<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mezzatesta, Mariano</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Newburn, David A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Woodward, Richard T.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Land Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013-11-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">722-742</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3368/le.89.4.722</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">89</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">We use propensity score matching to estimate additionality from enrollment in federal costshare programs for six practices. We analyze farmer adoption decisions based on farmer survey data in Ohio. We develop a new methodological approach to decompose the average treatment effect on the treated according to relative contributions of voluntary adopters and new adopters. Our results indicate that cost-share programs achieve positive levels of additionality for each practice. But percent additionality varies dramatically between practices. Specifically, percent additionality is highest for hayfield establishment (93.3%), cover crops (90.6%), and filter strips (88.9%), while it is lowest for conservation tillage (19.3%). (JEL Q24, Q28)</style></abstract></record></records></xml>