IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/43746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Nutrient Management and Buffers: Comparisons of Two Spatial Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Bonham, John G.
  • Bosch, Darrell J.
  • Pease, James W.

Abstract

Farmers and taxpayers would benefit from more cost-effective agricultural nutrient pollution control measures. The objectives of our study are (1) to assess compliance costs and reductions in phosphorus loadings from implementation of nutrient management and riparian buffers; and (2) to estimate how the spatial scenario, which is the method of representing farms within the watershed, affects estimated compliance costs and reductions in phosphorus deliveries. Estimated compliance costs are quite sensitive to the spatial scenario. Buffers are more cost-effective than nutrient management under one of the two spatial scenarios, whereas nutrient management is more cost-effective under the other scenario. Shifts to more erosive crops reduce the effectiveness of both pollution control measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonham, John G. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W., 2006. "Cost-Effectiveness of Nutrient Management and Buffers: Comparisons of Two Spatial Scenarios," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(01), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43746
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.43746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/43746/files/17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.43746?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. JunJie Wu, 2000. "Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 979-992.
    2. Lynch, Lori & Brown, Cheryl, 2000. "Landowner Decision Making About Riparian Buffers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Kenneth M. Chomitz, 2002. "Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 35-49, March.
    4. Kurt A. Schwabe, 2001. "Nonpoint Source Pollution, Uniform Control Strategies, and the Neuse River Basin," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 352-369.
    5. repec:ags:joaaec:v:32:y:2000:i:3:p:585-596 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Carpentier, C.L. & Bosch, D.J. & Batie, S.S., 1998. "Using Spatial Information to Reduce Costs of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 72-84, April.
    7. Just, Richard E & Antle, John M, 1990. "Interactions between Agricultural and Environmental Policies: A Conceptual Framework," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 197-202, May.
    8. James C. Wade & Earl O. Heady, 1977. "Controlling Nonpoint Sediment Sources with Cropland Management: A National Economic Assessment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(1), pages 13-24.
    9. Ellis, John R. & Hughes, David W. & Butcher, Walter R., 1991. "Economic Modeling Of Farm Production And Conservation Decisions In Response To Alternative Resource And Environmental Policies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 20(01), pages 1-11, April.
    10. Darrell J. Bosch & James W. Pease, 2004. "Manure Applications and Nutrient Standards," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 14-25.
    11. Hochman, Eithan & Zilberman, David, 1979. "Two-goal environmental policy: An integration of micro and micro ad hoc decision rules," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 152-174, June.
    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. Brouwer, Roy & Hofkes, Marjan & Linderhof, Vincent, 2008. "General equilibrium modelling of the direct and indirect economic impacts of water quality improvements in the Netherlands at national and river basin scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 127-140, May.
    2. Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D. Jr. & Parish, Amy, 2015. "Potential Farmer Adoption of High Available Phosphorus Corn over a Three-year Period," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-19, December.
    3. George HALKOS & Georgia GALANI, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Reducing Nutrient Loading in Baltic and Black Seas A Review," Journal of Advanced Research in Management, ASERS Publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 28-51.
    4. Amon-Armah, Frederick & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. & Hebb, Dale & Jamieson, Rob, 2013. "Nitrogen abatement cost comparison for cropping systems under alternative management choices," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149915, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2015. "Nutrient Assimilation Services for Water Quality Credit Trading Programs," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-33, Resources for the Future.
    6. Santosh R. Ghimire & Adam C. Nayak & Joel Corona & Rajbir Parmar & Raghavan Srinivasan & Katie Mendoza & John M. Johnston, 2022. "Holistic Sustainability Assessment of Riparian Buffer Designs: Evaluation of Alternative Buffer Policy Scenarios Integrating Stream Water Quality and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-33, September.
    7. Goeringer, L. Paul & Goodwin, Harold L., Jr. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Popp, Michael P., 2013. "EnVesting in an Agricultural Legacy: Design and Implementation of a Targeted Young and Beginning Farmer Loan Program in Arkansas," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143037, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard A., 2013. "The Use of Nutrient Assimilation Services in Performance-based Water Quality Incentive Programs," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143093, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. repec:ags:afjare:225655 is not listed 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. Bonham, John G. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W., 2004. "Cost Effectiveness Of Nutrient Management And Buffers: Comparisons Of Four Spatial Scenarios," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20069, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Gwenolé Le Velly & Alexandre Sauquet & Sergio Cortina-Villar, 2017. "PES Impact and Leakages over Several Cohorts: The Case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 230-257.
    3. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    4. Iho, Antti & Parker, Doug & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Optimal Regional Regulation of Animal Waste," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211780, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. VanDyke, Laura S. & Bosch, Darrell J. & Pease, James W., 1999. "Impacts of Within-Farm Soil Variability on Nitrogen Pollution Control Costs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 149-159, April.
    6. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    7. Jean-Sauveur Ay, 2015. "Information sur l’hétérogénéité de la terre et délégation de la régulation foncière," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(3), pages 453-474.
    8. Matekole, Augustus N. & Westra, John V., 2009. "Economic Analysis of Tillage and Nutrient Best Management Practices in the Ouachita River Basin, Louisiana," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. David C. Roberts & Christopher D. Clark & Burton C. English & William M. Park & Roland K. Roberts, 2009. "Estimating Annualized Riparian Buffer Costs for the Harpeth River Watershed," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 894-913.
    10. Segerson, Kathleen & Opaluch, James J., 1991. "Aggregate Analysis Of Site-Specific Pollution Problems: The Case Of Groundwater Contamination From Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 20(01), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Eigenraam, Mark & Strappazzon, Loris & Lansdell, Nicola & Beverly, Craig & Stoneham, Gary, 2006. "Designing Frameworks to Deliver Unknown Information to Support MBIs," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25673, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Gan, Jianbang & McCarl, Bruce A., 2007. "Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 423-432, December.
    13. Youngho Kim, 2024. "Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs and Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture," Economics Series Working Papers 1054, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Heng-Chi Lee & Bruce McCarl & Uwe Schneider & Chi-Chung Chen, 2007. "Leakage and Comparative Advantage Implications of Agricultural Participation in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 471-494, May.
    15. Newburn, David A. & Berck, Peter & Merenlender, Adina, 2004. "Spatial Targeting Strategies For Land Conservation," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20206, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    17. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 2001. "Econometric-Process Models for Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 389-401.
    18. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    19. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2018. "Evaluating impacts of agricultural cost sharing on water quality: Additionality, crowding In, and slippage," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-19.
    20. Xavier Vollenweider & Salvatore Di Falco & Cathal O�Donoghue, 2011. "Risk preferences and voluntary agrienvironmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme?," GRI Working Papers 48, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects

    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:joaaec:43746. 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/saeaaea.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.