IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v89y2013iv1p722-742.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices

Author

Listed:
  • Mariano Mezzatesta
  • David A. Newburn
  • Richard T. Woodward

Abstract

We use propensity score matching to estimate additionality from enrollment in federal costshare programs for six practices. We analyze farmer adoption decisions based on farmer survey data in Ohio. We develop a new methodological approach to decompose the average treatment effect on the treated according to relative contributions of voluntary adopters and new adopters. Our results indicate that cost-share programs achieve positive levels of additionality for each practice. But percent additionality varies dramatically between practices. Specifically, percent additionality is highest for hayfield establishment (93.3%), cover crops (90.6%), and filter strips (88.9%), while it is lowest for conservation tillage (19.3%).

Suggested Citation

  • Mariano Mezzatesta & David A. Newburn & Richard T. Woodward, 2013. "Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 722-742.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:722-742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/89/4/722
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    2. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    3. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    4. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    5. Charles F. Mason & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2011. "Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality," Working Papers 2011.13, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Horowitz, John K. & Just, Richard E., 2013. "Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 105-122.
    7. van Benthem, Arthur A. & Kerr, Suzi, 2010. "Optimizing Voluntary Deforestation Policy in the Face of Adverse Selection and Costly Transfers," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96813, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. 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.
    9. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    10. Antonio Bento & Charles Towe & Jacqueline Geoghegan, 2007. "The Effects of Moratoria on Residential Development: Evidence from a Matching Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1211-1218.
    11. Zhang, Junjie & Wang, Can, 2011. "Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism: An empirical analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 140-154, September.
    12. Van Butsic & David J. Lewis & Lindsay Ludwig, 2011. "An Econometric Analysis of Land Development with Endogenous Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 412-432.
    13. Xiangping Liu & Lori Lynch, 2011. "Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Reduce Farmland Loss? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 183-201.
    14. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Woodward, Richard T. & Newburn, David A. & Mezzatesta, Mariano, 2016. "Additionality and reverse crowding out for pollution offsets in water quality trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 224-231.
    2. Sánchez-Braza, Antonio & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2014. "Evaluation of property tax bonus to promote solar thermal systems in Andalusia (Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 832-843.
    3. Naveen Adusumilli & Rowell Dikitanan & Hua Wang, 2019. "Effect of Cost-Sharing Federal Programs on Adoption of Water Conservation Practices: Results from Propensity Score Matching Approach," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Fatema, Naureen, 2019. "Can land title reduce low-intensity interhousehold conflict incidences and associated damages in eastern DRC?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Andrea Ichino & Fabrizia Mealli & Tommaso Nannicini, 2008. "From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: what can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 305-327.
    7. Naureen Fatema & Shahriar Kibriya, 2018. "Givers of great dinners know few enemies: The impact of household food sufficiency and food sharing on low intensity interhousehold and community conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo," HiCN Working Papers 267, Households in Conflict Network.
    8. Fatema, Naureen & Kibriya, Shahriar, 2017. "Givers of great dinners know few enemies: The impact of household food security on micro-level communal conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258482, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Stephan, Gesine & Pahnke, André, 2008. "The Relative Effectiveness of Selected Active Labour Market Programmes and the Common Support Problem," IZA Discussion Papers 3767, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    11. Brachert, Matthias & Brautzsch, Hans-Ulrich & Dettmann, Eva & Giebler, Alexander & Schneider, Lutz & Titze, Mirko, 2020. ""Evaluation der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe 'Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur' (GRW)" durch einzelbetriebliche Erfolgskontrolle: Endbericht," IWH Online 5/2020, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    12. Cadot, Olivier & Fernandes, Ana M. & Gourdon, Julien & Mattoo, Aaditya, 2015. "Are the benefits of export support durable? Evidence from Tunisia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 310-324.
    13. Tommaso Nannicini, 2007. "Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for matching estimators," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 334-350, September.
    14. Joseph J. Capuno & Carlos Antonio R. Tan, Jr. & Xylee Javier, 2016. "WASH for child health: Some evidence in support of public intervention in the Philippines," UP School of Economics Discussion Papers 201611, University of the Philippines School of Economics.
    15. Åslund, Olof & Blind, Ina & Dahlberg, Matz, 2017. "All aboard? Commuter train access and labor market outcomes," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 90-107.
    16. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric, 2012. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs A Preliminary Analysis of New Data," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124721, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Mar, M. & Massard, N., 2019. "Animate the cluster or subsidize collaborative R&D? A multiple overlapping treatments approach to assess the impact of the French cluster policy," Working Papers 2019-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    18. Arata, Linda & Sckokai, P., 2013. "Impact of Agri-environmental Schemes on Farm Performances in five EU Member States," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149771, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    19. Erlend E. Bø & Elin Halvorsen & Thor O. Thoresen, 2019. "Heterogeneity of the Carnegie Effect," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(3), pages 726-759.
    20. Silke Hüttel & Simon Jetzinger & Martin Odening, 2014. "Forced Sales and Farmland Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 395-410.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:722-742. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.