IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20687.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost Effective Targeting Of Land Retirement To Improve Water Quality: A Multi-Watershed Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Wanhong
  • Khanna, Madhu
  • Farnsworth, Richard L.
  • Onal, Hayri

Abstract

An integrated watershed management framework that combines economic, hydrologic and GIS modeling is developed to study cost effective land retirement in multiple watersheds to achieve off-site sediment reduction goal. This integrated framework examines two alternative standards-a uniform standard under which each watershed is required to achieve the same sediment reduction goal and a non-uniform standard under which marginal cost of sediment abatement is equal across watersheds. Furthermore, for each standard, costs of abatement under two alternative rental instruments based on marginal cost of sediment abatement ($/ton) and uniform payments per acre ($/acre) are examined. Then the cost effectiveness of the four policy options (uniform standard with $/ton and $/acre instrument, non-uniform standard with $/ton and $/acre instrument) is discussed. The integrated framework is applied to 12 agricultural watersheds in Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement program (CREP) region. The watersheds varied in size between 29,995 and 70,849 acres. Cropland within 900 feet of streams-129,955 acres (33.4% of all cropland in the 12 watersheds)-is considered eligible for enrollment into the CREP. Consistent with Illinois' program, a sediment reduction goal of 20% is selected for all of the simulations. Policy implications from the empirical results are quite interesting. With either a $/ton or a $/acre instrument, the non-uniform standard, which equalizes marginal cost of abatement across watersheds, outperforms the uniform standard policy. With either a uniform or non-uniform standard, a $/ton instrument outperforms a $/acre instrument. The least preferred policy option, the uniform standard with a $/acre instrument, is 2.5 times as costly as the most preferred policy option, the non-uniform standard with a $/ton instrument. These results suggest that program administrators may want to consider a program that includes a non-uniform standard and a rental payment instrument based on marginal cost of abatement in order to achieve their objectives at least cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Wanhong & Khanna, Madhu & Farnsworth, Richard L. & Onal, Hayri, 2001. "Cost Effective Targeting Of Land Retirement To Improve Water Quality: A Multi-Watershed Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20687, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20687
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20687/files/sp01ya01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20687?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. Marc O. Ribaudo, 1986. "Consideration of Offsite Impacts in Targeting Soil Conservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(4), pages 402-411.
    2. Carpentier, Chantal Line & Bosch, Darrell J. & Batie, Sandra S., 1998. "Using Spatial Information To Reduce Costs Of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Dana L. Hoag & Jennie S. Hughes-Popp, 1997. "Theory and Practice of Pollution Credit Trading in Water Quality Management," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 252-262.
    4. Parveen P. Setia & C. Tim Osborn, 1989. "Targeting Soil Conservation Incentive Payments," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 95-103.
    5. Huang, Wen-Yuan & Uri, Noel D., 1992. "An assessment of alternative agricultural policies to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 213-234, June.
    6. Marc O. Ribaudo, 1989. "Targeting the Conservation Reserve Program to Maximize Water Quality Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(4), pages 320-332.
    7. Anastasia Lintner & Alfons Weersink, 1999. "Endogenous Transport Coefficients: Implications for Improving Water Quality from Multi-Contaminants in an Agricultural Watershed," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(2), pages 269-296, September.
    8. Parks P. J. & Kramer R. A., 1995. "A Policy Simulation of the Wetlands Reserve Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 223-240, March.
    9. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, J. & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5220, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David, 1996. "Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1065, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Douglas M. Larson & Gloria E. Helfand & Brett W. House, 1996. "Second-Best Tax Policies to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1108-1117.
    12. Rodney B.W. Smith, 1995. "The Conservation Reserve Program as a Least-Cost Land Retirement Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 93-105.
    13. Gloria E. Helfand & Brett W. House, 1995. "Regulating Nonpoint Source Pollution Under Heterogeneous Conditions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 1024-1032.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Khanna, Madhu & Yang, Wanhong & Farnsworth, Richard L. & Onal, Hayri, 2002. "Evaluating The Cost Effectiveness Of Land Retirement Programs," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19740, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Yang, Wanhong & Khanna, Madhu & Farnsworth, Richard & Onal, Hayri, 2003. "Integrating economic, environmental and GIS modeling to target cost effective land retirement in multiple watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 249-267, September.
    3. Yang, Wanhong & Khanna, Madhu & Farnsworth, Richard L. & Onal, Hayri, 2000. "Optimal Targeting Of Crep To Improve Water Quality: Determining Land Rental Offers With Endogenous Sediment Deposition Coefficients," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21807, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    5. Yang, Wanhong & Isik, Murat, 2003. "Integrating Farmer Decision-Making to Target Land Retirement Programs," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22062, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Khanna, Madhu & Isik, Murat & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 157-174, August.
    7. Isik, Murat, 2005. "The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19542, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Wu, JunJie & Boggess, William G., 1999. "The Optimal Allocation of Conservation Funds," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 302-321, November.
    9. Horan, Richard D. & Claassen, Roger & Cooper, Joseph C., 2000. "Environmental Risk And Agri-Environmental Policy Design," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21827, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Brady, Mark, 2003. "The relative cost-efficiency of arable nitrogen management in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 53-70, November.
    11. Y. Farzin & Jonathan Kaplan, 2004. "Nonpoint Source Pollution Control under Incomplete and Costly Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 489-506, August.
    12. Sergey S. Rabotyagov & Manoj Jha & Todd D. Campbell, 2010. "Nonpoint-Source Pollution Reduction for an Iowa Watershed: An Application of Evolutionary Algorithms," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(s1), pages 411-431, December.
    13. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.
    14. Philippe Bontems & Gilles Rotillon & Nadine Turpin, 2008. "Acceptable reforms of agri-environmental policies," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 118(6), pages 847-883.
    15. 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.
    16. James Shortle & David Abler & Richard Horan, 1998. "Research Issues in Nonpoint Pollution Control," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 571-585, April.
    17. P. Bontems & N. Turpin & Gilles Rotillon, 2003. "Acceptibility constraints and self-selecting agri-environmental policies," THEMA Working Papers 2003-14, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    18. Uchida, Emi & Xu, Jintao & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. ""Grain For Green" In China: Cost-Effectiveness And Sustainability Of A Conservation Set-Aside Program," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22252, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Eigenraam, Mark & Strappazzon, Loris & Lansdell, Nicola & Beverly, Craig & Stoneham, Gary, 2006. "Designing Frameworks to Deliver Unknown Information to Support MBIs," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25673, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Valcu, Adriana Mihaela, 2013. "Agricultural nonpoint source pollution and water quality trading: empirical analysis under imperfect cost information and measurement error," ISU General Staff Papers 201301010800004451, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:ags:aaea01:20687. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.