IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v66y2018i2p171-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Agri†Environmental Programs: Can We Determine If We Grew Forward in an Environmentally Friendly Way?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter C. Boxall

Abstract

The environmental elements of the quinquennial agricultural policy frameworks are probably the largest agri†environmental programs in Canada and have been running for about 15 years. Formal evaluation of their effectiveness has either not been done, or is not available for researchers and policy analysts to compare with other agri†environmental policy efforts. This address introduces this problem and attempts to examine evaluative approaches using Alberta's Growing Forward 1 and 2 environmental stewardship programs. While this attempt has uncovered significant data issues, there is evidence that program managers targeted funds to areas where water quality risks are of concern. The review also questions the requirement that producers eligible for funding must have an Environmental Farm Plan. After 15 years of having this requirement, I argue that it's time for Alberta's environmental stewardship program to relax this. Les éléments environnementaux des cadres politiques agricoles quinquennaux représentent probablement les plus vastes programmes agroenvironnementaux au Canada et opèrent depuis environ quinze ans. L'évaluation formelle de leur efficacité n'a soit pas été entreprise, ou n'est pas disponible pour les chercheurs et analystes politiques afin qu'ils les comparent à d'autres efforts en matière de politique agroenvironnementale. Cet énoncé présente ce problème et tente d'examiner les approches évaluatives utilisées par les programmes albertains de gérance environnementale Cultivons l'avenir 1 et 2. S'il est vrai que cette tentative a révélé de considérables problèmes de données, des preuves démontrent que les gestionnaires de programmes dirigeaient les fonds vers les régions où la qualité de l'eau est en jeu. L'évaluation s'interroge aussi au sujet de l'exigence selon laquelle les producteurs admissibles au financement doivent présenter un plan agroenvironnemental. Ayant été requise pendant quinze ans, je propose que le programme de gérance environnementale de l'Alberta assouplisse cette exigence.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter C. Boxall, 2018. "Evaluation of Agri†Environmental Programs: Can We Determine If We Grew Forward in an Environmentally Friendly Way?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 171-186, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:2:p:171-186
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12170
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12170?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    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. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Paul Smith & Carrie Bibik & Jon Lazarus & David Armitage & Cindy Bradley-Macmillan & Maxine Kingston & Andrew Graham & Ryan Plummer & Robert Summers, 2021. "Canada's Environmental Farm Plan: Evaluating Implementation, Use of Services, and the Influence of Social Factors," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(4), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Sarah Van Wyngaarden, 2022. "Carbon Credit Systems in Alberta Agriculture," SPP Technical Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 15(18), June.

    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. Cattaneo, Andrea & Lankoski, Jussi E. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2009. "Green auctions versus uniform agri-environmental payments under heterogeneous conditions," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51678, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Wallander, Steven & Hellerstein, Daniel M. & Johnsen, Reid, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Conservation Auctions Revisited: The Benefits of Information Rents," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2015. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts under the threat of early exit: the case of conservation auctions," Working Paper Series 2015:6, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department 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. Dakuan Qiao & Lei Luo & Xingqiang Zheng & Xinhong Fu, 2022. "External Supervision, Face Consciousness, and Pesticide Safety Use: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Pratt, Bryan & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "Cover Practice Definitions and Incentives in the Conservation Reserve Program," Economic Information Bulletin 327358, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. 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.
    8. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    9. Wallander, Steven & Aillery, Marcel & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hand, Michael S., 2013. "The Role of Conservation Programs in Drought Risk Adaptation," Economic Research Report 262224, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. 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.
    11. LI, Liqing & Ando, Amy W. & Kirwan, Barrett E., 2017. "The Impact of Conservation Programs on Local Employment: A Case of Conservation Reserve Program," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259195, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2018. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts with early-exit options: The case of conservation contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 368-380.
    13. Lankoski, Jussi, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Payment and Auction Designs for Biodiversity Conservation in Agriculture," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212031, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    15. Xiaohong Deng & Zhongmin Xu, 2015. "Green Auctions and Reduction of Information Rents in Payments for Environmental Services: An Experimental Investigation in Sunan County, Northwestern China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Valcu, Adriana M. & Campbell, Todd D. & Jha, Manoj K. & Gassman, Philip W. & Kling, Catherine L., 2012. "Using a coupled simulation-optimization approach to design cost-effective reverse auctions for watershed nutrient reductions," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124656, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. 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.
    18. Yu, Zhenning & Yao, Lan & Wu, Mengya, 2020. "Farmers’ attitude towards the policy of remediation during fallow in soil fertility declining and heavy metal polluted area of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Marc N. Conte & Robert M. Griffin, 2017. "Quality Information and Procurement Auction Outcomes: Evidence from a Payment for Ecosystem Services Laboratory Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 571-591, April.
    20. Kits, Gerda J. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2014. "Do conservation auctions crowd out voluntary environmentally friendly activities?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 118-123.

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:2:p:171-186. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.