IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea11/103675.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Farmers Bid Into the Conservation Reserve Program: An Empirical Analysis of CRP Offers Data

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobs, Keri L.
  • Thurman, Walter N.
  • Marra, Michele C.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobs, Keri L. & Thurman, Walter N. & Marra, Michele C., 2011. "How Farmers Bid Into the Conservation Reserve Program: An Empirical Analysis of CRP Offers Data," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103675, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea11:103675
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.103675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/103675/files/AAEA%20Selected%20Paper%20_13761.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.103675?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. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Robbin Shoemaker, 1989. "Agricultural Land Values and Rents under the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(2), pages 131-137.
    3. David Zilberman, 1996. "The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of CRP Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 961-971.
    4. 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.
    5. Orden, David & Paarlberg, Robert & Roe, Terry, 1999. "Policy Reform in American Agriculture," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226632643, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Marie Lynn Miranda, 1992. "Landowner Incorporation of Onsite Soil Erosion Costs: An Application to the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 434-443.
    8. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David, 1996. "Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1065, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Keri L. Jacobs & Walter N. Thurman & Michele C. Marra, 2014. "The Effect of Conservation Priority Areas on Bidding Behavior in the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 1-25.
    2. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    3. Wanhong Yang & Madhu Khanna & Richard Farnsworth & Hayri Önal, 2005. "Is Geographical Targeting Cost-Effective? The Case of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 70-88.
    4. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Holm-Muller, Karin & Radke, Volker & Weis, Jurgen, 2002. "Umweltfördermaßnahmen in der Landwirtschaft – Teilnehmerauswahl durch Ausschreibungen?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 51(02), pages 1-9.
    8. 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.
    9. Marc N. Conte & Robert Griffin, 2019. "Private Benefits of Conservation and Procurement Auction Performance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 759-790, July.
    10. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    11. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    12. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    13. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    14. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    15. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., 2017. "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.
    16. Cattaneo, Andrea & Bucholtz, Shawn & Dewbre, Joe & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2002. "The Crp Balancing Act: Trading Off Costs And Multiple Environmental Benefits," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19810, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.
    18. Rolfe, John & Whitten, Stuart & Windle, Jill, 2017. "The Australian experience in using tenders for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 611-620.
    19. Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Lynch, Lori & Li, Tongzhe, 2017. "When Does Public Information Undermine the Efficiency of Reverse Auctions for the Purchase of Ecosystem Services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 212-226.
    20. repec:ags:aaea22:335794 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Wu, JunJie & Weber, Bruce, 2012. "Implications of a Reduced Conservation Reserve Program," C-FARE Reports 156625, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:aaea11:103675. 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.