IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/28576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impacts Of Allocation Strategies For Spatially Regulated Chemical Use

Author

Listed:
  • Lynch, Lori
  • Carpenter, Janet

Abstract

Spatial regulations can restrict chemical use more efficiently by linking benefits to the costs. California has instituted such a spatially based regulation of an agricultural fumigant to meet air quality standards. We examine the implications of alternative allocation mechanisms: use allocated based on a first come, first served basis; on quotas linked to historical use; and on the highest-value use. Although there are distributional impacts by crop, the overall change in aggregate value from using a highest value use mechanism rather than a first come, first served approach is estimated to be less than nine million.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynch, Lori & Carpenter, Janet, 2001. "The Impacts Of Allocation Strategies For Spatially Regulated Chemical Use," Working Papers 28576, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28576
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28576/files/wp01-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28576?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. Deepak, M.S. & Spreen, Thomas H. & VanSickle, John J., 1996. "An Analysis Of The Impact Of A Ban Of Methyl Bromide On The U.S. Winter Fresh Vegetable Market," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Peter Berck & Gloria Helfand, 1990. "Reconciling the von Liebig and Differentiable Crop Production Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(4), pages 985-996.
    3. Erik Lichtenberg & Douglas D. Parker & David Zilberman, 1988. "Marginal Analysis of Welfare Costs of Environmental Policies: The Case of Pesticide Regulation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(4), pages 867-874.
    4. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    5. Carlson, Gerald A. & Zilberman, David & Miranowski, John, 1993. "Agricultural and Resource Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11104, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. repec:ags:joaaec:v:28:y:1996:i:2:p:433-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Taylor, C. Robert & Lacewell, Ronald D. & Talpaz, Hovav, 1979. "Use Of Extraneous Information With An Econometric Model To Evaluate Impacts Of Pesticide Withdrawals," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, July.
    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. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    2. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein T., 2000. "Policy instruments for sustainable land management: the case of highland smallholders in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 217-232, April.
    3. C. Rendleman & Kenneth Reinert & James Tobey, 1995. "Market-based systems for reducing chemical use in agriculture in the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 51-70, January.
    4. Romina Cavatassi, 2004. "Valuation Methods for Environmental Benefits in Forestry and Watershed Investment Projects," Working Papers 04-01, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    5. Fuentes Castro, Daniel, 2007. "La sobreexplotación de lo colectivo y la solución del único propietario [Overexploitation of commons and the sole ownership solution]," MPRA Paper 51756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Noel D. Uri, 1997. "The Use of Fertilizer and its Environmental Consequences," Energy & Environment, , vol. 8(3), pages 191-205, September.
    7. David Zilberman & Amir Heiman, 1997. "The Value of Economic Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1539-1544.
    8. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    9. Jintao Xu & William F. Hyde & Gregory S. Amacher, 2003. "China¡¯S Paper Industry: Growth And Environmental Policy During Economic Reform," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 49-79, June.
    10. Kampas, Athanasios & Melfou, Katerina & Aftab, Ashar, 2013. "Designing Regulatory Policies for Complex Externalities: The Case of Agricultural Pollution," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14.
    11. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Claassen, Roger, 1998. "Agricultural Conservation Policy At A Crossroads," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Roger Claassen & Richard Horan, 2001. "Uniform and Non-Uniform Second-Best Input Taxes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(1), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Gardner M. Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use without Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(4), pages 875-914, December.
    14. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    15. O'Shea, Lucy & Ulph, Alistair, 2008. "The role of pest resistance in biotechnology R&D investment strategy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 213-228, March.
    16. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    17. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    18. Yu-Bong Lai, 2004. "Trade liberalization, consumption externalities and the environment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(5), pages 1-9.
    19. Ni, Jinlan & Wei, Chu & Du, Limin, 2015. "Revealing the political decision toward Chinese carbon abatement: Based on equity and efficiency criteria," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 609-621.
    20. Giancarlo Giudici & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2019. "The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 815-830, April.

    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:umdrwp:28576. 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/daumdus.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.