IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205112.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Dynamic Economic Analysis of Nitrogen-Induced Soil Acidification in China

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Ziyan

Abstract

This paper studies the environmental value of nitrogen fertilizer in a rapeseed-rice double-crop system in China to address the issue of nitrogen-induced soil acidification in China’s farmland. Previous literature always regarded the acid rain as the most important contributor to soil acidification. Thus, previous literature seldom linked soil quality with nitrogen leaching but studied acidification as a side product of air pollution. However, the latest scientific evidences show that China’s soil acidification is mainly caused by over-applied nitrogen fertilize because nitrogen leaching creates extra soil acidity in the entire production process. Hence, the first contribution of this study is that it analyzes soil acidification itself as an environmental externality induced by human behavior rather than an indirect consequence of air pollution. The second contribution is that this study solves for the optimal nitrogen management as an alternative way to solve for the problem of acidification while previous literature only focused on lime application. Theoretically, this study uses a dynamic optimization model to solve for the optimal nitrogen application and the steady state soil pH by maximizing the long-term profit of a two-season agriculture production subject to an acidity growth function. In China, the market price of nitrogen fertilizer only reflects its value in agricultural yields but ignores its environmental value. The steady state analysis compares the optimal nitrogen management that considers the environmental value of nitrogen and the myopic management that ignores its environmental value. There are two theoretical results. First, at the steady state, nitrogen application under the optimal management is greater than the myopic management if the total value of the marginal product of the soil pH at the steady state for an entire rotation is negative. If there is no externality generated by the nitrogen at the steady state, there is no difference between the optimal and myopic management. Second, for an increment of the optimal soil pH value, the marginal decrease of the optimal nitrogen application in season 2 is no greater than the marginal increase of the nitrogen application in season 1 adjusted by the absorption rate. Thus, for any increment in the optimal soil pH value, the total nitrogen application of a rotation increases. Hence, the myopic nitrogen management leads to an inefficient soil pH at the steady state for a long-term agricultural production. Empirically, it firstly uses a Seemly Unrelated Regression robusted by Bootstrap and Monte Carlo to estimate the production functions and acidity growth function using soil monitoring and agricultural production data from the World Bank Soil Monitoring Project in Anhui China (2001-2010). Then, following the first order conditions, it finds the numerical solutions for the optimal nitrogen management. The theoretical model shows that ignoring the environmental externality (myopic behavior) increases nitrogen applications and results in a lower steady state soil pH. The empirical results are consistent with theoretical finds. First, the myopic total nitrogen application of a rapeseed-rice system is only 15.74 kg/ha more than that of the optimal management. However, the myopic steady state soil pH is 0.77 units lower than that of the optimal management, which leads to a huge difference in agricultural production. Hence, nitrogen allocation between seasons is as vital as the total nitrogen application in preventing acidification. Second, the social value of nitrogen fertilizer that contains both production and environmental value is 4.92 RMB/kg, which is about two times of its average market price in 2013. Hence, the market price that ignores the environmental value gives the wrong incentives in fertilizer investment. Third, this study measures the market value of soil pH, which is 40.80 RMB/ha. Hence, agricultural inefficiency is created when myopic fertilizer investment decreases future soil pH productivity. This inter-disciplinary study highlights the importance of considering the environmental value of nitrogen fertilizer in a long-term agricultural production. It provides two policy implications to prevent soil acidification in China. First, the government could set the price of nitrogen based on both its production and environmental value. Second, the government could set up a soil monitoring and punishment system based on the value of soil pH to motivate farmers to apply the optimal nitrogen management. These two approaches are more feasible in China than lime application because Chinese farmers do not have the habits of using lime due to institutional reasons. The future direction of this study is to investigate the impacts of these institutional reasons on shaping nitrogen fertilizer and lime application habits in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Ziyan, 2015. "A Dynamic Economic Analysis of Nitrogen-Induced Soil Acidification in China," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205112, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205112
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205112/files/AAEA%20submission_ZYang.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205112?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. Veijo Kaitala & Matti Pohjola & Olli Tahvonen, 1992. "Transboundary air pollution and soil acidification: A dynamic analysis of an acid rain game between Finland and the USSR," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 161-181, March.
    2. Scott L. Johnson & Richard M. Adams & Gregory M. Perry, 1991. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1063-1073.
    3. Steven S. Vickner & Dana L. Hoag & W. Marshall Frasier & James C. Ascough, 1998. "A Dynamic Economic Analysis of Nitrate Leaching in Corn Production under Nonuniform Irrigation Conditions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 397-408.
    4. C. S. Kim & John E. Hostetler, 1991. "Policy Implications of a Water Quality-constrained Dynamic Model of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 39(4), pages 781-791, December.
    5. D. Gale Johnson, 1950. "Resource Allocation under Share Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 111-111.
    6. Satya N. Yadav, 1997. "Dynamic Optimization of Nitrogen Use When Groundwater Contamination Is Internalized at the Standard in the Long Run," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 931-945.
    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. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Heimlich, Ralph & Claassen, Roger & Peters, Mark, 2001. "Least-cost management of nonpoint source pollution: source reduction versus interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in the Mississippi Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-197, May.
    2. Hubert Stahn & Agnès Tomini, 2014. "On the Environmental Efficiency of Water Storage: The Case of a Conjunctive Use of Ground and Rainwater," AMSE Working Papers 1452, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    3. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & Nergis, Nermin & Schwabe, Kurt A., 2007. "Effects of Nutrient Restrictions on Confined Animal Facilities: Insights from a Structural Model," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 10253, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    5. Roseta-Palma, Catarina, 2002. "Groundwater Management When Water Quality Is Endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 93-105, July.
    6. Catarina Roseta-Palma, 2003. "Joint Quantity/Quality Management of Groundwater," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(1), pages 89-106, September.
    7. Thomas, Arthur C. & Boisvert, Richard N., 1995. "The Bioeconomics Of Regulating Nitrates In Groundwater From Agricultural Production Through Taxes, Quantity Restrictions, And Pollution Permits," Research Bulletins 122999, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. Hyytiäinen, Kari & Niemi, Jarkko K. & Koikkalainen, Kauko & Palosuo, Taru & Salo, Tapio, 2011. "Adaptive optimization of crop production and nitrogen leaching abatement under yield uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(8), pages 634-644, October.
    9. Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Nermin Nergis & Kurt A. Schwabe, 2008. "Effects of Nutrient Restrictions on Confined Animal Facilities: Insights from a Structural‐Dynamic Model," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 219-241, June.
    10. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Agnès Tomini, 2012. "Water Conservation versus Soil Salinity Control," EconomiX Working Papers 2012-8, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    11. repec:ilo:ilowps:244121 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Smala Fanokoa, Pascaux & Telahigue, Issam & Zaccour, Georges, 2011. "Buying cooperation in an asymmetric environmental differential game," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 935-946, June.
    13. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Personnel Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121883, December.
    14. Engwerda, J.C., 1998. "On the Scalar Feedback Nash Equilibria in the Infinite Horizon LQ-Game," Other publications TiSEM 3142d140-f18c-4699-be28-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Sedakov, Artem & Qiao, Han & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "A model of river pollution as a dynamic game with network externalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(3), pages 1136-1153.
    16. Schwabe, Kurt A., 2000. "Modeling state-level water quality management: the case of the Neuse River Basin," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 37-62, January.
    17. Coxhead, Ian A. & Demeke, Bayou, 2006. "Modeling Spatially Differentiated Environmental Policy in a Philippine Watershed: Tradeoffs between Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21115, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. JunJie Wu & Bruce Babcock, 2001. "Spatial Heterogeneity and the Choice of Instruments to Control Nonpoint Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(2), pages 173-192, February.
    19. Johan Eyckmans & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Simulating Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 218-249, Springer.
    20. M. A. Taslim, 1992. "A Survey of Theories of Cropshare Tenancy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(3), pages 254-275, September.
    21. J.C. Engwerda & B. Aarle & J.E.J. Plasmans, 1999. "The (in)finite horizon open‐loop Nash LQ game:An application to EMU," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 88(0), pages 251-273, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea15:205112. 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.