IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i2p196-d1334027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons from the Archives: Understanding Historical Agricultural Change in the Southern Great Plains

Author

Listed:
  • Georgina Belem Carrasco Galvan

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

  • Jacqueline M. Vadjunec

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
    Institute for Resilient Environmental and Energy Systems, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

  • Todd D. Fagin

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
    Center for Spatial Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

Abstract

In the US, agriculture rapidly expanded beginning in the 1850s, influenced by homesteader policies and new technologies. With increased production also came widespread land-use/land-cover change. We analyze historical agricultural policies and associated land and water use trajectories with a focus on the Southern Great Plains (SGPs). Rapid changes in agriculture and reoccurring drought led to the infamous Dust Bowl, triggering new agricultural and land management policies, with lasting impacts on the landscape. To understand historical agricultural change, we use mixed methods, including archival literature and historical agricultural census data (1910 to 2017) from three counties in a tri-state (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado) area of the SGPs. Our archival policy and agricultural census analysis illustrates 110 years of agricultural change, showing that agricultural policies and technological advances play an integral role in the development of agroecological systems, especially the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). Further, while communities began with distinct agricultural practices, agricultural policy development resulted in increasing uniformity in crop and livestock practices. The results suggest that there are sustainability lessons to be learned by looking to the land and water trajectories and accompanying unintended consequences of the past.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgina Belem Carrasco Galvan & Jacqueline M. Vadjunec & Todd D. Fagin, 2024. "Lessons from the Archives: Understanding Historical Agricultural Change in the Southern Great Plains," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-31, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:196-:d:1334027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/196/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/196/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miranowski, John, 2005. "Energy Consumption in US Agriculture," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12627, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. JunJie Wu, 2000. "Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 979-992.
    3. Federico, Giovanni, 2005. "Not Guilty? Agriculture in the 1920s and the Great Depression," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 949-976, December.
    4. L. C. Gray, 1939. "Federal Purchase and Administration of Submarginal Land in the Great Plains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 123-131.
    5. Hayford, Marc & Pasurka, Carl Jr., 1992. "The political economy of the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley tariff acts," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 30-50, January.
    6. Cain, Zachary & Lovejoy, Stephen B., 2004. "History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1-6.
    7. Dimitri, Carolyn & Effland, Anne & Conklin, Neilson C., 2005. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy," Economic Information Bulletin 59390, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Warnken, Philip F., 1976. "The Location of Sugarbeet Production in the U.S," Miscellaneous Reports 257812, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Scott M. Swinton, 2022. "Precision conservation: Linking set‐aside and working lands policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1158-1167, September.
    10. Michael J. Roberts & Shawn Bucholz, 2006. "Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or Spurious Correlation? A Rejoinder," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 512-514.
    11. Hoffman, Elizabeth & Libecap, Gary D., 1991. "Institutional Choice and the Development of U.S. Agricultural Policies in the 1920s," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 397-411, June.
    12. Rasmussen, Wayne D., 1991. "Farmers, Cooperatives, and USDA: A History of Agricultural Cooperative Service," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309574, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Bowers, Douglas E. & Rasmussen, Wayne D. & Baker, Gladys L., 1984. "History of Agricultural Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84," Agricultural Information Bulletins 305760, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. David A. Fleming, 2014. "Slippage effects of land-based policies: Evaluating the Conservation Reserve Program using satellite imagery," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93, pages 167-178, November.
    15. Rasmussen, Wayne D., 1962. "The Impact of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862–1962," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 578-591, December.
    16. Alston, Lee J, 1984. "Farm Foreclosure Moratorium Legislation: A Lesson from the Past," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 445-457, June.
    17. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    18. Miljkovic, Dragan & Shaik, Saleem & Braun, Dane, 2012. "Impact of biofuel policies on livestock production in the United States," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 817-831.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jacqueline M. Vadjunec & Todd D. Fagin & Lanah M. Hinsdale & Georgina Belem Carrasco Galvan & Kristen A. Baum, 2024. "Deeper Engagement with Material and Non-Material Aspects of Water in Land System Science: An Introduction to the Special Issue," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    2. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    3. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    5. B Kelsey Jack & Carolyn Kousky & Katharine R E Sims, 2007. "Lessons Relearned: Can Previous Research on Incentive-Based Mechanisms Point the Way for Payments for Ecosystem Services?," CID Working Papers 15, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    6. Andrew Manale & Cynthia Morgan & Glenn Sheriff & David Simpson, 2011. "Offset markets for nutrient and sediment discharges in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Policy tradeoffs and potential steps forward," NCEE Working Paper Series 201105, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2011.
    7. Jean-Sauveur Ay, 2015. "Information sur l’hétérogénéité de la terre et délégation de la régulation foncière," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(3), pages 453-474.
    8. He, Fei & Lee, Dogil & Borisova, Tatiana & Graham, Wendy & Athearn, Kevin & Dukes, Michael & Merrick, Jason & Hochmuth, Robert, 2024. "Farm-scale economic and environmental tradeoffs of land use and land management decisions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    9. Kim, Man-Keun & Peralta, Denis & McCarl, Bruce A., 2014. "Land-based greenhouse gas emission offset and leakage discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 265-273.
    10. David A. Fleming, 2014. "Slippage effects of land-based policies: Evaluating the Conservation Reserve Program using satellite imagery," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93, pages 167-178, November.
    11. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David & Williams, Ryan, 2024. "Land Use of Rejected, Enrolled, and Expiring Fields in the Conservation Reserve Program," Economic Information Bulletin 344828, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Jones, Carol Adaire & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Heisey, Paul W., 2012. "New Uses of Old Tools: An Assessment of Current and Potential Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Sector-based Policies," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124735, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Grout, Cyrus A., 2009. "Incentives for Spatially Coordinated Land Conservation: A Conditional Agglomeration Bonus," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9.
    14. Lötjönen, Sanna & Ollikainen, Markku & Kotamäki, Niina & Huttunen, Markus & Huttunen, Inese, 2021. "Nutrient load compensation as a means of maintaining the good ecological status of surface waters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Stibniati Atmadja & Louis Verchot, 2012. "A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 311-336, March.
    16. Filewod, Ben & McCarney, Geoff, 2023. "Avoiding leakage from nature-based offsets by design," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117927, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Kathleen Segerson, 2013. "Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Protection and Resource Management," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 161-180, June.
    18. Jones, Carol & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Sperow, Mark, 2013. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from the Conservation Reserve Program: The Contribution of Post-Contract Land Use Change," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150501, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Kim, Youngho & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2024. "Payments and penalties in ecosystem services programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:196-:d:1334027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy