IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nzar11/115512.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Avoided Soil Erosion by Considering Private and Public Net Benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Barry, Luke E.
  • Paragahawewa, Upananda Herath
  • Yao, Richard T.
  • Turner, James A.

Abstract

The population in New Zealand is expected to increase to over five million by the mid 2020’s from the current level of 4.3 million (Statistics New Zealand, 2009). An increasing demand for primary produce as a result may put pressure on marginal land to be farmed. Understanding the economic value of avoided erosion in New Zealand is therefore an important factor in policy making to optimise the soil related activities in the economy. Establishing a methodology for estimating the economic value of avoided soil erosion is the first step in assessing the problem. This study uses the future forest scenarios developed by Scion to identify potential afforestation areas and thereby compare the current erosion/sedimentation status under current land-use (non woody vegetation) with potential future afforestation. The study aims to quantify the incremental public and private net benefits from the change in scenario. The notion has come under different headings in the literature, such as on-site and off-site erosion effects or sediment and soil erosion effects, all of which recognize the importance of separation of effects to avoid double-counting. The separation into public and private benefits and costs in this case, while avoiding double-counting, will also help identify appropriate policy instruments to avoid soil erosion damage using the private and public net benefit framework (Pannell, 2008).

Suggested Citation

  • Barry, Luke E. & Paragahawewa, Upananda Herath & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A., 2011. "Valuing Avoided Soil Erosion by Considering Private and Public Net Benefits," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115512, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar11:115512
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.115512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/115512/files/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Valuing%20Avoided%20Soil%20Erosion%20by%20Considering%20Private%20and%20Public%20Net%20Benefits%20_NZARES%20final__1_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.115512?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. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    4. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    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. Élia Pires-Marques & Cristina Chaves & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Biophysical and monetary quantification of ecosystem services in a mountain region: the case of avoided soil erosion," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11382-11405, August.

    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. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    2. Calzolari, C. & Tarocco, P. & Lombardo, N. & Marchi, N. & Ungaro, F., 2020. "Assessing soil ecosystem services in urban and peri-urban areas: From urban soils survey to providing support tool for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Dominati, E. & Mackay, A. & Green, S. & Patterson, M., 2014. "A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 119-129.
    4. Ran Sun & James Nolan & Suren Kulshreshtha, 2022. "Agent-based modeling of policy induced agri-environmental technology adoption," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(8), pages 1-26, August.
    5. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.
    6. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. "Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-38.
    7. Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Berrouet, Lina & López, Connie & Ruiz, Aura & Upegui, Alba, 2016. "Lessons from the integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: Three case studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 297-308.
    8. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    9. Jarmila MAKOVNÍKOVÁ & Jozef KOBZA & Boris PÁLKA & Jozef MALIŠ & Radoslava KANIANSKA & Miriam KIZEKOVÁ, 2016. "An approach to mapping the potential of cultural agroecosystem services," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 44-52.
    10. Francesca Assennato & Daniela Smiraglia & Alice Cavalli & Luca Congedo & Chiara Giuliani & Nicola Riitano & Andrea Strollo & Michele Munafò, 2022. "The Impact of Urbanization on Land: A Biophysical-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Services Loss Supported by Remote Sensed Indicators," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Barry, Luke E. & Yao, Richard T. & Paragahawewa, Upananda Herath & Harrison, D.R., 2012. "Where and how can policy encourage afforestation to avoid soil erosion?," 2012 Conference, August 31, 2012, Nelson, New Zealand 136042, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Hongjuan Zhang & Qian Pang & Huan Long & Haochen Zhu & Xin Gao & Xiuqing Li & Xiaohui Jiang & Kang Liu, 2019. "Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Luxton, Sarah & Smith, Greg & Williams, Kristen & Ferrier, Simon & Bond, Anthelia & Prober, Suzanne, 2023. "An introduction to financial opportunities, ecological concepts, and risks underpinning aspirations for a nature-positive economy," OSF Preprints cu8rj, Center for Open Science.
    17. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    18. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Mark Adams & Damien Field & Robert Hill & John Crawford & Budiman Minasny & Rattan Lal & Lynette Abbott & Anthony O'Donnell & Denis Angers & Jeffrey Baldock & Edward Bar, 2013. "Soil Security: Solving the Global Soil Crisis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 434-441, November.
    20. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    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:nzar11:115512. 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/nzareea.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.