Cited by 38

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

Canales, Elizabeth, Bergtold, Jason S., Williams, Jeffery R.·2024·American Journal of Agricultural Economics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajae.12414

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00433.x · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.01 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.004 · DOI
  4. 10.2139/ssrn.4166379 · DOI
  5. 10.2489/jswc.68.6.501 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00526.x · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00038-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1162/GLEP_a_00413 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.045 · DOI
  10. Batte Marvin T., 2000, Factors Influencing the Profitability of Precision Farming Systems, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55, 12
  11. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S1074070800000195 · DOI
  13. 10.1017/S1742170517000278 · DOI
  14. 10.2134/agronj15.0086 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107871 · DOI
  16. 10.2134/agronj2017.08.0431 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10533-022-00948-2 · DOI
  18. 10.1080/09640568.2017.1406340 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/agec.12591 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/aepp.13003 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/ajae.12338 · DOI
  22. 10.3368/le.84.1.66 · DOI
  23. 10.3368/le.94.1.19 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 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.
  25. 10.1111/1467-8276.00501 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/09640560701712234 · DOI
  27. Crespi John M., 2021, The First Legal Step for an Agricultural Carbon Market Is in the Growing Climate Solutions Act of 2021
  28. 10.1088/1748-9326/aafa30 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01197.x · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s10640-005-7962-6 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.050 · DOI
  34. 10.1093/ajae/aax040 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.007 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/1467-8489.12012 · DOI
  37. Greene William H., 2012, Econometric Analysis
  38. 10.1093/aepp/ppx041 · DOI
  39. 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.236 · DOI
  40. 10.1006/cogp.1998.0710 · DOI
  41. 10.2134/agronj2006.0137 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.trb.2011.05.023 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2003.tb00163.x · DOI
  45. 10.1080/14693062.2021.1948384 · DOI
  46. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00048.x · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.compag.2007.04.009 · DOI
  48. Lambert Dayton M., 2015, Bundled Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies by Cotton Producers, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 40, 325
  49. 10.1093/erae/jbz020 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/S0167-2681(95)90015-2 · DOI
  51. 10.1287/trsc.1110.0389 · DOI
  52. 10.3368/le.97.2.305 · DOI
  53. Lichtenberg Erik, 2004, Cost‐Responsiveness of Conservation Practice Adoption: A Revealed Preference Approach, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 420
  54. 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.013 · DOI
  55. 10.1017/CBO9780511753831 · DOI
  56. 10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00358.x · DOI
  58. 10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00066-5 · DOI
  59. 10.1007/s10479-008-0381-7 · DOI
  60. 10.3368/le.89.4.722 · DOI
  61. 10.1007/s11119-018-9611-4 · DOI
  62. 10.1007/s11119-019-09674-6 · DOI
  63. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00027.x · DOI
  64. 10.1080/14693062.2018.1467827 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.031 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010 · DOI
  67. 10.1002/aepp.13009 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1002/aepp.13248 · DOI
  69. 10.1093/ajae/aau071 · DOI
  70. 10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y · DOI
  71. 10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50010-3 · DOI
  72. 10.2307/2998573 · DOI
  73. 10.1007/s00267-013-0184-8 · DOI
  74. Ribaudo Marc O., 2017, Conservation Programs Can Accomplish More with Less by Improving Cost‐Effectiveness, Choices, 32, 1
  75. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.004 · DOI
  76. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.010 · DOI
  77. 10.1111/cjag.12013 · DOI
  78. 10.1080/09640560902958172 · DOI
  79. SAS Institute Inc., 2011, SAS/QC® 9.3 User's Guide
  80. Sawadgo Wendiam, 2022, The Invisible Elephant: Disadoption of Conservation Practices in the United States, Choices, 37, 1
  81. 10.1017/S1742170521000132 · DOI
  82. 10.1111/1477-9552.12538 · DOI
  83. Schimmelpfennig David, 2016, Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture. Economic Research Report (ERR‐217)
  84. 10.1007/s11119-018-9599-9 · DOI
  85. 10.1007/s11166-006-8289-6 · DOI
  86. Thompson N. M., 2022, Opportunities and Challenges Associated with “Carbon Farming” for U.S. Row‐Crop Producers, Choices, 37, 1
  87. 10.2134/agronj2011.0291 · DOI
  88. 10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.03.002 · DOI
  89. 10.1007/BF00122574 · DOI · Paper page
  90. 10.1177/0272989X10386116 · DOI
  91. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x · DOI
  92. Wade Tara, 2015, Economic Information Bulletin (EIB‐147)
  93. Wallander Steven, 2021, Economic Information Bulletin (EIB‐222)
  94. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01894.x · DOI · Paper page
  95. 10.2489/jswc.64.1.27A · DOI
  96. 10.1111/ajae.12396 · DOI
  97. Wongpiyabovorn Oranuch, 2021, Futures Market for Ag Carbon Offsets Under Mandatory and Voluntary Emission Targets. 2021. Agricultural Policy Review
  98. 10.1002/aepp.13254 · DOI
  99. 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
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