IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nceewp/280893.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Many Times Could You Replicate Polyface Farm? A Schematic Model of Ecosystem Services in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Simpson, R. David

Abstract

There has been considerable recent interest in the idea that farms can produce both food and a variety of ecosystem services. One particularly intriguing notion is that farmers might find it in their own interest to adopt an “ecosystem services” approach to production in preference to a “conventional” approach. In the conventional approach farmers devote substantially all of their land directly to production and purchase a variety of fertilizers, pesticides, and other inputs. In contrast, if farmers preserve a substantial fraction of their land in a more-or-less “natural” condition, or restore it to such a state, the ecosystem services provided by preserved natural systems may obviate the purchase of many inputs. While private adoption of the ecosystem services approach would not result in the optimal provision of ecosystem services, given that some such services generate positive benefits on a broader scale than an individual farmer can appropriate, it is reasonable to regard the conversion of farms from a conventional to an ecosystem services approach to production as a step in the right direction toward more ecologically benign land use. In this paper I develop a simple and schematic model of land use in agriculture. I motivate the model by reference to Polyface Farm, a farm described in Michael Pollan’s 2006 bestseller The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Polyface Farm has adopted an ecosystem service approach: its owner restored more than fourth-fifths of the land he controls to a natural state. In contrast, his neighbors actively farm the great majority of their holdings. I develop a simple model that duplicates the stylized fact that farmers choose between very different production approaches. The model also predicts, however, that farmers who adopt an ecosystem services approach would reduce their production in the same proportion as they reduce the area of land they employ directly in production. This finding has an important implication for policy. While manipulation of agricultural prices or subsidies might induce some farmers to adopt an ecosystem services approach, such a strategy would be self-limiting. When one farmer adopts an ecosystem services approach in preference to the conventional approach she will reduce her output. Prices would rise in response, and the incentive for others to emulate her choice would be reduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Simpson, R. David, 2010. "How Many Times Could You Replicate Polyface Farm? A Schematic Model of Ecosystem Services in Agriculture," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280893, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:280893
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.280893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280893/files/NCEE2010-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.280893?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. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Robin Naidoo & Taylor H Ricketts, 2006. "Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    2. Shanafelt, David W. & Serra-Diaz, Josep M. & Bocquého, Géraldine, 2023. "Measuring uncertainty in ecosystem service correlations as a function of sample size," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Retallack, Matthew, 2021. "The intersection of economic demand for ecosystem services and public policy: A watershed case study exploring implications for social-ecological resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Li Yu & Yinchao Lyu & Chun Chen & Charles L. Choguill, 2021. "Environmental deterioration in rapid urbanisation: evidence from assessment of ecosystem service value in Wujiang, Suzhou," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 331-349, January.
    5. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    6. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    7. García-Nieto, Ana P. & García-Llorente, Marina & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Martín-López, Berta, 2013. "Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 126-138.
    8. Andrew Balmford & Brendan Fisher & Rhys Green & Robin Naidoo & Bernardo Strassburg & R. Kerry Turner & Ana Rodrigues, 2011. "Bringing Ecosystem Services into the Real World: An Operational Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Losing Wild Nature," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 161-175, February.
    9. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    10. Fei Duan & Siyu Wen & Xuening Fan & Jiacheng Li & Ran Zhou & Jiansheng Wu & Chengcheng Dong, 2025. "Simulation of Multi-Scale Water Supply Service Flow Pathways and Ecological Compensation for Urban–Rural Sustainability: A Case Study of the Fenhe River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Ze Han & Wei Song & Xiangzheng Deng, 2016. "Responses of Ecosystem Service to Land Use Change in Qinghai Province," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    17. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    18. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    19. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:nceewp:280893. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.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.