How Differently Do Farms Respond to Agri-environmental Policies? A Probabilistic Machine-Learning Approach

References

1. 1. Afriat, S.N.

   (1972). Efficiency estimation of production function. International Economics Review 13 (3): 568–598.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Andini, M.,
   2. Ciani, E.,
   3. de Blasio, G.,
   4. D’Ignazio, A.,
   5. Salvestrini, V.

   (2018). Targeting with machine learning: An application to a tax rebate program in Italy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 156: 86–102.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Angrist, J. D.,
   2. Pischke, J. S.

   (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. 1. Arata, L.,
   2. Sckokai, P.

   (2016). The impact of agri-environmental schemes on farm performance in five EU member states: A DID-matching approach. Land Economics 92 (1): 167–186.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
5. 1. Athey, S.,
   2. Imbens, G.W.

   (2016). Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. PNAS-Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (27): 7353–7360.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Athey, S.,
   2. Imbens, G.W.

   (2019). Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annual Review of Economics 11: 685–725.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Athey, S.,
   2. Tibshirani, J.,
   3. Wager, S.

   (2019). Generalised random forests. Annals of Statistics 47 (2): 1148–1178.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Bàrberi, P.,
   2. Moonen A.C.

   (2020). Reconciling agricultural production with biodiversity conservation. Burleigh-Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge (UK).
9. 1. Bartolini, F.,
   2. Vergamini, D.,
   3. Longhitano, D.,
   4. Povellato, A.

   (2021). Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environment benefits? A case study in Northeastern Italy. Land Use Policy 107: 104862.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Baldoni, E.,
    2. Coderoni, S.,
    3. Esposti, R.

    (2021). Immigrant workforce and agriculture productivity: evidence from Italian farm-level data, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 805–834, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbaa033

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Baldoni, E.,
    2. Esposti, R.

    , 2020, Agricultural productivity in space: an Econometric Assessment Based on Farm-Level Data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103(4): 1525–1544.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Belloni, A.,
    2. Chernozhukov, V.,
    3. Hansen, C.

    (2014). High-dimensional methods and inference on structural and treatment effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (2): 29–50.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Bertoni, D.,
    2. Aletti, G.,
    3. Cavicchioli, D.,
    4. Micheletti, A.,
    5. Pretolani, R.

    (2021). Estimating the CAP greening effect by machine learning techniques: A big data ex-post analysis. Environmental Science and Policy 119: 44–53.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Bertoni, D.,
    2. Curzi, D.,
    3. Aletti, G.,
    4. Olper A.

    (2020). Estimating the effects of agri-environmental measures using difference-in-difference coarsened exact matching. Food Policy 90: 101790.

    OpenUrl
15. 1. Bodory, H.,
    2. Busshoff, H.,
    3. Lechner, M.

    (2022). High-resolution treatment effects estimation: Uncovering effect heterogeneities with the modified causal forest. Entropy, 24(8), 1039.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Breiman, L.

    (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Breiman, L.

    (1984). Classification and regression trees. Routledge. New York. ISBN: 9781315139470.
18. 1. Brown, C.
    2. Kovács, E.,
    3. Herzon, I.,
    4. Villamayor-Tomas, S.,
    5. Albizua, A.,
    6. Galanaki, A.,
    7. Grammatikopoulou, I.,
    8. McCracken, D.,
    9. Alkan Olsson, J.,
    10. Zinngrebe, Y.

    (2021). Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 101, 105136.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Burton, R.,
    2. Schwarz, G.

    (2013). Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30 (1): 628–641.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Carnagie, N.,
    2. Dorie, V.,
    3. Hill, J.J.

    (2019). Examining treatment effect heterogeneity using BART. Observational Studies 5 (2): 52–70.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Carvalho, C.,
    2. Feller, A.,
    3. Murrary, J.,
    4. Woody, S.,
    5. Yeager, D.

    (2019). Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: results from a data challenge. Observational Studies 5 (2): 21–35.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Chabé-Ferret, S.,
    2. Subervie, J.

    (2013). How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agri-environmental schemes by DID-matching. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65 (1): 12–27.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Chavas, J.P.,
    2. Cox, T.L.

    (1995). On nonparametric supply response analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77 (1): 80–92.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Chernozhukov, V.,
    2. Chetverikov, D.,
    3. Demirer, M.,
    4. Duflo, E.,
    5. Hansen, C.,
    6. Newey, W.,
    7. Robins, J.

    (2018). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal 21 (1): C1–C68.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
25. 1. Chipman, H.A., &
    2. Gu, H.

    (2005). Interpretable dimension reduction. Journal of applied statistics, 32(9), 969–987.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. 1. Chipman, H.A.,
    2. George, E.I.,
    3. McCulloch, R.E.

    (1998). Bayesian CART model search. Journal of the American Statistical Association 93 (443): 935–948.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. 1. Chipman, H.A.,
    2. George, E.I.,
    3. Mcculloch, R.E.

    (2010). Bart: Bayesian additive regression trees. Annals of Applied Statistics 4 (1): 266–298.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Coderoni S.,
    2. Arata L.,
    3. Salvatore R.,
    4. Tiboldo G.

    (2023). More Enterprise - Youth and female entrepreneurship in agriculture. In: “Mapping and document case studies on family farming in the region of Europe and Central Asia to enhance knowledge exchange through good practices”, (eds.) FAO, Rome (forthcoming).
29. 1. Coderoni, S.,
    2. Esposti, R.

    (2018). CAP payments and agricultural GHG emissions in Italy. A farm-level assessment. Science of the Total Environment 627: 427–437.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Coderoni S.,
    2. Helming J.,
    3. Pérez-Soba M.,
    4. Sckokai P.,
    5. Varacca A.

    (2021). Key policy questions for ex-ante impact assessment of European agricultural and rural policies. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (9): 094044.

    OpenUrl
31. Commission of European Communities (2000). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy. COM(2000) 20 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 26 pp.
32. 1. Dabkiene, V.,
    2. Balezentis, T.,
    3. Streimikiene, D.

    (2021). Development of agri-environmental footprint indicator using the FADN data: Tracking development of sustainable agricultural development in Eastern Europe. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 2121–2133.

    OpenUrl
33. 1. Davis, J., &
    2. Heller, S.B.

    (2017). Using causal forests to predict treatment heterogeneity: An application to summer jobs. American Economic Review, 107 (5): 546–50.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Dessart, F. J.,
    2. Barreiro-Hurlé, J.,
    3. van Bavel, R.

    (2019). Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46(3): 417–471.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. 1. Dick, J.,
    2. Smith, P.,
    3. Smith, R.,
    4. Lolly, A.,
    5. Moxey, A.,
    6. Booth, J.,
    7. Campbell, C.,
    8. Coulter, D.

    (2008). Calculating farm scale greenhouse gas emissions. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster, UK.
36. 1. Dorie, V.,
    2. Harada, M.,
    3. Carnegie, N. B., &
    4. Hill, J.

    (2016). A flexible, interpretable framework for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Statistics in medicine, 35(20), 3453–3470.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
37. 1. Dorie, V.,
    2. Hill, J.,
    3. Shalit, U.,
    4. Scott, M.,
    5. Cervone, D.

    (2019). Automated versus do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: Lessons learned from a data analysis competition. Statistical Science 34 (1): 43–68.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
38. 1. Ehlers, M. H.,
    2. Huber, R., &
    3. Finger, R.

    (2021). Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation. Food Policy, 100, 102019.

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Erjavec, K.,
    2. Erjavec, E.

    (2015). Greening the CAP – Just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy 51: 53–62.

    OpenUrl
40. 1. Esposti, R.

    (2000). The impact of public R&D and extension expenditure on Italian agriculture. An application of a mixed parametric/nonparametric approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics 27 (3): 365–384.

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Esposti, R.

    (2017a). The empirics of decoupling: Alternative estimation approaches of the farmlevel production response. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (3): 499–537.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Esposti, R.

    (2017b). The heterogeneous farm-level impact of the 2005 CAP-first pillar reform: A multivalued treatment effect estimation. Agricultural Economics 48 (3): 373–386.

    OpenUrl
43. 1. Esposti, R.

    (2022a). The Coevolution of Policy Support and Farmers Behaviour and Performance. An investigation on Italian agriculture over the 2008–2019 period. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 11(3): 231–264.

    OpenUrl
44. 1. Esposti, R.

    (2022b). Non-Monetary Motivations of Agri-Environmental Policies Adoption. A Causal Forest Approach. Quaderno di Ricerca n. 459, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali, Università Politecnica delle Marche.
45. European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. European Commission, COM(2019) 640 final, Brussels.
46. European Commission (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. COM(2020) 381 final, Brussels.
47. European Council (2009). Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community. OJ L 328, 15.12.2009.
48. 1. Finn, J.A.,
    2. Bartolini, F.,
    3. Bourke, D.,
    4. Kurz, I.,
    5. Viaggi, D.

    , 2009. Ex-post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts’ judgements and multicriteria analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52, 717–737.

    OpenUrl
49. Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming Challenges and choices for global sustainability Final Project Report the Government Office for Science, London.
50. 1. Gelman, A.,
    2. Stern, H.S.,
    3. Carlin, J.B.,
    4. Dunson, D.B.,
    5. Vehtari, A.,
    6. Rubin, D.B.

    (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
51. 1. Guerrero, S.

    (2021). Characterising agri-environmental policies: Towards measuring their progress. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper N. 155, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
52. 1. Hahn, P.R.,
    2. Carvalho, C.M.,
    3. Puelz, D.,
    4. He, J.

    (2018). Regularisation and confounding in linear regression for treatment effect estimation. Bayesian Analysis 13 (1): 163–182.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Hahn, P.R.,
    2. Murray, J.S.,
    3. Carvalho, C.M.

    (2020). Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: Regularisation, confounding, and heterogeneous effects (with discussion). Bayesian Analysis 15 (3): 965–1056.

    OpenUrl
54. 1. Hastie, T.,
    2. Tibshirani, R.,
    3. Friedman, J. H., &
    4. Friedman, J. H.

    (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction Vol. 2, Springer, New York, NY, USA.
55. 1. Heiler, P.,
    2. Knaus, M.

    (2022). Effect or Treatment Heterogeneity? Policy Evaluation with Aggregated and Disaggregated Treatments. IZA Discussion Paper No. 15580, Bonn.
56. 1. Hill, JL

    (2011). Bayesian nonparametric modelling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 20 (1): 217–240.

    OpenUrl
57. 1. Hill, J.,
    2. Linero, A.,
    3. Murray, J.

    (2020). Bayesian additive regression trees: a review and look forward. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 7: 251–278.

    OpenUrl
58. 1. Hill, J.,
    2. Su, Y.S.

    (2013). Assessing lack of common support in causal inference using Bayesian nonparametrics: Implications for evaluating the effect of breastfeeding on children’s cognitive outcomes. The Annals of Applied Statistics: 1386–1420.
59. 1. Hoff, P. D.

    (2009). A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods Vol. 580, Springer, New York, NY, USA.
60. 1. Hu, L.,
    2. Gu, C.,
    3. Lopez, M.,
    4. Ji, J.,
    5. Wisnivesky, J.

    (2020). Estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments in observational studies with a binary outcome. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29 (11): 3218–3234.

    OpenUrl
61. 1. Huber, W.

    (2020). Generation of a random variable with fixed covariance structure. Available at: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/444039/whuber-s-generationof-a-random-variable-with-fixed-covariance-structure
62. 1. Hudec, B.,
    2. Kaufmann, C.,
    3. Landgrebe-Trinkunaite, R.,
    4. Naumann, S.

    , 2007. Evaluation of Soil Protection Aspects in Certain Programmes of Measures Adopted by Member States. Final report. European Commission, ISBN: 978-92-79-20665-8, doi:10.2779/12302

    OpenUrlCrossRef
63. 1. Hünermund, P.,
    2. Louw, B.,
    3. Caspi, I.

    (2023). Double machine learning and automated confounder selection: A cautionary tale. Journal of Causal Inference 11(1): 20220078.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Imai, K.,
    2. Ratkovic, M.

    (2013). Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomised program evaluation. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7(1): 443–470.

    OpenUrl
65. 1. Imbens, G.W.

    (2020). Potential outcome and directed acyclic graph approaches to causality: Relevance for empirical practice in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 58(4): 1129–1179.

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Imbens, G.W.,
    2. Rubin, D.B.

    (2015). Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
67. 1. Imbens, G.W.,
    2. Wooldridge, J.M.

    . (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47(1): 5–86.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
68. IPCC (2006) 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara, T. and Tanabe, K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
69. 1. Kapelner, A.,
    2. Bleich, J.

    (2016). bartMachine: Machine learning with Bayesian additive regression trees. Journal of Statistical Software 70 (4): 1–40.

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Knaus, M.C.,
    2. Lechner, M.,
    3. Strittmatter, A.

    (2020). Heterogeneous employment effects of job search programmes: A machine learning approach. Journal of Human Resources, 0718–9615R1.
71. 1. Knaus, M.C.,
    2. Lechner, M.,
    3. Strittmatter, A.

    (2021). Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence. The Econometrics Journal 24 (1): 134–161.

    OpenUrl
72. 1. Künzel, S. R.,
    2. Sekhon, J. S.,
    3. Bickel, P. J.,
    4. Yu, B.

    (2019). Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10): 4156–4165.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
73. 1. Lechner, M.

    (2018). Modified causal forests for estimating heterogeneous causal effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.09487.
74. 1. Lee, K.,
    2. Bargagli-Stoffi, F.J.,
    3. Dominici, F.

    (2020). Causal rule ensemble: Interpretable inference of heterogeneous treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09036.
75. 1. Li, F.,
    2. Ding, P.,
    3. Mealli, F.

    (2022). Bayesian causal inference: A critical review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15460.
76. 1. Linden, A.,
    2. Yarnold, P.R.

    (2016). Combining machine learning and propensity score weighting to estimate causal effects in multivalued treatments. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 22(6): 871–881.

    OpenUrl
77. 1. Lopez, M.J.,
    2. Gutman, R.

    (2017). Estimation of causal effects with multiple treatments: A review and new ideas. Statistical Science 32 (3): 432–454.

    OpenUrl
78. 1. McElreath, R.

    (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. CRC Press.
79. 1. Mennig, P.,
    2. Sauer, J.

    (2020). The impact of agri-environment schemes on farm productivity: A DID-matching approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics 47 (3): 1045–1093.

    OpenUrl
80. National Rural Network (2010). Report on Cross Compliance Implementation in Italy, Rome.
81. 1. Nethery, R. C.,
    2. Mealli, F., &
    3. Dominici, F.

    (2019). Estimating population average causal effects in the presence of non-overlap: The effect of natural gas compressor station exposure on cancer mortality. The annals of applied statistics, 13(2), 1242.

    OpenUrl
82. 1. Nie, X.,
    2. Wager, S.

    (2021). Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika 108 (2): 299–319.

    OpenUrl
83. 1. Ó hUallacháin, D.,
    2. Finn, J.A.,
    3. Keogh, B.,
    4. Fritch, R.,
    5. Sheridan, H.

    , 2016. A comparison of grassland vegetation from three agri-environment conservation measures. Irish J. Agric. Food Res. 55, 176–191.

    OpenUrl
84. OECD (2022), Making Agri-Environmental Payments More Cost Effective, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
85. OECD (2003) Agriculture and Biodiversity: Developing Indicators for Policy Analysis Proceedings from an OECD Expert Meeting, Zurich, Switzerland, November 2001.
86. 1. Pacini, C.,
    2. Wossink, A.,
    3. Giesen, G.,
    4. Vazzana, C.,
    5. Huirne, R.

    (2003) Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: A farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95: 273–88.

    OpenUrl
87. 1. Paracchini, M.L.,
    2. Britz, W.

    (2010) Quantifying effects of changed farm practices on biodiversity in policy impact assessment – An application of CAPRI-Spat OECD, Paris, France.
88. 1. Pascucci, S.,
    2. de-Magistris, T.,
    3. Dries, L.,
    4. Adinolfi, F., &
    5. Capitanio, F.

    (2013). Participation of Italian farmers in rural development policy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(4), 605–631.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
89. 1. Pearl, J.

    (2009). Causality. Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
90. 1. Pufahl, A., &
    2. Weiss, C. R.

    (2009). Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(1), 79–101.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
91. 1. Purvis, G.,
    2. Louwagie, G.,
    3. Northey, G.,
    4. Mortimer, S.,
    5. Park, J.,
    6. Mauchline, A.,
    7. Finn, J.,
    8. Primdahl, J.,
    9. Vejre, H.,
    10. Vesterager, J.P.,
    11. Knickel, K.,
    12. Kasperczyk, N.,
    13. Balázs, K.,
    14. Vlahos, G.,
    15. Christopoulos, S.,
    16. Peltola, J.

    (2009). Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: The Agri-environmental Footprint Index. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 321–337.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
92. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
93. 1. Rubin, D. B.

    (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5): 688–701.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
94. 1. Shapley, L. S.

    (1953). A value for n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games 2.28 (1953): 307–317.

    OpenUrl
95. 1. Stetter, C.,
    2. Mennig, P., &
    3. Sauer, J.

    (2022). Using Machine Learning to Identify Heterogeneous Impacts of Agri-Environment Schemes in the EU: A Case Study. European Review of Agricultural Economics 49(4): 723–739.

    OpenUrl
96. 1. Storm, H.,
    2. Baylis, K.,
    3. Heckelei, T.

    (2020). Machine learning in agricultural and applied economics. European Review of Agricultural Economics 47 (3): 849–892.

    OpenUrl
97. 1. Uehleke, R.,
    2. Petrick, M.,
    3. Hüttel, S.

    (2022). Evaluations of agri-environmental schemes based on observational farm data: The importance of covariate selection. Land Use Policy 114, 105950.

    OpenUrl
98. 1. VanderWeele, T.J.,
    2. Hernan, M.A.

    (2013). Causal inference under multiple versions of treatment. Journal of Causal Inference 1(1): 1–20.

    OpenUrl
99. 1. VanderWeele, T. J., &
    2. Ding, P.

    (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Annals of internal medicine, 167(4), 268–274.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
100. 1. Vanslembrouck, I.,
     2. Van Huylenbroeck, G., &
     3. Verbeke, W.

     (2002). Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(3), 489–511.

     OpenUrlCrossRef
101. 1. Varacca, A.,
     2. Arata, L.,
     3. Castellari, E., &
     4. Sckokai, P.

     (2023). Does CAP greening affect farms’ economic and environmental performances? A regression discontinuity design analysis. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(2), 272–303.

     OpenUrl
102. 1. Varian, H.

     (1984). The nonparametric approach to production analysis. Econometrica 52 (3): 579–597.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
103. 1. Vollenweider, X.,
     2. Di Falco, S., &
     3. O’Donoghue, C.

     (2011). Risk preferences and voluntary agri-environmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme? Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment working papers (48). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London, UK.
104. 1. Wager, S.,
     2. Hastie, T., &
     3. Efron, B.

     (2014). Confidence intervals for random forests: The jackknife and the infinitesimal jackknife. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), 1625–1651.

     OpenUrl
105. 1. Wager, S.,
     2. Athey, S.

     (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 113 (523): 1228–1242.

     OpenUrl
106. 1. Wąs, A.,
     2. Malak-Rawlikowska, A.,
     3. Zavalloni, M.,
     4. Viaggi, D.,
     5. Kobus, P.,
     6. Sulewski, P.

     (2021). In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes–Does only money matter in Poland? Land Use Policy, 101, 105190.

     OpenUrl
107. 1. Wascher, D.M.

     , 2003. Overview of agricultural landscape indicators across OECD countries. Proceedings of the NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting on Agricultural Landscape, 7–9 October 2002, Oslo, Norway. (Available from URL: https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/overview-on-agricultural-landscape-indicators-across-oecd-countri, accessed 25 January 2023).
108. 1. Westbury, D.B.,
     2. Park, J.R.,
     3. Mauchline, A.L.,
     4. Crane R.T.,
     5. Mortimer, S.R.

     (2011). Assessing the environmental performance of English arable and livestock holdings using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). Journal of Environmental Management 92 (3): 902–909.

     OpenUrlPubMed
109. 1. Woody, S.,
     2. Carvalho, C.M.,
     3. Murray, J.S.

     (2021). Model interpretation through lower-dimensional posterior summarisation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 30(1): 144–161.

     OpenUrl
110. 1. Wooldridge, J. M.

     (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
111. 1. Yeager, D.S.,
     2. Hanselman, P.,
     3. Walton, G.M.,
     4. Murray, J.S.,
     5. Crosnoe, R.,
     6. Muller, C.,
     7. Dweck, C.S.

     (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature 573 (7774): 364–369.

     OpenUrlPubMed
112. 1. Zhen, H.,
     2. Qiao, Y.,
     3. Zhao, H.,
     4. Ju, X.,
     5. Zanoli, R.,
     6. Waqas, M.A.,
     7. Lun, F.,
     8. Knudsen, M.T.

     (2022). Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting ecologically intensified agriculture. Ecosystem Services 56, 101442.

     OpenUrl
113. 1. Zhou, T.,
     2. Elliott, M. R., &
     3. Little, R. J.

     (2019). Penalized spline of propensity methods for treatment comparison. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(525), 1–19.

     OpenUrl
114. 1. Zimmermann, A.,
     2. Britz, W.

     (2016). European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 50: 214–228.

     OpenUrl