Blackman&Robalino.Adoption Of Soil Conservation

429 views
386 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
429
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • #
  • Blackman&Robalino.Adoption Of Soil Conservation

    1. 1. Adoption of soil conservation practices by Costa Rican coffee farmers Allen Blackman and Juan Robalino EfD Center for Central America 2 nd Annual Environment for Development meeting Beijing, November 3-7, 2008
    2. 2. <ul><li>Policy context </li></ul><ul><li>Academic context </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>(Very) preliminary econometric results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simple probits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spatial regressions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Looking ahead </li></ul>Outline
    3. 3. <ul><li>Coffee is a leading ag. commodity in Costa Rica </li></ul><ul><ul><li>57,000 growers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>100,000 hectares </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$ US 200 million/year export revenues annually </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Serious environmental impacts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most Latin American coffee is shade grown </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>prevents soil erosion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>harbors biodiversity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>sequesters carbon </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>facilitates aquifer recharge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But 90% Costa Rican coffee is “technified” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minimal shade, agrochemical intensive, higher yields </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental impacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Soil erosion </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sedimentation and eutrophication of streams </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contamination surface and groundwater </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Policy context
    4. 4. <ul><li>Soil conservation practices (adoption rates Turrialba/C.B.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>contour planting (19%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>infiltration holes (12%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>deviation canals (23%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>vegetative barriers (7%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Promoting further adoption challenging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>significant fixed costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>long payoff periods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>90% of growers small-scale growers (<100 quintals/yr) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What drives adoption? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>grower characteristics: e.g. age, education? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>farm characteristics: e.g. size, slope, climate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>spatial spillovers: e.g. learning? </li></ul></ul>Policy context (cont’d)
    5. 5. <ul><li>Extensive econometric literatures on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>adoption of soil conservation practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>spatial spillovers in technology adoption </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Little or no econometric literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>spatial spillovers in adoption of conservation practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>adoption of conservation practices by coffee farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Meta-analysis of 31 studies of adoption of conservation practices (Knowler & Bradshaw 2007) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>only a handful include variables aimed at capturing spillovers, and none use spatial econometric approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>none on coffee </li></ul></ul>Academic context
    6. 6. <ul><li>First source: National Statistics and Census Institute (INEC) and CR Coffee Institute (ICAFE) census of coffee growers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>coverage: Turrialba & Coto Brus (2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>n ~ 6,200 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>dependent variables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>contour planting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>infiltration holes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>deviation canals </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>vegetative barriers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>independent variables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>grower characteristics (sex, age, education, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>farm characteristics (size, variety, non-coffee ag., etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>geophysical characteristics (temperature, precipitation) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>location (boundaries and centroids) </li></ul></ul></ul>Data
    7. 7. <ul><li>Second source: GIS from a variety of sources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>elevation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>aspect (directional orientation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>average slope </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Holdridge life zones </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>distances to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>coffee markets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>population centers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>neighbors </li></ul></ul></ul>Data (cont’d)
    8. 8. Probit regression results
    9. 9. Spatial autocorrelation: contour planting adoption dummy
    10. 10. Spatial autocorrelation: Errors from OLS regression
    11. 11. Spatial autocorrelation: Errors from probit regression
    12. 12. Probit, OLS, Anselin & LeSage regression results
    13. 13. Probit and IV regression results
    14. 14. Thank you

    ×