IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v40y2009i1p95-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Pannell

Abstract

A previous study developed a framework for choosing among groups of policy mechanisms for encouraging environmentally beneficial land‐use change. The framework highlights that these choices should depend on the relative levels of private (or internal) net benefits, and public (or external) net benefits. Incentive‐based mechanisms (polluter‐pays and/or beneficiary‐pays) and extension need to be targeted carefully to appropriate projects—where private net benefits are close to zero, and/or public net benefits are more extremely positive or negative. This article focuses on policy mechanisms that alter the net benefits of changing land management, including R&D to develop new technologies, and training to improve the skill of landholders at using existing technologies. These policy options are now treated more comprehensively within the public benefits: private benefits framework. Benefits of technology‐change projects can include reductions in the opportunity cost of compliance with environmental programs, increases in the public benefits of a particular type of land‐use change, or improvements in private net benefits, resulting in public benefits through greater or more rapid adoption by private landholders. From an environmental management perspective, technology development is most relevant where public net benefits of land use change are positive and private net benefits are negative, but not highly negative. There is a set of projects for which technology change is the only viable alternative to no action, highlighting the importance of technology change in these cases.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Pannell, 2009. "Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 95-102, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:40:y:2009:i:1:p:95-102
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00362.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00362.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00362.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    2. Anders Skonhoft & Jan Tore Solstad, 1998. "The Political Economy of Wildlife Exploitation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 16-31.
    3. Heidi Gjertsen & HChristopher B. Barrett, 2004. "Context-Dependent Biodiversity Conservation Management Regimes: Theory and Simulation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(3), pages 321-339.
    4. Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J. & Lindner, Robert K., 2004. "Does agricultural extension pay?: A case study for a new crop, lupins, in Western Australia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 17-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger, 2009. "Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial "lifestyle" rural landholders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2679-2687, August.
    2. Huang, Junlong & Tang, Zhuo & Liu, Dianfeng & He, Jianhua, 2020. "Ecological response to urban development in a changing socio-economic and climate context: Policy implications for balancing regional development and habitat conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P. & Phrommarat, B., 2017. "Integrating economic and environmental impact analysis: The case of rice-based farming in northern Thailand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2015. "A Dynamic Economic Model of Soil Conservation Involving Genetically Modified Crop," Working Papers id:6623, eSocialSciences.
    5. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    6. David J. Pannell & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2021. "What Can Environmental Economists Learn from the COVID‐19 Experience?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 105-119, March.
    7. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2015. "A Dynamic Economic Model of Soil Conservation Involving Genetically Modified Crop," Working Papers 2015-096, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    8. Olubode-Awosola, Femi, 2011. "Integrated Assessment Modelling of Complexity in the New Zealand Farming Industry," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115404, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "A dynamic economic model of soil conservation and drought tolerance involving genetically modified crops," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 18(1), pages 40-66, October.
    10. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M., 2010. "Australia’s National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality: a retrospective assessment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-20.
    11. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger, 2009. "Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial "lifestyle" rural landholders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2679-2687, August.
    2. George W. Norton & Jeffrey Alwang, 2020. "Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 8-20, March.
    3. Anders Skonhoft, 1999. "On the Optimal Exploitation of Terrestrial Animal Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 45-57, January.
    4. Nordblom, Thomas L. & Hume, I.H. & Finlayson, J.D. & Pannell, David J. & Holland, J., 2013. "Upstream-downstream benefit analysis of policy on water use by upstream tree plantations," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152173, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Emile Noël, 1996. "Quelques réflexions sur les perspectives politico-institutionnelles de l'intégration européenne en 2000 et au-delà," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 39, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    6. Conrad, Jon M. & Lopes, Adrian A., 2017. "Poaching and the dynamics of a protected species," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 55-67.
    7. Doris Behrens & Birgit Bednar-Friedl & Michael Getzner, 2009. "Sustainable management of an alpine national park: handling the two-edged effect of tourism," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 17(3), pages 233-253, September.
    8. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    9. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    10. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Alexander Pfaff, 2013. "On the Endogeneity of Resource Co-management: Theory and Evidence from Indonesia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 308-329.
    11. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Tang, Kai & Hailu, Atakelty & Kragt, Marit E. & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "The response of broadacre mixed crop-livestock farmers to agricultural greenhouse gas abatement incentives," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 11-20.
    13. Johannesen, Anne Borge, 2007. "Protected areas, wildlife conservation, and local welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 126-135, April.
    14. Brett Bryan & John Kandulu, 2011. "Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(3), pages 875-892, February.
    15. Townsend, K. & Charles, M.B., 2008. "Jarhead and Deskilling in the Military: Potential Implications for the Australian Labour Market," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 34(1), pages 64-78.
    16. Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    17. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Curtis L. Rollins & Stephanie R. Simpson & Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Evaluating an Agricultural Extension Program Aimed at Improving Biodiversity in Alberta, Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 331-353, June.
    19. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    20. Roberts, Anna M. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme & Vigiak, Olga, 2012. "Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 11-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:40:y:2009:i:1:p:95-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.