Recent technical developments in farming have exacerbated problems of land degradation and downstream watercourse pollution. The latter justifies governmental intervention more than on-farm costs or food security. Several intervention alternatives could be employed, each having different implications for private and public acceptability, administrative feasability, and workability. To date, Canadian public intervention has relied on universally-applied financial incentives and voluntary compliance. The inherent limitations are that differences among farmers in conservation effort are not considered. A targeted approach is suggested as one means of incorporating inter-farm and inter-farmer differences, thereby raising the potential for eliciting greater conservation effort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stonehouse et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: