IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/03-wp326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multiple Benefits of Carbon-Friendly Agricultural Practices: Empirical Assessment of Conservation Tillage

Author

Listed:
  • Lyubov A. Kurkalova
  • Catherine L. Kling
  • Jinhua Zhao

Abstract

In this study, we estimate empirically the multiple benefits of a subsidy policy that would offer payments to farmers in return for the adoption of conservation tillage and compare the outcomes of alternative targeting designs for such a policy. Using data for roughly 12,000 National Resource Inventory (NRI) points, we simulate for the state of Iowa the least-cost policy schemes for offering payment incentives. We use an economic model of conservation tillage adoption to evaluate the costs of adoption, and we use a model that simulates physical processes (Environmental Policy Integrated Climate, or EPIC) to estimate the environmental benefits of adoption at each of the NRI points. We assess the costs and environmental consequences of two targeting options. The first is a practice-based policy instrument that maximizes the acres of land in conservation tillage, regardless of the level of environmental benefits achieved. The second is a performance-based instrument that yields the highest amount of environmental benefits per dollar spent. We consider four performance-based benefits: carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, reduction in nitrogen runoff, reduction of erosion of soil by wind, and reduction of erosion of soil by water. We find that the practice-based instrument provides high proportions of the four benefits relative to the performance-based instrument, especially at higher budget levels. Similarly, we estimate that targeting one of the four benefits provides high percentages of the other benefits compared to the amounts obtainable if they were targeted directly.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Catherine L. Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2003. "Multiple Benefits of Carbon-Friendly Agricultural Practices: Empirical Assessment of Conservation Tillage," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp326, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:03-wp326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/03wp326.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=456
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    2. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    3. Stavins, Robert & Plantinga, Andrew & Lubowski, Ruben, 2005. "Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-04, Resources for the Future.
    4. van 't Veld, Klaas & Plantinga, Andrew, 2005. "Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 59-81, July.

    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:ias:cpaper:03-wp326. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.