IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v83y2007i3p331-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Laura M. J. McCann
  • Adam R. Hafdahl

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between agency staff preferences for salinity policies and perceptions of farmer cost, farmer resistance, effectiveness in salinity reduction, fairness, and administrative costs. A mail survey was conducted in Western Australia and structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships between perceived policy attributes. As expected, fairness had a direct and significant effect on policy preference and also affected administrative costs, which in turn had a direct effect on policy preference. In the final model there was no direct effect between farmer costs and policy preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura M. J. McCann & Adam R. Hafdahl, 2007. "Agency Perceptions of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role of Fairness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 331-352.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:83:y:2007:i:3:p:331-352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/83/3/331
    Download Restriction: A subscription 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. Dietrich Earnhart, 2004. "The Effects of Community Characteristics on Polluter Compliance Levels," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(3), pages 408-432.
    2. Jeremy Clark, 1998. "Fairness in Public Good Provision: An Investigation of Preferences for Equality and Proportionality," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 708-729, August.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L. & William N. Evans & Stephen J. Berard & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Paul R. Portney, 1992. "The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 175-197, February.
    4. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 801.
    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. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    2. M. Qadir & E. Quillérou & V. Nangia & G. Murtaza & M. Singh & R.J. Thomas & P. Drechsel & A.D. Noble, 2014. "Economics of salt‐induced land degradation and restoration," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 0(4), pages 282-295, November.
    3. M. Qadir & E. Quillérou & V. Nangia & G. Murtaza & M. Singh & R.J. Thomas & P. Drechsel & A.D. Noble, 2014. "Economics of salt‐induced land degradation and restoration," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(4), pages 282-295, November.

    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. Yu-Bong Lai, 2007. "The Optimal Distribution of Pollution Rights in the Presence of Political Distortions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 367-388, March.
    2. McCann, Laura M.J. & Hafdahl, Adam, 2003. "Agency Perceptions Of Alternative Salinity Policies: The Role Of Fairness," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22097, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Hadi Sasana & Imam Ghozali, 2017. "The Impact of Fossil and Renewable Energy Consumption on the Economic Growth in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(3), pages 194-200.
    4. Jesper Stage, 2002. "Structural Shifts In Namibian Energy Use: An Input‐Output Approach," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 70(6), pages 1103-1125, September.
    5. Salvati, Luca & Carlucci, Margherita, 2011. "The economic and environmental performances of rural districts in Italy: Are competitiveness and sustainability compatible targets?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2446-2453.
    6. Zhengxia He & Shichun Xu & Wenxing Shen & Meiling Wang & Cunfang Li, 2019. "Exploring external and internal pressures on the environmental behavior of paper enterprises in China: A qualitative study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 951-969, September.
    7. Grimaud, Andre & Rouge, Luc, 2005. "Polluting non-renewable resources, innovation and growth: welfare and environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 109-129, June.
    8. Blackman, Allen & Guerrero, Santiago, 2012. "What drives voluntary eco-certification in Mexico?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 256-268.
    9. Roberta De Santis, 2012. "Impact of Environmental Regulations on Trade in the Main EU Countries: Conflict or Synergy?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(7), pages 799-815, July.
    10. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    11. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    12. Dietrich Earnhart & Sarah Jacobson & Yusuke Kuwayama & Richard T. Woodward, 2020. "Discretionary Exemptions from Environmental Regulation: Flexibility for Good or for Ill," Department of Economics Working Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    13. Aydın, Cem İskender, 2020. "Nuclear energy debate in Turkey: Stakeholders, policy alternatives, and governance issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Christopher Bruce & Jeremy Clark, 2010. "The Efficiency of Direct Public Involvement in Environmental Policymaking: An Experimental Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 157-182, February.
    15. Lecca, Patrizio & Swales, Kim & Turner, Karen, 2011. "An investigation of issues relating to where energy should enter the production function," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2832-2841.
    16. V. Oikonomou & C. Jepma, 2008. "A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 131-156, February.
    17. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    18. Dezső, Linda & Loewenstein, George, 2019. "Self-serving invocations of shared and asymmetric history in negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    19. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    20. Arguedas, Carmen & van Soest, Daan P., 2009. "On reducing the windfall profits in environmental subsidy programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 192-205, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects

    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:83:y:2007:i:3:p:331-352. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.