IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/148408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services, Performance Certainty, and Cost-efficiency in Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load

Author

Listed:
  • Wainger, Lisa A.
  • Van Houtven, George
  • Loomis, Ross
  • Messer, Jay
  • Beach, Robert H.
  • Deerhake, Marion

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs depends heavily on program design. We develop an optimization framework to evaluate design choices for the TMDL for the Potomac River, a Chesapeake Bay subbasin. Scenario results suggest that policies inhibiting nutrient trading or offsets between point and nonpoint sources increase compliance costs markedly and reduce ecosystem service co-benefits relative to a least-cost solution. Key decision tradeoffs highlighted by the analysis include whether agricultural production should be exchanged for low-cost pollution abatement and other environmental benefits and whether lower compliance costs and higher co-benefits provide adequate compensation for lower certainty of water-quality outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wainger, Lisa A. & Van Houtven, George & Loomis, Ross & Messer, Jay & Beach, Robert H. & Deerhake, Marion, 2013. "Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services, Performance Certainty, and Cost-efficiency in Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(01), pages 1-29, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:148408
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.148408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/148408/files/ARER%202013%2042x1%20WaingerEtal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.148408?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. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2006. "What Are Ecosystem Services?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-02, Resources for the Future.
    2. Hanson, James C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2008. "Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-16.
    3. Jenkins, W. Aaron & Murray, Brian C. & Kramer, Randall A. & Faulkner, Stephen P., 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1051-1061, March.
    4. Hellerstein, Daniel, 2010. "Challenges Facing USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-6.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    6. Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Ribaudo, Marc & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Farm Act's Regional Equity Provision: Impacts on Conservation Program Outcomes," Economic Research Report 95452, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2018. "Evaluating impacts of agricultural cost sharing on water quality: Additionality, crowding In, and slippage," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-19.
    3. Duke, Joshua M. & Liu, Hongxing & Monteith, Tyler & McGrath, Joshua & Fiorellino, Nicole M., 2020. "A method for predicting participation in a performance-based water quality trading program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    4. Uchida, Emi & Swallow, Stephen K. & Gold, Arthur J. & Opaluch, James & Kafle, Achyut & Merrill, Nathaniel H. & Michaud, Clayton & Gill, Carrie Anne, 2018. "Integrating Watershed Hydrology and Economics to Establish a Local Market for Water Quality Improvement: A Field Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-25.
    5. Ribaudo, Marc & Savage, Jeffrey, 2014. "Controlling non-additional credits from nutrient management in water quality trading programs through eligibility baseline stringency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 233-239.
    6. Hood, Raleigh R. & Shenk, Gary W. & Dixon, Rachel L. & Smith, Sean M.C. & Ball, William P. & Bash, Jesse O. & Batiuk, Rich & Boomer, Kathy & Brady, Damian C. & Cerco, Carl & Claggett, Peter & de Mutse, 2021. "The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 456(C).

    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. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Jonathan Boston & Frieder Lempp, 2011. "Climate change," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 1000-1021, October.
    3. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    4. Marshall, Liz, 2007. "Carving Out Policy Space for Sustainability in Biofuel Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 183-196, October.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    6. Tanaka, K., 2018. "Do Bonus Payments Enhance Agri-environmental Payments? Empirical Findings from Rice Farming in Japan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277343, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    8. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    9. Patrick POINT, 2012. "Valuation of wetland ecosystems services. Some methodological principles (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2012-19, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Haojun Xiong & Haozhi Hu & Pingyang Han & Min Wang, 2023. "Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Service Values into the Ecological Security Pattern Identification of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Patton, Douglas & Bergstrom, John C. & Moore, Rebecca & Covich, Alan P., 2015. "Economic value of carbon storage in U.S. National Wildlife Refuge wetland ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 94-104.
    12. Wasson, Kerstin & Suarez, Becky & Akhavan, Antonia & McCarthy, Erin & Kildow, Judith & Johnson, Kenneth S. & Fountain, Monique C. & Woolfolk, Andrea & Silberstein, Mark & Pendleton, Linwood & Feliz, D, 2015. "Lessons learned from an ecosystem-based management approach to restoration of a California estuary," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 60-70.
    13. Moore, Rebecca & Williams, Tiffany & Rodriguez, Eduardo, 2011. "Valuing Ecosystem Services from Private Forests," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Doyle, Martin W. & Yates, Andrew J., 2010. "Stream ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 820-827, February.
    15. Ribaudo, Marc & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Greene, Catherine R., 2008. "The Use of Markets To Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship," Economic Research Report 56473, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2007. "An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 321-332, December.
    17. Barbera, Mattia G., 2012. "Towards an Economic Valuation of the Hauraki Gulf: The Finding of an Eco-Cluster?," 2012 Conference, August 31, 2012, Nelson, New Zealand 136041, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    19. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2010. "Agro-Ecosystem Services – Governance Needs and Efficiency," MPRA Paper 25978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Beata Zyznarska-Dworczak, 2020. "Sustainability Accounting—Cognitive and Conceptual Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-24, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:arerjl:148408. 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/nareaea.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.