IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/361148.html

Complementary or Competitive? Emerging Interactions between Perennial Cover Restoration and Protection in the Conservation Reserve Program

Author

Listed:
  • Zebrowski, Wesley
  • Iovanna, Rich
  • Lark, Tyler

Abstract

The USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) delivers environmental benefits to society by enrolling cropland and grasslands to reestablish or safeguard long-term vegetative cover. In recent years, the CRP has dramatically increased in enrollment in its new Grassland signup subprogram, which conserves existing grasslands and now constitutes a plurality of CRP acres. In contrast, enrollment in the General signup subprogram, which restores marginal croplands to grassland, has been in steady decline. Through at least the end of the 2018 Farm Bill, these two subprograms share a combined acreage cap which in theory could create either competitive or complementary interactions within the program. This paper uses descriptive analysis and a spatial comparison of participant incentives to assess the relationship between these two CRP signup types. We find that the recent low supply of General offers has been accompanied by relatively low EBI cutoffs, thereby maintaining a consistent enrollment of eligible offers, with a large share of the remaining cap being filled with Grassland acres. Despite this trend, incentives for expiring CRP land—an instance where participants could choose to either enroll in the Grassland program or re-enroll in General—favor re-enrolling in the General signup in 62% of county-years, and even more so when the grazing deduction is utilized. We argue that while these two programs do not compete administratively under current trends, these enrollment patterns could tighten competition between the programs in future periods if total enrollment approaches a shared cap, especially considering that programmatic incentives or market conditions could change under future Farm Bills. We discuss the implication of these findings for program design going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Zebrowski, Wesley & Iovanna, Rich & Lark, Tyler, 2025. "Complementary or Competitive? Emerging Interactions between Perennial Cover Restoration and Protection in the Conservation Reserve Program," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 361148, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:361148
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.361148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/361148/files/77558_108012_105300_zebrowski_aaea_2025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.361148?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael A. Arnold & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer, 2013. "Adverse Selection in Reverse Auctions for Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 387-412.
    2. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Er, Emrah, 2018. "Changes in cropland area in the United States and the role of CRP," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-23.
    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. Wallander, Steven & Paul, Laura A. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Messer, Kent D. & Iovanna, Richard, 2023. "Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. Nathan P. Hendricks, 2022. "Would farmers benefit from removing more land from production in the next farm bill?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1139-1157, September.
    4. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    5. Spawn-Lee, Seth A. & Lark, Tyler J. & Gibbs, Holly & Houghton, Richard A. & Kucharik, Christopher J & Malins, Chris & Pelton, Rylie & Robertson, G. Philip, 2021. "Refuting recent claims of an improved carbon intensity of U.S. corn ethanol," EcoEvoRxiv cxhz5, Center for Open Science.
    6. Nora Vogt, 2015. "Environmental Risk Negatively Impacts Trust and Reciprocity in Conservation Contracts: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 417-431, November.
    7. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.
    8. Cornish, Brian & Miao, Ruiqing & Khanna, Madhu, 2020. "How will changes in Title II of the 2018 Farm Bill affect CRP Acreage?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304304, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Janusch, Nicholas R. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Allen, William, "undated". "Farmer participation in nutrient management practices in Delaware: A field experiment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258456, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Howard, Gregory E. & Zhang, Wendong & Valcu-Lisman, Adriana M., 2021. "Evaluating the Efficiency-Participation Tradeoff in Agricultural Conservation Programs: The Effect of Reverse Auctions, Spatial Targeting, and Higher Offered Payments," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313926, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Lark, Tyler J., 2020. "Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    13. Jennifer Ifft & Deepak Rajagopal & Ryan Weldzuis, 2019. "Ethanol Plant Location and Land Use: A Case Study of CRP and the Ethanol Mandate," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 37-55, March.
    14. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    15. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    16. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.
    17. Brian Cornish & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2022. "Impact of changes in Title II of the 2018 Farm Bill on the acreage and environmental benefits of Conservation Reserve Program," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1100-1122, June.
    18. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., "undated". "Balancing Complexity and Rent-Seeking in Multi-Attribute Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266293, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Simanti Banerjee & Anthony Kwasnica & James Shortle, 2015. "Information and Auction Performance: A Laboratory Study of Conservation Auctions for Spatially Contiguous Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 409-431, July.
    20. Bruno Wichmann, 2024. "Rent seeking and precautionary bidding in conservation auctions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(3), pages 235-249, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea25:361148. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.