IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeana/46826.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Devkota, Nirmala
  • Paudel, Krishna P.

Abstract

Nutrient runoff from agricultural land can be reduced through production termination to mitigate water pollution. The willingness to accept value to terminate the broiler production is evaluated using sample selection model. The result showed a positive relationship between the decision to participation and stated WTA value indicating the producers are willing to terminate the production but at high cost. The farmer’s perception about government role on water pollution, farm income, information and awareness about other pollution reduction alternatives play a major role on stated WTA amount as well as on participation decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P., 2009. "Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeana:46826
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.46826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/46826/files/saea2009_%20wta.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.46826?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. Christopher F Baum, 2006. "An Introduction to Modern Econometrics using Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number imeus, March.
    2. Sabina L. Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis Van Kooten, 2007. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners' Decisions to Create Forest Carbon Sinks?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 97-114, March.
    3. Bishwanath Goldar & Smita Misra, 2001. "Valuation of Environmental Goods: Correcting for Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies Based on Willingness-to-Accept," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 150-156.
    4. Nape, Steven & Frykblom, Peter & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 2003. "Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 423-430, March.
    5. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    6. Jeffrey Gillespie & Seon‐Ae Kim & Krishna Paudel, 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 89-102, January.
    7. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    8. Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2006. "Technology Adoption under Production Uncertainty: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 657-670.
    9. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Newman, David H. & Bowker, J.M., 2005. "Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 757-770, August.
    11. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    12. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    13. James A. Brox & Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery, 2003. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 414-428.
    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. 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.
    2. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P. & Parajuli, Shanta, 2009. "Broiler Producers’ Willingness To Pay To Manage Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46825, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Buckley, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Mechan, Sarah, 2012. "Operating or not Operating at the Margin: Farmers Willingness to Adopt a Riparian Buffer Zone," Working Papers 148830, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    4. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Glenk, Klaus & Rodriguez-Entrena, M., 2016. "Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236348, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    6. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    7. Raut, Nirmal Kumar & Shrestha, Devendra Prasad, 2011. "Why Low Adult Immunization? An inquiry into the case of Hepatitis B Vaccine in the Peri-Urban Areas of Kathmandu Valley," MPRA Paper 61711, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2015.
    8. Cyrenne, Philippe & Chan, Alan, 2012. "High school grades and university performance: A case study," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 524-542.
    9. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    10. Jennifer Brauner, 2015. "Military spending and democracy," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 409-423, August.
    11. Paudel, Krishna P. & Gauthier, Wayne M. & Westra, John V. & Hall, Larry M., 2008. "Factors Influencing and Steps Leading to the Adoption of Best Management Practices by Louisiana Dairy Farmers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 203-222, April.
    12. Lynch, Lori & Hardie, Ian W. & Parker, Douglas D., 2002. "Analyzing Agricultural Landowners' Willingness To Install Streamside Buffers," Working Papers 28570, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, James Michael & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Kutz, Alicia M. & Clark, Christopher D. & Boyer, Christopher N. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2014. "Willingness to Adopt Best Management Practice Bundles by Beef Cattle Operations in an East Tennessee Watershed," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162475, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Mishra, Ashok K. & Williams, Robert P. & Detre, Joshua D., 2009. "Internet Access and Internet Purchasing Patterns of Farm Households," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Markowski-Lindsay, Marla & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, David B. & Butler, Brett J. & Catanzaro, Paul & Dickinson, Brenton J., 2011. "Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-190.
    17. Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011. "A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
    20. Ngoc, Pham Thi & Meuwissen, Miranda & Le, Tru & Bosma, Roel & Verreth, Johan & Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2015. "Adoption of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems in Pangasius Farms: A Choice Experiment," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212632, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    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:saeana:46826. 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/saeaaea.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.