IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/31086.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficient Policies For Environmental Protection: An Econometric Analysis Of Incentives For Land Conversion And Retention

Author

Listed:
  • Plantinga, Andrew J.
  • Ahn, Soeun

Abstract

This study investigates the costs of subsidies for land retention and conversion, in addition to a policy that combines the incentives. A Markov model of forest and agricultural land use is estimated for the U.S. South Central region and used to simulate retention and conversion policies. Results suggest a conversion policy is less costly for increasing forest area, and a retention policy is less costly for increasing agricultural land area. The costs of separate subsidies can be up to 300% higher than the costs of combined incentives. However, when administrative costs are taken into account, conversion policies are likely to be less costly.

Suggested Citation

  • Plantinga, Andrew J. & Ahn, Soeun, 2002. "Efficient Policies For Environmental Protection: An Econometric Analysis Of Incentives For Land Conversion And Retention," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(01), July.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:31086
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/31086
    Download Restriction: no

    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. Osborn, C. Tim & Llacuna, Felix & Lisenbigler, Michael, 1995. "Conservation Reserve Program: Enrollment Statistics for Signup Periods 1-12 and Fiscal Years 1986-93," Statistical Bulletin 154890, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Gerald C. Nelson & Daniel Hellerstein, 1997. "Do Roads Cause Deforestation? Using Satellite Images in Econometric Analysis of Land Use," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 80-88.
    4. MacRae, Elizabeth Chase, 1977. "Estimation of Time-Varying Markov Processes with Aggregate Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 183-198, January.
    5. RICHARD M. Adams & DARIUS M. Adams & JOHN M. Callaway & CHING-CHENG Chang & BRUCE A. Mccarl, 1993. "Sequestering Carbon On Agricultural Land: Social Cost And Impacts On Timber Markets," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 11(1), pages 76-87, January.
    6. Douglas J. Miller, 1999. "An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 812-824.
    7. Andrew J. Plantinga, 1996. "The Effect of Agricultural Policies on Land Use and Environmental Quality," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1082-1091.
    8. Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2000. "Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 211-235, November.
    9. Capozza, Dennis R. & Helsley, Robert W., 1989. "The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 295-306, November.
    10. Stavins, Robert N & Jaffe, Adam B, 1990. "Unintended Impacts of Public Investments on Private Decisions: The Depletion of Forested Wetlands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 337-352, June.
    11. Claassen, Roger & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1999. "Agricultural Land Use Choice: A Discrete Choice Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(1), April.
    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. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    2. Chakir, Raja & Lungarska, Anna, 2015. "Agricultural land rents in land use models: a spatial econometric analysis," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212641, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Chakir, Raja & Le Gallo, Julie, 2013. "Predicting land use allocation in France: A spatial panel data analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 114-125.
    4. Stavins, Robert & Plantinga, Andrew & Lubowski, Ruben, 2003. "Determinants of Land-Use Change In the United States 1982-1997," Discussion Papers dp-03-47, Resources For the Future.
    5. Carpentier, Alain & Gohin, Alexandre & Sckokai, Paolo & Thomas, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 131-165, March.
    6. D. M. Lambert & C. N. Boyer & L. He, 2016. "Spatial-temporal heteroskedastic robust covariance estimation for Markov transition probabilities: an application examining land use change," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-362, October.
    7. Raja Chakir, 2009. "Spatial Downscaling of Agricultural Land-Use Data: An Econometric Approach Using Cross Entropy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 238-251.
    8. Fezzi, Carlo & Bateman, Ian J., 2009. "Structural Agricultural Land Use Modelling," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51423, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Michael J. Roberts & Ruben N. Lubowski, 2007. "Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 516-538.

    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:jlaare:31086. 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/waeaaea.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.