IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeana/46826.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Devkota, Nirmala
  • Paudel, Krishna P.

Abstract

Nutrient runoff from agricultural land can be reduced through production termination to mitigate water pollution. The willingness to accept value to terminate the broiler production is evaluated using sample selection model. The result showed a positive relationship between the decision to participation and stated WTA value indicating the producers are willing to terminate the production but at high cost. The farmer’s perception about government role on water pollution, farm income, information and awareness about other pollution reduction alternatives play a major role on stated WTA amount as well as on participation decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P., 2009. "Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeana:46826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/46826
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher F Baum, 2006. "An Introduction to Modern Econometrics using Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number imeus, December.
    2. Sabina L. Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2007. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners' Decisions to Create Forest Carbon Sinks?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 97-114, March.
    3. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, May.
    4. Bishwanath Goldar & Smita Misra, 2001. "Valuation of Environmental Goods: Correcting for Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies Based on Willingness-to-Accept," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 150-156.
    5. Jeffrey Gillespie & Seon-Ae Kim & Krishna Paudel, 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 89-102, January.
    6. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    7. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    8. M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2006. "Technology Adoption under Production Uncertainty: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 657-670.
    10. James A. Brox & Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery, 2003. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 414-428.
    11. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(01), July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:saeana:46826. 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/saeaaea.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.