IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v89y2013iv1p722-742.html

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 subscription 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

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mason, Charles F. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2011. "Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality," Sustainable Development Papers 101290, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. DiPrete, Thomas A. & Gangl, Markus, 2004. "Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Labor Market Policy and Employment SP I 2004-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Arthur van Benthem & Suzi Kerr, 2010. "Optimizing Voluntary Deforestation Policy in the Face of Adverse Selection and Costly Transfers," Motu Working Papers 10_04, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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.
    15. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Claassen, Roger & Savage, Jeff & Loesch, Chuck & Breneman, Vince & Williams, Ryan & Mulvaney, Bill & Fairbanks, Tammy, 2017. "Additionality in Grassland Easements to Provide Migratory Bird Habitat in the Northern Plains," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(3), September.
    6. Origo, Federica, 2009. "Flexible pay, firm performance and the role of unions. New evidence from Italy," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 64-78, January.
    7. Arata, Linda & Hauschild, Sofia & Sckokai, Paolo, "undated". "Socio-economic impact of grape growing in North-eastern Brazil," 2017 Sixth AIEAA Conference, June 15-16, Piacenza, Italy 261264, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. Arata, Linda & Hauschild, Sofia & Sckokai, Paolo, . "Economic and social impact of grape growing in Northeastern Brazil," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 6(3).
    9. Marco Caliendo & Stefan Tübbicke, 2020. "New evidence on long-term effects of start-up subsidies: matching estimates and their robustness," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1605-1631, October.
    10. Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora Alejandra, 2019. "Land titling and its effect on the allocation of public goods: Evidence from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    11. 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.
    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. Timo Mitze & Alfredo R. Paloyo & Björn Alecke, 2015. "Is There a Purchase Limit on Regional Growth? A Quasi-experimental Evaluation of Investment Grants Using Matching Techniques," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 388-412, October.
    14. Riccardo Turati, 2025. "Networks abroad and culture: global individual-level evidence," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 1-42, March.
    15. Abbott, Joshua K. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2011. "The Value Of Water As An Urban Club Good: A Matching Approach To Hoa-Provided Lakes," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103781, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Dan Pan, 2014. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farmer Nutrient Management Behavior in Chinese Rice Production: A Household-Level Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Gonzalo Nunez-Chaim & Henry G. Overman & Capucine Riom, 2024. "Does subsidising business advice improve firm performance? Evidence from a large RCT," CEP Discussion Papers dp1977, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. 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.
    19. Margitta Minah, 2022. "What is the influence of government programs on farmer organizations and their impacts? Evidence from Zambia," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(1), pages 29-53, March.
    20. 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.

    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.

    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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.