in metaeconomic theory. Metaeconomics gives both new theoretical ground and an empirical justification for designing policies that integrate and balance ethical suasion with financial incentives. It also gives a scientific basis for encouraging policy processes and programs directed at helping evolve a new shared other-interest in conservation outcomes within communities.

Keywords:

• carbon sequestration
• conservation tillage
• global warming
• metaeconomics
• other-interest
• self-interest
• shared interest

This work was funded by the Consortium for the Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS) project through a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant. The authors wish to thank the anonymous farmer respondents who took their time to fill out the questionnaire. Special thanks to Robert Sheeder for his assistance in preparing this project. The authors are grateful to the editor and two sets of anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped to improve this article.

Notes

Note. Dependent variable—CT. If CT = 1, then the farmer is using conservation tillage; CT = 0 indicates otherwise (based on a survey in Nebraska, U.S. 2006).

^a p < 0.01

^b p < 0.05

^c p < 0.1.

*The logit model was constructed using 70% of the data set (selected cases for which the value of Bernoulli variable [with parameter 0.7] equals to one). The remaining 30% of the data (unselected cases) were used to validate the results of the regression analysis.

If self-interest and other-interest are in balance, they have approximately equal value. For instance, assume that the value of self-interest is 0.5 and the value of other-interest is 0.5; then the value of their interaction will be 0.25. If self-interest dominates over other-interest, i.e., self-interest = 0.8, other-interest = 0.2, then their interaction = 0.16, which is lower than the balanced interaction.

For a copy of the survey, please see http://www.carbon.unl.edu/hallcountysurvey05.pdf.

In the survey conservation tillage (CT) was defined as a residue cover of 30% or greater that is left on the soil. CT includes no-till (and strip-till), ridge-till, and mulch-till. Reduced tillage = 15–30% residue cover left on the soil. Intensive tillage = less than 15% residue cover left on the soil.

The table comparison of the sample to the USDA Census is not included due to space limitations. Please contact authors for a copy, or see http://www.carbon.unl.edu/farmstatisticsnebraskacarbonsurvey.pdf.

The theoretical propositions discussed in the previous section pose questions regarding the directions of the relationship between the dependent and the independent variables as well as whether these relationships are significant. This is what warrants providing the parameter estimates rather than the marginal effects of the two empirical models in Table 1.

In our sample 74% of farmers indicated that they are using at least some CT.