Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Keeping Land in Grass: Re-Enrollment Motivations with the Environmental Quality Incentive Program after the Conservation Reserve Program Cover

Keeping Land in Grass: Re-Enrollment Motivations with the Environmental Quality Incentive Program after the Conservation Reserve Program

By: Aaron J. Harp and  Kristie Maczko  
Open Access
|Jun 2024

References

  1. Amaya, A., Presser, S., 2016. Nonresponse Bias for Univariate and Multivariate Estimates of Social Activities and Roles. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(1), 1–36.
  2. Barnes, J.C., Sketch, M., Gramza, A.R., Sorice, M.G., Iovanna, R., Dayer, A.A., 2020. Land use decisions after the Conservation Reserve Program: Re-enrollment, reversion, and persistence in the southern Great Plains. Conservation Science and Practice 2(9), e254.
  3. Brooks, M.E., Dalal, D.K., Nolan, K.P., 2014. Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes? Journal of Applied Psychology 99, 332–340.
  4. Cliff, N., 1993. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin 114, 494–509.
  5. Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  6. Coon, J.J., Van Riper, C.J., Morton, L.W., Miller, J.R., 2020. Evaluating Nonresponse Bias in Survey Research Conducted in the Rural Midwest. Society & Natural Resources 33, 968–986.
  7. Dayer, A.A., Lutter, S.H., Sesser, K.A., Hickey, C.M., Gardali, T., 2018. Private Landowner Conservation Behavior Following Participation in Voluntary Incentive Programs: Recommendations to Facilitate Behavioral Persistence: Facilitating landowner behavioral persistence. Conservation Letters 11, e12394.
  8. de Winter, J.F.C., Dodou, D., n.d. Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 15, Article 11.
  9. Delaney, H.D., Vargha, A., 2002. Comparing several robust tests of stochastic equality with ordinally scaled variables and small to moderate sized samples. Psychological Methods 7, 485–503.
  10. Farm Service Agency (FSA), USDA, 2022. Acres on Contracts Expiring Between 2018 – 2022 that Have Been Enrolled More than Once. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/Acres%20on%20Contracts%20Expiring%20Between%202018-2%20that%20Have%20Been%20Enrolled%20More%20than%20Once%20Sep%202017.pdf. Accessed 9/29/2023.
  11. Fritz, C.O., Morris, P.E., Richler, J.J., 2012. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, 2–18.
  12. Groves, R.M., 2006. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 646–675.
  13. Hellevik, O., 2016. Extreme nonresponse and response bias: A “worst case” analysis. Quality & Quantity 50, 1969–1991.
  14. Hendra, R., Hill, A., 2019. Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias. Evaluation Review 43, 307–330.
  15. Kassambara, A., 2022. rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests. R package version 0.7.1, 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatix
  16. Kirk, R.E., 1996. Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56, 746–759.
  17. Kloke, J., McKean, J.W., 2014. Nonparametric Statistical Methods Using R, Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  18. Liu, P., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., 2023. The influence of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program on local water quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 105, 27–51.
  19. Maher, A.T., Quintana Ashwell, N.E., Tanaka, J.A., Ritten, J.P., Maczko, K.A., 2023. Financial barriers and opportunities for conservation adoption on U.S. rangelands: A region-wide, ranch-level economic assessment of NRCS-sponsored Greater Sage-grouse habitat conservation programs. Journal of Environmental Management 329, 116420.
  20. Mangiafico, S.S., 2023a. rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. R package version 2.4.30, 2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion
  21. Mangiafico, S.S., 2023b. Two-sample Mann–Whitney U Test, in: Summary and Analysis of Extension Program Evaluation in R. Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Brunswick, NJ.
  22. McGraw, K.O., Wong, S.P., 1992. A common language effect size statistic. Psychological Bulletin 111, 361–365.
  23. Pathak, S., Paudel, K.P., Adusumilli, N.C., 2021. Impact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA. Environmental Management 68, 1–16.
  24. Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J.G., Church, S.P., Eanes, F.R., Gao, Y., Gramig, B.M., Ranjan, P., Singh, A.S., 2019. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74, 520–534.
  25. R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R 4.2.2, 2022. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  26. Ranjan, P., Church, S.P., Floress, K., Prokopy, L.S., 2019. Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers' Behaviors in the United States? Society & Natural Resources 32, 1171–1199.
  27. Ruscio, J., 2008. A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors. Psychological Methods 13, 19–30.
  28. Skaggs, R.K., Kirksey, R.E., Harper, W.M., 1994. Determinants And Implication of Post-CRP Land Use Decisions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2), 299–312.
  29. Sweikert, L.A., Gigliotti, L.M., 2019a. Evaluating the role of Farm Bill conservation program participation in conserving America's grasslands. Land Use Policy 81, 392–399.
  30. Sweikert, L.A., Gigliotti, L.M., 2019b. Understanding conservation decisions of agriculture producers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83, 993–1004.
  31. Torchiano, M., 2016. Effsize - a package for efficient effect size computation. https://zenodo.org/record/196082.
  32. Vargha, A., Delaney, H.D., 2000. A Critique and Improvement of the “CL” Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25, 101.
  33. Wan, Z., Xia, X., Lo, D., Murphy, G.C., 2020. How does Machine Learning Change Software Development Practices? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 1857–1871.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/boku-2024-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2719-5430 | Journal ISSN: 0006-5471
Language: English
Page range: 9 - 20
Submitted on: Oct 24, 2023
Accepted on: Apr 23, 2024
Published on: Jun 26, 2024
Published by: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Aaron J. Harp, Kristie Maczko, published by Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.