IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v75y1999i3p402-414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transaction Costs of Policies to Reduce Agricultural Phosphorous Pollution in the Minnesota River

Author

Listed:
  • Laura McCann
  • K. William Easter

Abstract

This study measured the magnitude of transaction costs associated with policies to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Interviews with staff from governmental agencies were conducted to estimate transaction costs associated with four policies to reduce agricultural phosphorous pollution in the Minnesota River. The tax on phosphate fertilizers had the lowest transaction costs ($0.94 million), followed by educational programs on best management practices ($3.11 million), the requirement for conservation tillage on all cropped land ($7.85 million), and expansion of a permanent conservation easement program ($9.37 million). Taxes, thus, may have advantages with respect to transaction costs and abatement costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura McCann & K. William Easter, 1999. "Transaction Costs of Policies to Reduce Agricultural Phosphorous Pollution in the Minnesota River," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 402-414.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:3:p:402-414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147186
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Comparing welfare estimates of environmental quality changes from recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 331-340, September.
    2. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    4. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    6. Cropper, Maureen L & Deck, Leland B & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1988. "On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(4), pages 668-675, November.
    7. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    8. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    9. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    10. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    11. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    12. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    13. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    14. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Spencer & Tihomir Ancev & Jeff Connor, 2009. "Improving Cost Effectiveness of Irrigation Zoning for Salinity Mitigation by Introducing Offsets," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(10), pages 2085-2100, August.
    2. Goodwin, Barry K. & Harper, Daniel C., 2000. "Price Transmission, Threshold Behavior, And Asymmetric Adjustment In The U.S. Pork Sector," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(03), December.
    3. Lacroix, A. & Bel, F. & Mollard, A. & Sauboua, E., 2004. "Interest of site-specific pollution control policies," Working Papers 200424, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    4. Gordon, Simon, 2003. "Economic Instruments For Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Options For The Swan-Canning River System," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57873, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    6. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    7. McCann, Laura & Easter, K. William, 2000. "Estimates of Public Sector Transaction Costs in NRCS Programs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, pages 555-563.
    8. Westra, John V., 2003. "Effects On Farm Income And The Environment From Targeting Agricultural Best Management Practices (Bmps)," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35191, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Aftab, Ashar & Hanley, Nick & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2010. "Integrated regulation of nonpoint pollution: Combining managerial controls and economic instruments under multiple environmental targets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 24-33, November.
    10. Ornella Boutry, 2010. "A New Institutional Approach of Resource Use Conflicts: The Case of Poitou-Charentes," Post-Print hal-00655829, HAL.
    11. Nguyen, Nga & Shortle, James S., 2006. "Transactions Costs and Point-Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Trading," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21096, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Nguyen, N.P. & Shortle, J.S. & Reed, P.M. & Nguyen, T.T., 2013. "Water quality trading with asymmetric information, uncertainty and transaction costs: A stochastic agent-based simulation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 60-90.
    13. repec:eee:jeeman:v:85:y:2017:i:c:p:130-145 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Elbakidze, Levan & McCarl, Bruce A., 2007. "Sequestration offsets versus direct emission reductions: Consideration of environmental co-effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 564-571, January.
    15. DeBoe, Gwendolen & Stephenson, Kurt, 2016. "Transactions costs of expanding nutrient trading to agricultural working lands: A Virginia case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 176-185.
    16. Scharin, Henrik, 2004. "Management of eutrophicated coastal zones," Department of Economics publications 717, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
    17. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Nijiraini, Georgina & Thiam, Djiby, 2015. "Estimating transaction costs associated with water policy implementation in South Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212585, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Kampas, Athanasios, 2001. "Identifying Common Fallacies in the Choice of Environmental Taxes for Agricultural Pollution Control: The Absence of Transaction Costs and the Normality of Agricultural Pollutants," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(2), August.
    20. Nilsson, Fredrik O. L., 2007. "Transaction costs of agri-environmental policy measures," Department of Economics publications 3100, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
    21. Horan, Richard D. & Claassen, Roger & Howe, Lance, 2001. "The Welfare Sensitivity Of Agri-Environmental Instruments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(02), December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:3:p:402-414. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

    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.