Effectiveness of Conservation Reserve Programs and Land ‘Slippage’ in Southwestern Kansas

Leathers, Nancy; Harrington, Lisa M.

doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00207

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• lower than CRP acreage in crop production in 1982 (Table 1) • consistent with the 58 percent increase predicted by Roberts and Lubowski (2006) • consistent with the 50 to 80 percent reverse slippage rates suggested in prior research (Love andFoster 1990, Leathers andHarrington 2000) • consistent with the results of a 1993 survey that found that, if the CRP were not available, farmers would return 63 percent of their land to crop production (Osborn, Schnepf, andKeirn 1994, Dodson et al 1994).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update

Hansen¹

2007

Agric. resour. econ. rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the methodology, assumptions, and data used to generate regional and national environmental benefit estimates of the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). It's assumed that, without the program, production and conservation practices on CRP lands would be the same as those used on surrounding lands. When range and forest lands are (are not) included as land-use options, 54 (71) percent of the CRP land would be in crop production—which is consistent with past analyses. Soil erosion would be 222 to 248 million tons per year—about 11 percent—higher than the current level. Benefits are estimated by applying environmental benefit models, estimated in previous analyses, to the CRP's estimated effect on erosion and wildlife habitat. Nationally, the CRP is estimated to provide $1.3 billion in annual benefits, which represents 75 to 80 percent of the program's cost. In seven of the 10 USDA Farm Production Regions, the CRP's environmental benefits exceed costs. Thus, reallocating acreage to these regions could increase net program benefits. However, because many benefits could not be estimated, one cannot conclude that regional and national benefits do not exceed costs.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…However, for a perspective on the effects of reverse slippage, one could assume that reverse slippage equals 100 minus the slippage rate. Most prior research has estimated slippage rates of 20 to 50 'percent (Love andFoster 1990, Leathers andHarrington 2000). Thus one might assume that reverse slippage rates range from 50 to 80 percent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update

Hansen¹

2007

Agric. resour. econ. rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Externality An agent's activity affects the welfare of other agents who do not intend to bear the burden or receive the benefit (Pigou, 1920;Buchanan & Stubblebine, 1962) Positive externalities with forest ecosystem services (Glück, 2000) Negative externalities with pollution (Henderson, 1977) Leakage When a policy action in a jurisdiction leads to the relocation or diffusion of some production and associated economic and environmental outcomes to other jurisdictions (Felder & Rutherford, 1993;Paltsev, 2001) Carbon (Babiker 2005) Forest conservation (Gan & McCarl, 2007) Biodiversity conservation (Ewers & Rodrigues, 2008) Land use (Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011) Spillover effect Used as a synonym for leakage and externality (Aukland et al, 2003;Buchanan & Stubblebine, 1962) Timber (Wear & Murray, 2004) Land use policy (Hyde, Amacher, & Magrath, 1996) Slippage effect Often used as a synonym for leakage and indirect land use change (Leathers & Harrington, 2000;Wu, 2000) Agricultural land conservation (Flemming, 2014) Forest conservation (Alix-Garcia et al, 2012)…”

Section: Terminology Description Key Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for unintended consequences of resource policy: Connecting research that addresses displacement of environmental impacts

Lewison

Johnson²,

Pelc

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural resource policies enacted to protect environmental integrity play an important role in promoting sustainability. However, when resources are shared ecologically, economically, or through a common, global interest, policies implemented to protect resource sustainability in one domain can displace, and in some cases magnify, environmental degradation to other domains. Although such displacement has been recognized as a fundamental challenge to environmental and conservation policy within some resource sectors, there has been little cross‐disciplinary and cross‐sectoral integration to address the problem. This suggests that siloed knowledge may be impeding widespread recognition of the ubiquity of displacement and the need for mitigation. Here, we connect research across multiple disciplines to promote a broader discussion and recognition of the processes and pathways that can lead to displaced impacts that countermand or undermine resource policy and outline a number of approaches that can mitigate displacement.

show abstract

“…For example, approximately 63% of land that left the program by 1997 was returned to crop production and another 31% was used for livestock grazing (Sullivan et al, 2004). In some areas, slippage, an unintended consequence of land use policy, may have occurred as farmers opened up new areas for cultivation to replace other lands that were enrolled in the CRP; although, slippage may have primarily occurred at the start of the CRP program rather than with later enrollment or renewals (Leathers and Harrington, 2000). A few ecoregions had small net increases in agriculture, although it had little effect on the overall direction of land-cover change in the Plains.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Land change variability and human–environment dynamics in the United States Great Plains

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tLand use and land cover changes have complex linkages to climate variability and change, biophysical resources, and socioeconomic driving forces. To assess these land change dynamics and their causes in the Great Plains, we compare and contrast contemporary changes across 16 ecoregions using Landsat satellite data and statistical analysis. Large-area change analysis of agricultural regions is often hampered by change detection error and the tendency for land conversions to occur at the local-scale. To facilitate a regional-scale analysis, a statistical sampling design of randomly selected 10 km × 10 km blocks is used to efficiently identify the types and rates of land conversions for four time intervals between 1973 and 2000, stratified by relatively homogenous ecoregions. Nearly 8% of the overall Great Plains region underwent land-use and land-cover change during the study period, with a substantial amount of ecoregion variability that ranged from less than 2% to greater than 13%. Agricultural land cover declined by more than 2% overall, with variability contingent on the differential characteristics of regional human-environment systems. A large part of the Great Plains is in relatively stable land cover. However, other land systems with significant biophysical and climate limitations for agriculture have high rates of land change when pushed by economic, policy, technology, or climate forcing factors. The results indicate the regionally based potential for land cover to persist or fluctuate as land uses are adapted to spatially and temporally variable forcing factors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Conservation Reserve Programs and Land ‘Slippage’ in Southwestern Kansas

Cited by 27 publications

References 9 publications

Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update

Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update

Accounting for unintended consequences of resource policy: Connecting research that addresses displacement of environmental impacts

Land change variability and human–environment dynamics in the United States Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About