A causal analysis of conservation practices on corn yield:evidence from the Mississippi Delta and Arkansas Delta
2020
- 155Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage155
- Downloads109
- Abstract Views46
Thesis / Dissertation Description
Employing the causal inference methods (matching for binary and continuous treatments), I examined the impact of conservation payments on corn yield. I used the propensity score and covariate distance matching and generalized propensity score methods to manage the problem of selection bias since the enrollment of conservation programs (i.e., receiving conservation payments) is not a randomized experiment. Using USDA Economic Research Service – Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ERS-ARMS) field-level data, I assessed whether receiving conservation payments had harm on corn yield in the Mississippi and Arkansas Delta. The findings from the two binary matchings showed that receiving conservation payments didn’t decrease corn yield. The generalized propensity approach revealed that lower conservation payments received held higher corn yield while higher conservation payments led to lower corn yield.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know