IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/28604.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Priorities In Cost Sharing For Soil And Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study

Author

Listed:
  • Bastos, Guilherme S.
  • Lichtenberg, Erik

Abstract

A number of studies have questioned how successfully paid land diversion has been adapted to address broad environmental policy concerns. Similar evaluations of cost-sharing programs have not been performed. This paper uses a revealed preference approach to estimate the implicit decision criteria used to allocate federal cost-sharing funds in Maryland, during the fiscal years 1994 through 1996. Funds appear to have been awarded preferentially to projects that enhanced agricultural productivity and farm profitability. In contrast to findings regarding the CRP, however, our results do not indicate that cost share awards in Maryland were inconsistent with stated environmental quality priorities.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Bastos, Guilherme S. & Lichtenberg, Erik, 2000. "Priorities In Cost Sharing For Soil And Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Working Papers 28604, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28604
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28604/files/wp00-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28604?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    2. David Zilberman, 1996. "The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of CRP Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 961-971.
    3. 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.
    4. Cropper, Maureen L. & William N. Evans & Stephen J. Berard & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Paul R. Portney, 1992. "The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 175-197, February.
    5. Lacy Glenn Thomas, 1988. "Revealed Bureaucratic Preference: Priorities of the Consumer Product Safety Commission," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 102-113, Spring.
    6. 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.
    7. Daniel McFadden, 1976. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 55-72, Spring.
    8. 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.
    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. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden, 2007. "Does Cost-Share Replicate Water Quality Trading Projects? Implications for a Possible Partnership," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 201-215.
    2. Cattaneo, Andrea & Claassen, Roger & Johansson, Robert C. & Weinberg, Marca, 2005. "Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?," Economic Research Report 7248, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Erik Lichtenberg, 2019. "Conservation and the Environment in US Farm Legislation," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 49-55, April.
    4. Robert C. Johansson & Andrea Cattaneo, 2006. "Indices for Working Land Conservation: Form Affects Function," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 567-584.
    5. Lichtenberg, Erik & Smith-Ramirez, Ricardo, 2003. "Cost Sharing, Transaction Costs, And Conservation," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22141, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Hannah Jacobs & Claire Schary, 2005. "Trust and Communication: Mechanisms for Increasing Farmers’ Participation in Water Quality Trading," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    7. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    8. Ricardo Smith Ramírez, 2007. "Testing for information asymmetries in voluntary conservation contracts," Working papers DTE 402, CIDE, División de Economía.
    9. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Some Hard Truths About Agriculture and the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 24-33, April.
    10. Ricardo Smith, 2006. "Measuring the Effects of Working-Land Conservation Programs on Adoption of Soil-Erosion Reducing Practices and Permanent Vegetative Cover," Working papers DTE 369, CIDE, División de Economía.

    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. Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David & Kim, Youngho, 2023. "Penalties, Targeting, and Performance in Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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).
    3. Keri L. Jacobs & Walter N. Thurman & Michele C. Marra, 2014. "The Effect of Conservation Priority Areas on Bidding Behavior in the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 1-25.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Feng, Hongli & Kling, Catherine L. & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia, 2007. "Cac Versus Incentive-Based Instruments in Agriculture: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10796, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    8. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    12. Jacobs, Keri L. & Thurman, Walter N. & Marra, Michele C., 2011. "How Farmers Bid Into the Conservation Reserve Program: An Empirical Analysis of CRP Offers Data," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103675, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. 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.
    14. Cattaneo, Andrea & Bucholtz, Shawn & Dewbre, Joe & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2002. "The Crp Balancing Act: Trading Off Costs And Multiple Environmental Benefits," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19810, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Feng, Hongli & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Gassman, Philip W., 2006. "Environmental conservation in agriculture: Land retirement vs. changing practices on working land," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 600-614, September.
    16. 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).
    17. Charles Z. Zheng, 2000. "Optimal Auction in a Multidimensional World," Discussion Papers 1282, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Holm-Muller, Karin & Radke, Volker & Weis, Jurgen, 2002. "Umweltfördermaßnahmen in der Landwirtschaft – Teilnehmerauswahl durch Ausschreibungen?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 51(02), pages 1-9.
    19. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Conservation Auctions: An Experimental Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 497-515.
    20. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:umdrwp:28604. 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/daumdus.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.