Environmental Targets and Shadow Prices of Bad Outputs in Organic and Conventional Farming
We present a framework for deriving shadow prices for negative environmental impacts regulated in agriculture. The shadow prices can be used as indicators of the costs of environmental regulation imposed as reflected in alternative farming technologies adopted. We illustrate our analytical findings with implications of the Finnish water protection policy measures on conventional and organic livestock farms over the period 1994-2002. Generally, the representative organic farm is found to be more technically efficient relative to its own technology than is the conventional representative farm. However, there is no statistical indication of a difference between these two particular representative farms in valuing the costs of undesirable output (manure) at the margin.
|Date of creation:||2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Should Pollution Reductions Count as Productivity Gains for Agriculture?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 591-594.
- Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 1998. "Shadow Pricing of Good and Bad Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 584-590.
- Marklund, Per-Olov, 2003. "Analyzing Interplant Marginal Abatement Cost Differences: A Directional Output Distance Function Approach," Umeå Economic Studies 618, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae05:24575. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.