IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/123246.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impact of Environmental Policies on the Adoption of Animal Waste Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Author

Listed:
  • Savage, Jeff
  • Ribaudo, Marc

Abstract

We use data from the ERS-NASS ARMS surveys to compare the use of best management practices on poultry and livestock farms inside the watershed and outside the watershed. Animal operations within the Chesapeake Bay States were found to be adopting some important manure management practices at a greater rate than operations outside the watershed. Adoption was taking place before the implementation of the TMDL, indicating that farmers may have been acting in response to building public pressure to reduce pollution.

Suggested Citation

  • Savage, Jeff & Ribaudo, Marc, 2012. "Impact of Environmental Policies on the Adoption of Animal Waste Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123246, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:123246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/123246
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Paul Chavas & Ragan Petrie & Michael Roth, 2005. "Farm Household Production Efficiency: Evidence from The Gambia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 160-179.
    2. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser & Jae Kim, 2006. "Estimating technical efficiency of Australian dairy farms using alternative frontier methodologies," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(19), pages 2221-2236.
    3. Chen, Zhuo & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rozelle, Scott, 2009. "Farm technology and technical efficiency: Evidence from four regions in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 153-161, June.
    4. Johannes Sauer & Sophia Davidova & Laure Latruffe, 2012. "Determinants of Smallholders’ Decisions to Leave Land Fallow: The Case of Kosovo," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 119-141, February.
    5. Subal Kumbhakar & Efthymios Tsionas & Timo Sipiläinen, 2009. "Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 151-161, June.
    6. Alvarez, Antonio & del Corral, Julio & Tauer, Loren W., 2012. "Modeling Unobserved Heterogeneity in New York Dairy Farms: One-Stage versus Two-Stage Models," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 41(3), December.
    7. Blarel, Benoit, et al, 1992. "The Economics of Farm Fragmentation: Evidence from Ghana and Rwanda," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 6(2), pages 233-254, May.
    8. David Stern, 2011. "Elasticities of substitution and complementarity," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 79-89, August.
    9. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Noh, Dong-Woon & Weber, William, 2005. "Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 469-492, June.
    10. Barrett, Christopher B., 2008. "Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 299-317, August.
    11. Van Hung, Pham & MacAulay, T. Gordon & Marsh, Sally P., 2007. "The economics of land fragmentation in the north of Vietnam," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), June.
    12. Chambers, Robert G. & Chung, Yangho & Fare, Rolf, 1996. "Benefit and Distance Functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 407-419, August.
    13. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    14. Greene, William, 2005. "Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 269-303, June.
    15. Sophia Davidova, 2011. "Semi‐Subsistence Farming: An Elusive Concept Posing Thorny Policy Questions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 503-524, September.
    16. Laure Latruffe & Kelvin Balcombe & Sophia Davidova & Katarzyna Zawalinska, 2004. "Determinants of technical efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(12), pages 1255-1263.
    17. del Corral, J. & Pérez, J.A. & Roibás, D., 2010. "The impact of land fragmentation on milk production," Efficiency Series Papers 2010/02, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    18. Wu, Ziping & Liu, Minquan & Davis, John, 2005. "Land consolidation and productivity in Chinese household crop production," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 28-49.
    19. Luis Orea & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2004. "Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 169-183, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chesapeake Bay; confined animal operation; water quality; Environmental Economics and Policy; Livestock Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea12:123246. 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/aaeaaea.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.

    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.