The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conservation intensification under risk: An assessment of adoption, additionality, and farmer preferences
Abstract
Conservation practices used on agricultural cropland can provide important ecosystem services. The United States relies largely on voluntary programs to incentivize adoption of conservation practices, but the success of these efforts relies on good program design. We use a choice experiment to evaluate farmers' willingness to adopt more intensive in‐field conservation practices (continuous no‐till, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, and variable rate application of inputs) using a nonlinear extended expected utility framework that incorporates risk under a conservation contract. We contribute to the literature by providing insights regarding producers' preference for incentive payment mechanism (federal program or carbon market) and the incentive payment needed to induce additionality and practice continuity. We find that although an additional payment might be needed to promote practice continuity among farmers who have previously adopted cover crops, in the case of continuous no‐till, adopters might be willing to forgo additional payment to continue benefiting from the use of this practice. Our results also revealed producers prefer conservation contracts accruing higher off‐farm environmental benefits and federally administered over carbon market programs. This is an important result given an increased public interest in climate change and new proposed carbon mitigation policies and private carbon market initiatives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis
West, T. O., & Post, W. M. (2002) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.1930 · Cited by 2,215
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316136232 · Cited by 1,585
Testing for Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans and Conservation Tillage
Perry, E. D., Moschini, G., & Hennessy, D. A. (2016) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aaw001 · Cited by 61
An overview of carbon offsets from agriculture
González-Ramírez, J., Kling, C. L., & Valcu, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120016 · Cited by 23
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 99
- 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00433.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.01 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.004 · DOI
- 10.2139/ssrn.4166379 · DOI
- 10.2489/jswc.68.6.501 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00526.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00038-4 · DOI
- 10.1162/GLEP_a_00413 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.045 · DOI
- Batte Marvin T., 2000, Factors Influencing the Profitability of Precision Farming Systems, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55, 12
- 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1074070800000195 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1742170517000278 · DOI
- 10.2134/agronj15.0086 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107871 · DOI
- 10.2134/agronj2017.08.0431 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10533-022-00948-2 · DOI
- 10.1080/09640568.2017.1406340 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/agec.12591 · DOI
- 10.1002/aepp.13003 · DOI
- 10.1111/ajae.12338 · DOI
- 10.3368/le.84.1.66 · DOI
- 10.3368/le.94.1.19 · DOI · Paper page
- Claassen Roger MariaBowman JonathanMcFadden DavidSmith andStevenWallander.2018.Tillage Intensity and Conservation Cropping in the United States. Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB‐197). U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
- 10.1111/1467-8276.00501 · DOI
- 10.1080/09640560701712234 · DOI
- Crespi John M., 2021, The First Legal Step for an Agricultural Carbon Market Is in the Growing Climate Solutions Act of 2021
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aafa30 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01197.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s10640-005-7962-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.050 · DOI
- 10.1093/ajae/aax040 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.007 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-8489.12012 · DOI
- Greene William H., 2012, Econometric Analysis
- 10.1093/aepp/ppx041 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.236 · DOI
- 10.1006/cogp.1998.0710 · DOI
- 10.2134/agronj2006.0137 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.trb.2011.05.023 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2003.tb00163.x · DOI
- 10.1080/14693062.2021.1948384 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00048.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.compag.2007.04.009 · DOI
- Lambert Dayton M., 2015, Bundled Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies by Cotton Producers, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 40, 325
- 10.1093/erae/jbz020 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0167-2681(95)90015-2 · DOI
- 10.1287/trsc.1110.0389 · DOI
- 10.3368/le.97.2.305 · DOI
- Lichtenberg Erik, 2004, Cost‐Responsiveness of Conservation Practice Adoption: A Revealed Preference Approach, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 420
- 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.013 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511753831 · DOI
- 10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00358.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00066-5 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10479-008-0381-7 · DOI
- 10.3368/le.89.4.722 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11119-018-9611-4 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11119-019-09674-6 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00027.x · DOI
- 10.1080/14693062.2018.1467827 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.031 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010 · DOI
- 10.1002/aepp.13009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/aepp.13248 · DOI
- 10.1093/ajae/aau071 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y · DOI
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50010-3 · DOI
- 10.2307/2998573 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8 · DOI
- Ribaudo Marc O., 2017, Conservation Programs Can Accomplish More with Less by Improving Cost‐Effectiveness, Choices, 32, 1
- 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.010 · DOI
- 10.1111/cjag.12013 · DOI
- 10.1080/09640560902958172 · DOI
- SAS Institute Inc., 2011, SAS/QC® 9.3 User's Guide
- Sawadgo Wendiam, 2022, The Invisible Elephant: Disadoption of Conservation Practices in the United States, Choices, 37, 1
- 10.1017/S1742170521000132 · DOI
- 10.1111/1477-9552.12538 · DOI
- Schimmelpfennig David, 2016, Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture. Economic Research Report (ERR‐217)
- 10.1007/s11119-018-9599-9 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11166-006-8289-6 · DOI
- Thompson N. M., 2022, Opportunities and Challenges Associated with “Carbon Farming” for U.S. Row‐Crop Producers, Choices, 37, 1
- 10.2134/agronj2011.0291 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.03.002 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00122574 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0272989X10386116 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x · DOI
- Wade Tara, 2015, Economic Information Bulletin (EIB‐147)
- Wallander Steven, 2021, Economic Information Bulletin (EIB‐222)
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01894.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2489/jswc.64.1.27A · DOI
- 10.1111/ajae.12396 · DOI
- Wongpiyabovorn Oranuch, 2021, Futures Market for Ag Carbon Offsets Under Mandatory and Voluntary Emission Targets. 2021. Agricultural Policy Review
- 10.1002/aepp.13254 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00524.x · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Canales, E., Bergtold, J. S., & Williams, J. R.
- Venue
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-06-25
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-75
- ISSN
- 0002-9092
- 1467-8276
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
- Licence
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (KS601924, 7003361, 1024218)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review