IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/95581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying Optimization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Enhance Agricultural Preservation Strategies in the State of Delaware

Author

Listed:
  • Messer, Kent D.
  • Allen, William L., III

Abstract

Using agricultural preservation priorities derived from an analytical hierarchy process by 23 conservation experts from 18 agencies in the state of Delaware, this research uses weighted benefit measures to evaluate the historical success of Delaware’s agricultural protection fund, which spent nearly $100 million in its first decade. This research demonstrates how these operation research techniques can be used in concert to address relevant conservation questions. Results suggest that the state’s sealed-bid-offer auction, which determines the yearly conservation selections, is superior to benefit-targeting approaches frequently employed by conservation organizations, but is inferior to the optimization technique of binary linear programming that could have provided additional benefits to the state, such as 12,000 additional acres worth an estimated $25 million.

Suggested Citation

  • Messer, Kent D. & Allen, William L., III, 2010. "Applying Optimization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Enhance Agricultural Preservation Strategies in the State of Delaware," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(3), October.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:95581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/95581
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duke, Joshua M., 2004. "Participation in Agricultural Land Preservation Programs: Parcel Quality and a Complex Policy Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), April.
    2. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, J. & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5220, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    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. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. Michael A. Arnold & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer, 2013. "Adverse Selection in Reverse Auctions for Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 387-412.
    3. Jenna Toussaint & Shang Wu & Kent D. Messer, 2012. "Maximizing Benefits for Women: A Charitable Donation Allocation Problem," Working Papers 12-12, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    4. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    5. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.
    6. Fooks, Jacob R. & Messer, Kent D., 2012. "Maximizing conservation and in-kind cost share: Applying Goal Programming to forest protection," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-217.
    7. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    8. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:170-187 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Robert S. Shupp, 2016. "Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, pages 1314-1333.
    10. Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Lynch, Lori & Li, Tongzhe, 2017. "When Does Public Information Undermine the Efficiency of Reverse Auctions for the Purchase of Ecosystem Services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 212-226.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    conservation optimization; farmland protection; analytic hierarchy process; binary linear programming; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    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:95581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.