IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/assa23/316533.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Land Use Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An Analysis of Rejected CRP Offers

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenberg, Andrew B.
  • Pratt, Bryan
  • Arnold, David

Abstract

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest agricultural land retirement program in the United States, with the General Signup competitive auction accounting for about one-half of enrolled acreage. In this study, we assess the land use impacts of the CRP, identifying the land uses that could have been retired had rejected offers in the 2016 General Signup instead been accepted. We also compare information from proposed offers with land use decisions after offers were rejected to determine the costs that the program would have to pay to avoid these land uses. In the immediate years after the Signup that we examine, 47 percent of acreage in fields with a rejected offer was planted in crops for grain, while 14 percent was planted in crops for forage, and 10 percent was used for grazing. We find that the fraction of land in each use is relatively consistent across a range of Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) scores. Further, we find that the cost effectiveness of retiring grain and other productive agricultural uses is relatively constant across a large range of EBI scores but is lower for the lowest scoring offers. Finally, we find that program land use impacts vary significantly across states and depend on prior enrollment status.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David, 2022. "Land Use Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An Analysis of Rejected CRP Offers," 2023 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2023, New Orleans, Louisiana 316533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:assa23:316533
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316533/files/Rosenberg_Feng%20Manuscript.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316533?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. Ribaudo, Marc O., 1989. "Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program," Agricultural Economic Reports 308069, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Hellerstein, Daniel & Vilorio, Dennis, 2019. "Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2019," Economic Information Bulletin 288293, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Ruben N. Lubowski & Michael J. Roberts, 2005. "How Cost-Effective Are Land Retirement Auctions? Estimating the Difference between Payments and Willingness to Accept in the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1239-1247.
    4. Hansen, LeRoy, 2007. "Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 267-280, October.
    5. Michael J. Roberts & Ruben N. Lubowski, 2007. "Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 516-538.
    6. 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. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David, 2022. "Land Use Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An Analysis of Rejected CRP Offers," 2022 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting (Virtual), January 7-9, 2022 316533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Mykel R. Taylor & Nathan P. Hendricks & Gabriel S. Sampson & Dillon Garr, 2021. "The Opportunity Cost of the Conservation Reserve Program: A Kansas Land Example," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 849-865, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Thilo W. Glebe, 2022. "The influence of contract length on the performance of sequential conservation auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 739-764, March.
    5. Wallander, Steven & Aillery, Marcel & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hand, Michael S., 2013. "The Role of Conservation Programs in Drought Risk Adaptation," Economic Research Report 262224, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Hansen, LeRoy, 2007. "Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 267-280, October.
    7. Walls, Margaret & Riddle, Anne, 2012. "Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-08, Resources for the Future.
    8. Hellerstein, Daniel M., 2017. "The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 601-610.
    9. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Murphy, Geraldine & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne, 2014. "Modelling the Participation Decision in Agri-Environmental Schemes," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183069, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    13. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    14. Banerjee, Simanti & Kwasnica, Anthony M. & Shortle, James S., 2012. "Agglomeration bonus in small and large local networks: A laboratory examination of spatial coordination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 142-152.
    15. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    16. 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.
    17. Michelle Wander & Todd Nissen, 2004. "Value of Soil Organic Carbon in Agricultural Lands," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 417-431, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Wallander, Steven & Hellerstein, Daniel M. & Johnsen, Reid, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Conservation Auctions Revisited: The Benefits of Information Rents," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Heimlich, Ralph & Claassen, Roger & Peters, Mark, 2001. "Least-cost management of nonpoint source pollution: source reduction versus interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in the Mississippi Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-197, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;
    All these 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:assa23:316533. 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.