2017
DOI: 10.1007/s13253-017-0303-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 2012 Census of Agriculture: A Capture–Recapture Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, an estimated 11% of Maryland farmers engage in direct market sales (USDA NASS, 2019b). However, this figure could likely be larger because smaller peri-urban and urban farms are disproportionately not captured by the Census of Agriculture (Rogus & Dimitri, 2015;Young et al, 2017;Young et al, 2018). Research on direct marketing is important because, compared to traditional marketing channels, it is associated with higher business survival rates among small and beginning farmers (Low et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, an estimated 11% of Maryland farmers engage in direct market sales (USDA NASS, 2019b). However, this figure could likely be larger because smaller peri-urban and urban farms are disproportionately not captured by the Census of Agriculture (Rogus & Dimitri, 2015;Young et al, 2017;Young et al, 2018). Research on direct marketing is important because, compared to traditional marketing channels, it is associated with higher business survival rates among small and beginning farmers (Low et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, capture-recapture and other methods that are able to account for population units not included on any list need to be considered. As an example, for the 2012 US Census of Agriculture, capture-recapture was used to adjust for undercoverage, nonresponse, and misclassification (Lohr 2010;and Young et al 2012). Independent samples were drawn from the Census mail list (a subset of the NASS list frame) and the NASS area frame, and a 12.3% adjustment in the number of farms was made for undercoverage of the Census mail list.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the modeling approach by Patyk et al relies on data from the Census of Agriculture (CoA). The CoA, however, is taken only once every 5 years, masks results in small counties, and is based principally on a survey that is affected by non-response and unknown farm locations (26). We demonstrate that our approach identifies significant blind spots in the CoA, identifying counties with zero reported CAFOs that, in fact, have large numbers of CAFOs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%