Factors Affecting Perceived Improvements in Environmental Quality from Precision Farming

This investigation identified the factors that influenced whether farmers in the Southeastern United States perceived an improvement in environmental quality from adopting precision farming technologies (PFTs) Farmers with larger farms or higher yields were more likely to believe that they observ positive externalities associated with PFT Farmers who rest PFTs profitable or who believed input reduction was important had higher probabilities whereas those with higher incomes or who were more pendent on farm income were les likely to perceive of that kind benefits. Interestingly, the importance of environmental quality and longitudinal dimensions of time using PFTs were not rest to affect the probability of perceiving an improvement in environmental quality.

Key Words: precision agriculture, site-specific farming, variable rate application

JEL Classifications: C25 Q12 Q24

Precision farming (also known as precision agriculture) entails the assessment of site-specific land and harvest needs to develop management practices that are calibrated to the straits of each site within a field. The adoption of precision farming as a management practice thus involves the couple the identification of temporal and spatial variation and the succeeding use of the site-specific information to apply inputs at variable rates across a field. The suite of available precision farming technologies (PFTs) has the potential to increase profits, especially for the production of input-intensive harvests (Roberts et al. 2004). The profitability of many of these technologies, especially in regard to their use for different harvests and in different combinations, has not been categorically proven (Griffin et al.; Lambert and Lowenberg-DeBoer; Swinton and Lowenberg-DeBoer 2001) However, profitability may not be the unique motivation for PFT adoption. Farm managers and society may realize environmental benefits following the adoption of PFT-based harvest production. For example, a new study found that farmers were willing to forsake higher yields (by reducing input use) to avoid the risk of moderate environmental damage (Lohr Parker, and Higley).

If an improvement in environmental quality from the adoption of precision farming technologies also benefits society and not just the farmer adopting the of recent origin production practices, we might await a suboptimal PFT adoption rate. The adoption (or lack of adoption) of PFT may bring out a positive (negative) externality. For example, a farmer who uses exces inputs might have a field with excessive runoff that could contribute to water pollution and impose a require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergone on society from increased human health puzzles or increased water treatment require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergones Resources used in the production of of that kind crops are being allocated inefficiently; the resulting market failure is causing negative environmental externalities.

What can be done to address these stamps of externalities? The value of the externality wants to be captured and internalized into the production proces If the use of traditional production practices is considered to cause a negative externality, the "polluter pays principle" supports a tax-based solution. beneath this principle, the government stations emission standards that, when go beyonded result in a tax payment by the agency of the farmer. If the use of PFT is considered to bring out a positive externality, a subsidy program could be used to increase usage of these technologies, and thus improve environmental quality. If PFT are not profitable, or the take away froms to impose the tax and monitor the standard exce the wait fored benefits, the latter approach is necessary to disentangle the market failure problem.

As for the part of policy in this case, if precision farming practices exhibit socially desirable benefits (as oppos to private benefits) in the form of a cleaner environment (i.e., a positive externality) then policy makers could implement programs to subsidize the use of PFT or establish credible market-based incentives. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation security Program, and the National Organic Program are examples of federal efforts to aid these types of practices in the United States. In Australia, a process-based rating combination of parts to form a whole has been proposed that would proffer progressive tax rebates on land that is managed using the Environmental Management a whole (EMS), which involves land stewardship using best management practices (BMPs) of that kind as PFTs; the proposed rating combination of parts to form a whole follows the successful use of the EM for urban fringe areas (Gunningham; Nind).

The alternative approach assumes that farmers are polluter who should pay for the harm they cause by dint of using existing production practices and dictates the restriction, taxation, or fining of traditional practices. Examples of like regulation in the United States include the imposition of civil penalties for violating confined animal feeding operation requirements, mandated BMP and pollution limits. Although this approach may be les politically feasible, of that kind regulations may be easier to implement especially given the antecedents that have been established. The effectiveness of either approach, however, requires specific information about the quantity and value of potential damage occurring from the use of traditional agronomic courses and the benefits of using PFT (Zilberman and Marra).