The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature
Abstract
This article reviews 25 years of literature focused on the adoption of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in the United States to examine general trends in the categories of capacity, awareness, attitudes and farm characteristics. The study uses a vote count methodology and counts every instance of positive, negative and insignificant relationships in 55 studies. Education levels, capital, income, farm size, access to information, positive environmental attitudes, environmental awareness, and utilization of social networks emerge as some of the variables that are more often positively, rather than negatively, associated with adoption rates. The type of statistical analysis used in the studies has a negligible effect on the results. When different types of BMPs are examined in similar groupings, the aggregated findings generally hold true. The study concludes that farmer adoption rates can be improved by focusing on the generally consistent determinants of agricultural BMP adoption. This paper also highlights future areas of research that are needed including a focus on the determinants of adoption of water and livestock management BMPs and more study of the role of tenure and farm proximity to a river or stream.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research
Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003 · Cited by 1,839
Cited by
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van Bavel, R. (2019) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbz019 · Cited by 1,050
Middle-range theories of land system change
Meyfroidt, P., Roy Chowdhury, R., de Bremond, A., Ellis, E. C., Erb, K.-H., Filatova, T., Garrett, R. D., Grove, J. M., Heinimann, A., Kuemmerle, T., et al. (2018) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006 · Cited by 604
Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis
Liu, T., Bruins, R., & Heberling, M. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10020432 · Cited by 481
Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators
Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.027 · Cited by 424
Soil and Human Health: Current Status and Future Needs
Brevik, E. C., Slaughter, L., Singh, B. R., Steffan, J. J., Collier, D., Barnhart, P., & Pereira, P. (2020) · Air, Soil and Water Research · doi:10.1177/1178622120934441 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-09-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 300-311
- ISSN
- 0022-4561 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-3300
- OpenAlex
- W2069822216
- Cited by
- 919
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2489/63.5.300
- The paper
- Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., & Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. https://doi.org/10.2489/63.5.300
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.