Reference health
An Economic Assessment of Policy Options to Reduce Agricultural Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
49/49 checkable references clean · checked 2026-09-08
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
40 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 49 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1111/j.1939-7445.2008.00029.x
MODELING FIRM SPATIAL INTERDEPENDENCE USING NATIONAL DATA COVERAGES: A REGIONAL APPLICATION TO MANURE MANAGEMENT
resolves10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb04192.x
CONTINENTAL SCALE SIMULATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE<sup>1</sup>
resolves10.1002/hyp.5611
SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling
resolves10.1007/s10980-007-9080-z
Effects of stream map resolution on measures of riparian buffer distribution and nutrient retention potential
resolves10.1017/s106828050000455x
Phosphorus Imbalances in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Can Forestland and Manure Processing Facilities Be the Answers?
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2504019
An Economic Assessment of Policy Options to Reduce Agricultural Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
resolves10.2134/agronj2004.1651
Soil Structural Disturbance Effects on Crop Yields and Soil Properties in a No‐Till Production System
resolves10.1007/s00267-008-9186-3
Landscape Planning for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction I: A Geographical Allocation Framework
resolves10.1006/jeem.1997.0990
The Importance of Site-Specific Information in the Design of Policies to Control Pollution
resolves10.2489/jswc.67.1.51
Taking stock of voluntary nutrient management: Measuring and tracking change
resolves10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.029
Baseline requirements can hinder trades in water quality trading programs: Evidence from the Conestoga watershed
resolves10.2489/jswc.65.6.413
Measuring conservation program best management practice implementation and maintenance at the watershed scale
resolves10.2175/193864700784994812
Manure Nutrients Relative to The Capacity Of Cropland And Pastureland To Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States
resolves10.1093/ajae/aaq190
Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas
resolves10.1177/004728757201000385
Economic Impact of Second-Home Communities, A Case Study of Lake Latonka, Pa. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. November 1970. 55p
resolves10.1080/00224561.1993.12456787
Use of conventional and conservation practices among farmers in the Scioto River Basin of Ohio
resolves10.2307/1060731
Green Taxes: Can We Protect the Environment and Improve the Tax System at the Same Time?
resolves10.2489/jswc.67.5.122a
Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project
resolves10.2134/jeq2005.0149
Economic Feasibility of No‐Tillage and Manure for Soil Carbon Sequestration in Corn Production in Northeastern Kansas
resolves10.2307/1243223
Technology Adoption Decisions under Irreversibility and Uncertainty: An <i>Ex Ante</i> Appproach
resolves10.2307/3146800
Targeting the Conservation Reserve Program to Maximize Water Quality Benefits
resolves10.2139/ssrn.757884
Manure Management for Water Quality Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land
resolves10.1007/s10666-009-9211-9
Optimization and Decision Heuristics for Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Strategies
resolves10.1017/s1068280500007619
Economics and Environmental Markets: Lessons from Water-Quality Trading
resolves10.1021/es2020499
Reforming Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Policy in an Increasingly Budget-Constrained Environment
resolves10.1093/aepp/ppt010
Differences between Livestock and Crop Producers' Participation in Nutrient Trading
resolves10.1080/07900629849231
Hydrologic Modelling of the United States with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool
resolves10.1029/2009wr008228
An evaluation of nutrient nonpoint offset trading in Virginia: A role for agricultural nonpoint sources?
resolves10.1021/es300540k
Opportunities for Reducing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance Costs: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay
resolves10.2307/3146968
Prosocial Behavior: Private Contributions to Agriculture's Impact on the Environment
The 40 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref1
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checkedCrop Selection, Tillage Practices, and Chemical and Nutrient Applications in Two Regions of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
no DOI — not checkedref10
no DOI — not checkedref12
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedref17
no DOI — not checkedChesapeake Bay Agreement
no DOI — not checkedref19
no DOI — not checkedref20
no DOI — not checkedref21
no DOI — not checkedref22
no DOI — not checkedref23
no DOI — not checkedref25
no DOI — not checkedThe Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical development, applications and future research directions
no DOI — not checkedref30
no DOI — not checkedref35
no DOI — not checkedConfined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients
no DOI — not checkedref40
no DOI — not checkedCrunch Time for Water Quality Trading
no DOI — not checkedWill Nutrient Credit Trading Ever Work? An Assessment of Supply and Demand Problems and Institutional Obstacles
no DOI — not checkedref46
no DOI — not checkedref47
no DOI — not checkedAchieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation
no DOI — not checkedThe Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion Explanations
no DOI — not checkedref57
no DOI — not checkedref68
no DOI — not checkedref71
no DOI — not checkedNonpoint Pollution
no DOI — not checkedref80
no DOI — not checkedref81
no DOI — not checkedImpacts of Conservation Adoption on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Region
no DOI — not checkedref86
no DOI — not checkedref87
no DOI — not checkedref88
no DOI — not checkedref90
no DOI — not checkedref91
no DOI — not checkedInspector General Evaluation Report: Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources
no DOI — not checkedEconomic Incentives for Pollution Control in Agriculture
no DOI — not checkedref97
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-09-08 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2504019"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2504019/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2504019)