Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices

Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices We use propensity score matching to estimate additionality from enrollment in federal cost-share 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%). (<i>JEL Q24, Q28</i>) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Land Economics University of Wisconsin Press

Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-wisconsin-press/additionality-and-the-adoption-of-farm-conservation-practices-tkP3f7zVPq
Publisher
University of Wisconsin Press
Copyright
Copyright by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
ISSN
1543-8325

Abstract

We use propensity score matching to estimate additionality from enrollment in federal cost-share 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%). (<i>JEL Q24, Q28</i>)

Journal

Land EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin Press

Published: Oct 16, 2013

There are no references for this article.