IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/roafes/v98y2017i4d10.1007_s41130-018-0063-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does crop rotation with legumes provide an efficient means to reduce nutrient loads and GHG emissions?

Author

Listed:
  • Sanna Lötjönen

    (University of Helsinki)

  • Markku Ollikainen

    (University of Helsinki)

Abstract

We investigate crop rotation with legumes from economic and environmental perspectives by asking how effective they are at providing profits and reducing nutrient runoff and greenhouse gas emissions compared with monoculture cultivation. We study this effectiveness in three alternative policy regimes: the free market optimum, the Finnish agri-environmental scheme, and socially optimal cultivation, and also design policy instruments to achieve the socially optimal outcomes in land use and fertilization. We first develop an analytical model to describe crop rotation and the role of legumes, and examine its implications for water and climate policies. Drawing on Finnish agricultural data, we then use numerical simulations and show that shifting from monoculture cultivation to crop rotation with legumes provides economically and environmentally better outcomes. Crop rotation with legumes also reduces the variability in profits caused by stochastic weather. The optimal instruments implementing the social optimum depend on nutrient and climate damage (nitrogen tax), as well as carbon sequestration and nutrient reduction benefits (buffer strip subsidy).

Suggested Citation

  • Sanna Lötjönen & Markku Ollikainen, 2017. "Does crop rotation with legumes provide an efficient means to reduce nutrient loads and GHG emissions?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 283-312, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:roafes:v:98:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s41130-018-0063-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s41130-018-0063-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41130-018-0063-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41130-018-0063-z?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. Atanu Saha & C. Richard Shumway & Hovav Talpaz, 1994. "Joint Estimation of Risk Preference Structure and Technology Using Expo-Power Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 173-184.
    2. Lankoski, Jussi, 2013. "Counterfactual approach for assessing agri-environmental policy: The case of the Finnish water protection policy," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    3. Horan, Richard D. & Shortle, James S. & Abler, David G., 2004. "The Coordination and Design of Point-Nonpoint Trading Programs and Agri-Environmental Policies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 61-78, April.
    4. Richard D. Horan & James S. Shortle, 2005. "When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Second-Best Point-Nonpoint Trading Ratios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 340-352.
    5. Phoebe Koundouri & Marita Laukkanen & Sami Myyrä & Céline Nauges, 2009. "The effects of EU agricultural policy changes on farmers' risk attitudes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 53-77, March.
    6. Richard S.J. Tol, 2011. "The Social Cost of Carbon," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 419-443, October.
    7. Horan, Richard D. & Shortle, James S. & Abler, David G., 1998. "Ambient Taxes When Polluters Have Multiple Choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 186-199, September.
    8. David A. Hennessy, 2006. "On Monoculture and the Structure of Crop Rotations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 900-914.
    9. L. E. Drinkwater & P. Wagoner & M. Sarrantonio, 1998. "Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses," Nature, Nature, vol. 396(6708), pages 262-265, November.
    10. James S. Shortle & James W. Dunn, 1986. "The Relative Efficiency of Agricultural Source Water Pollution Control Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(3), pages 668-677.
    11. Xing, Liu & Pietola, Kyosti, 2005. "Forward Hedging Under Price and Production Risk of Wheat," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24467, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Talaat El-Nazer & Bruce A. McCarl, 1986. "The Choice of Crop Rotation: A Modeling Approach and Case Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(1), pages 127-136.
    13. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen, 2003. "Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(1), pages 51-75, March.
    14. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    15. David A. Hennessy, 1998. "The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 46-57.
    16. Lankoski, Jussi & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Counterfactual approach for assessing agri-environmental policy: The case of the Finnish water protection policy," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 2013(02), pages 165-193, June.
    17. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen & Pekka Uusitalo, 2006. "No-till technology: benefits to farmers and the environment? Theoretical analysis and application to Finnish agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 193-221, June.
    18. Hogh-Jensen, Henning & Loges, Ralf & Jorgensen, Finn V. & Vinther, Finn P. & Jensen, Erik S., 2004. "An empirical model for quantification of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in grass-clover mixtures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 181-194, November.
    19. Kenneth J. Arrow & Robert C. Lind, 1974. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 3, pages 54-75, Palgrave Macmillan.
    20. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    21. Ing-Marie Gren, 2001. "International Versus National Actions Against Nitrogen Pollution of the Baltic Sea," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(1), pages 41-59, September.
    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. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2019. "Economic Drivers of Legume Production: Approached via Opportunity Costs and Transaction Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Sanna Lötjönen & Esa Temmes & Markku Ollikainen, 2020. "Dairy Farm Management when Nutrient Runoff and Climate Emissions Count," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 960-981, May.

    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. Karen Fisher-Vanden & Sheila Olmstead, 2013. "Moving Pollution Trading from Air to Water: Potential, Problems, and Prognosis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 147-172, Winter.
    2. Mitchell, Paul David, 1999. "The theory and practice of green insurance: insurance to encourage the adoption of corn rootworm IPM," ISU General Staff Papers 1999010108000013154, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Ibirénoyé Romaric Sodjahin & Fabienne Femenia & Obafemi Philippe Koutchade & A. Carpentier, 2022. "On the economic value of the agronomic effects of crop diversification for farmers: estimation based on farm cost accounting data [Valeur économique des effets agronomiques de la diversification de," Working Papers hal-03639951, HAL.
    4. Céline Nauges & Christopher J. O'Donnell & John Quiggin, 2011. "Uncertainty and technical efficiency in Finnish agriculture: a state-contingent approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(4), pages 449-467, October.
    5. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    6. Lankoski, Jussi & Ollikainen, Markku, 2011. "Biofuel policies and the environment: Do climate benefits warrant increased production from biofuel feedstocks?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 676-687, February.
    7. Heberling, Matthew T. & García, Jorge H. & Thurston, Hale W., 2010. "Does encouraging the use of wetlands in water quality trading programs make economic sense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1988-1994, August.
    8. Qiuzhen Chen & Timo Sipiläinen & John Sumelius, 2014. "Assessment of Agri-Environmental Externalities at Regional Levels in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, May.
    9. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2017. "Nutrient Pollution: A Wicked Challenge for Economic Instruments," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-39, April.
    10. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Lehtonen, Heikki & Kujala, Sanna, 2007. "Climate change impacts on crop risks and agricultural production in Finland," 101st Seminar, July 5-6, 2007, Berlin Germany 9259, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Kim, Tae-Hun, 2008. "The measurement of farmers' risk attitudes using a non-structural approach," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 31(2), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    14. Liu, Xing & Lehtonen, Heikki & Purola, Tuomo & Pavlova, Yulia & Rötter, Reimund & Palosuo, Taru, 2016. "Dynamic economic modelling of crop rotations with farm management practices under future pest pressure," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 65-76.
    15. Larry Karp, 2005. "Nonpoint Source Pollution Taxes and Excessive Tax Burden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(2), pages 229-251, June.
    16. COCHARD François & ROZAN Anne & SPAETER Sandrine, 2006. "Prevention and Compensation of Muddy Flows: Some Economic Insights," LERNA Working Papers 06.24.217, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    17. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    18. Jordaan, Henry & Grove, Bennie, 2008. "Factors affecting the use of forward pricing methods in price risk management with special reference to the influence of risk aversion," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Anton, Jesus & Mouel, Chantal Le, 2004. "Do counter-cyclical payments in the 2002 US Farm Act create incentives to produce?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 277-284, December.
    20. Sergey S. Rabotyagov & Adriana M. Valcu & Catherine L. Kling, 2014. "Reversing Property Rights: Practice-Based Approaches for Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint-source Water Pollution When Emissions Aggregate Nonlinearly," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(2), pages 397-419.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop rotation; Greenhouse gas emissions; Legumes; Nutrient loads;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:spr:roafes:v:98:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s41130-018-0063-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.