IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v139y2017icp75-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effective Land Use Planning: Optimizing Land Use and Land Management Patterns to Maximize Social Benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Pennington, Derric N.
  • Dalzell, Brent
  • Nelson, Erik
  • Mulla, David
  • Taff, Steve
  • Hawthorne, Peter
  • Polasky, Stephen

Abstract

Improving water quality and other ecosystem services in agriculturally dominated watersheds is an important policy objective in many regions of the world. A major challenge is overcoming the associated costs to agricultural producers. We integrate spatially-explicit models of ecosystem processes with agricultural commodity production models to analyze the biophysical and economic consequences of alternative land use and land management patterns to achieve Total Maximum Daily Loads targets in a proto-typical agricultural watershed. We apply these models to find patterns that maximize water quality objectives for given levels of foregone agricultural profit. We find it is possible to reduce baseline watershed phosphorus loads by ~20% and sediment loads by ~18% without any reduction in agricultural profits. Our results indicate that meeting more stringent targets will result in substantial economic loss. However, when we add the social benefits from water quality improvement and carbon sequestration to private agricultural net returns we find that water quality improvements up to 50% can be obtained at no loss to societal returns. The cost of meeting water quality targets will vary over time as commodity and ecosystem service prices fluctuate. If crop prices drop or the value of ecosystem services increase, then achieving higher water quality goals will be less costly.

Suggested Citation

  • Pennington, Derric N. & Dalzell, Brent & Nelson, Erik & Mulla, David & Taff, Steve & Hawthorne, Peter & Polasky, Stephen, 2017. "Cost-effective Land Use Planning: Optimizing Land Use and Land Management Patterns to Maximize Social Benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 75-90.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:75-90
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916310813
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.024?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemkes, Robin J. & Farley, Joshua & Koliba, Christopher J., 2010. "Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2069-2074, September.
    2. Stephen Polasky & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Kris Johnson, 2011. "The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 219-242, February.
    3. Parkhurst, Gregory M, 2011. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Mechanisms to Achieve Desired Landscape Patterns," MPRA Paper 34551, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Brouwer, Roy & Slangen, Louis H G, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 25(1), pages 53-72.
    5. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2011. "The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 192-211, January.
    6. Loomis, John B. & Kroeger, Timm & Richardson, Leslie & Casey, Frank, 2008. "A Benefit Transfer Toolkit for Fish, Wildlife, Wetlands, and Open Space," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11.
    7. Hansen, LeRoy & Ribaudo, Marc, 2008. "Economic Measures of Soil Conservation Benefits: Regional Values for Policy Assessment," Technical Bulletins 184312, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Gassman, Philip W. & Reyes, Manuel R. & Green, Colleen H. & Arnold, Jeffrey G., 2007. "The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions," ISU General Staff Papers 200701010800001027, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    10. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    11. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Roberts, Roland K., 2008. "Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 403-416, June.
    12. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Sven Wunder & Paul J. Ferraro, 2010. "Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 254-274, Summer.
    13. Richard S. J. Tol, 2009. "The Economic Effects of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(2), pages 29-51, Spring.
    14. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
    15. Gascoigne, William R. & Hoag, Dana & Koontz, Lynne & Tangen, Brian A. & Shaffer, Terry L. & Gleason, Robert A., 2011. "Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1715-1725, August.
    16. Plambeck, Erica L., 2012. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through operations and supply chain management," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S1), pages 64-74.
    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. Etter, Andrés & Andrade, Angela & Nelson, Cara R. & Cortés, Juliana & Saavedra, Kelly, 2020. "Assessing restoration priorities for high-risk ecosystems: An application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Mardani Najafabadi, Mostafa & Ziaee, Saman & Nikouei, Alireza & Ahmadpour Borazjani, Mahmoud, 2019. "Mathematical programming model (MMP) for optimization of regional cropping patterns decisions: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 218-232.
    3. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2018. "Land Use Scenario Modeling Based on Local Knowledge for the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Przemysław Śleszyński & Maciej Nowak & Paweł Sudra & Magdalena Załęczna & Małgorzata Blaszke, 2021. "Economic Consequences of Adopting Local Spatial Development Plans for the Spatial Management System: The Case of Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Xu, Yuelu & Elbakidze, Levan & Yen, Haw & Arnold, Jeffrey G. & Gassman, Philip W. & Hubbart, Jason & Strager, Michael P., 2022. "Integrated assessment of nitrogen runoff to the Gulf of Mexico," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    7. Wenyuan Jiang & Zhenxiang Zeng & Zhengyun Zhang & Yichen Zhao, 2022. "Regulation and Optimization of Urban Water and Land Resources Utilization for Low Carbon Development: A Case Study of Tianjin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, February.
    8. Xu, Yuelu & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Integrated assessment of N runoff in the Gulf of Mexico: an application of spatially explicit partial equilibrium and HAWQS models," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313917, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Yan, Jinming & Zhang, Dongsheng & Xia, Fangzhou, 2021. "Evaluation of village land use planning risks in green concepts: The case of Qiwangfen Village in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Juutinen, Artti & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Haara, Arto & Karhu, Jouni & Nieminen, Mika & Minkkinen, Kari & Penttilä, Timo & Laatikainen, Matti & Tolvanen, Anne, 2019. "Trade-offs between economic returns, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Muñoz Gielen, Demetrio & Mualam, Nir, 2019. "A framework for analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of land readjustment regulations: Comparison of Germany, Spain and Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Yuxiang Ma & Min Zhou & Chaonan Ma & Mengcheng Wang & Jiating Tu, 2021. "Hybrid Economic-Environment-Ecology Land Planning Model under Uncertainty—A Case Study in Mekong Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Huang, Yu-Kai & Bawa, Ranjit & Mullen, Jeffrey & Hoghooghi, Nahal & Kalin, Latif & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2022. "Designing Watersheds for Integrated Development (DWID): A stochastic dynamic optimization approach for understanding expected land use changes to meet potential water quality regulations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    14. Saraiva Farinha, Maycon Jorge Ulisses & Mario Bernardo, Luciana Virginia & Filho, Adelsom Soares & Berezuk, André Geraldo & da Silva, Luciana Ferreira & Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini, 2019. "Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-57.
    15. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.

    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. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    2. Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren & Thomas Crocker, 2016. "Tradable Set-Aside Requirements (TSARs): Conserving Spatially Dependent Environmental Amenities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 719-744, April.
    3. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    4. Ingram, Jane Carter & Wilkie, David & Clements, Tom & McNab, Roan Balas & Nelson, Fred & Baur, Erick Hogan & Sachedina, Hassanali T. & Peterson, David Dean & Foley, Charles Andrew Harold, 2014. "Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 10-21.
    5. de Leeuw, Joyce M. & Said, Mohammed Y. & Kifugo, Shem & Ogutu, Joseph O. & Osano, Philip & de Leeuw, Jan, 2014. "Spatial variation in the willingness to accept payments for conservation of a migratory wildlife corridor in the Athi-Kaputiei Plains, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 16-24.
    6. Nguyen, Minh Duc & Ancev, Tiho & Randall, Alan, 2020. "Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    8. Martin Persson, U. & Alpízar, Francisco, 2013. "Conditional Cash Transfers and Payments for Environmental Services—A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Judging Differences in Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 124-137.
    9. Benjamin Wirth & Andreas Mense, 2014. "Flat Prices, Cell Phone Base Stations, and Network Structure," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1552, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    11. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    13. Gerling, Charlotte & Drechsler, Martin & Keuler, Klaus & Sturm, Astrid & Wätzold, Frank, 2022. "Time to consider the timing of conservation measures: designing cost-effective agri-environment schemes under climate change," MPRA Paper 113877, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    15. Guillaume POUYANNE & Frederic GASCHET, 2013. "The Effect Of Current And Future Land Use On House Prices," ERSA conference papers ersa13p249, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Shinbrot, Xoco A. & Holmes, Ignacia & Gauthier, Madeleine & Tschakert, Petra & Wilkins, Zoë & Baragón, Lydia & Opúa, Berta & Potvin, Catherine, 2022. "Natural and financial impacts of payments for forest carbon offset: A 14 year-long case study in an indigenous community in Panama," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D.F. & Védrine, Lionel & Legras, Sophie & Le Gallo, Julie & Bellassen, Valentin, 2023. "Drivers of PES effectiveness: Some evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    19. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    20. Reeves, Tyler & Mei, Bin & Siry, Jacek & Bettinger, Pete & Ferreira, Susana, 2020. "Effect of working forest conservation easements on surrounding property values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    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:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:75-90. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.