IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v66y2018i1p143-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Targeting of Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices to Address Phosphorus Runoff in Manitoba

Author

Listed:
  • Kaitlin E. Kelly
  • Ken Belcher
  • Mohammad Khakbazan

Abstract

The mechanisms used to deliver agricultural beneficial management practices (BMPs) can influence the performance of these policies. Research has suggested that agri†environmental instruments targeted based on specific economic or environmental characteristics can improve policy performance. Using a case study approach, we evaluate the relative performance of different mechanisms to target subsidized water retention pond BMPs to reduce phosphorus (P) runoff in an agriculture dominated subwatershed within the Lake Winnipeg watershed in southern Manitoba. The water retention pond BMPs were targeted based on estimated establishment costs (cost targeting), total phosphorus removal from surface water (benefit targeting), and pond†specific benefit–cost ratios. The targeting was simulated using predictions of retention pond†specific P removal from an adapted hydrology model and site†specific pond construction and land opportunity costs assembled in a geographic information system database. Targeting of water retention pond BMPs has an impact on the cost effectiveness of the policy delivery with benefit–cost targeting being the most cost†effective approach. Water retention ponds providing higher P removal at lower cost were smaller in size and on land previously used for the production of lower value crops. Le ciblage économique des pratiques de gestion bénéfiques en agriculture pour remédier au ruissellement du phosphore au Manitoba Les mécanismes utilisés pour livrer des pratiques de gestion bénéfiques (PGB) peuvent influencer la performance de ces politiques. Des études suggèrent que le ciblage d'instruments agroenvironnementaux basé sur des caractéristiques économiques ou environnementales précises peut améliorer la performance des politiques. Au moyen d'études de cas, nous évaluons la performance relative de divers mécanismes pour cibler les PGB des bassins de rétention d'eau subventionnés pour réduire le ruissellement de phosphore (P) dans un sous†bassin du bassin du Lac Winnipeg au sud du Manitoba. Les PGB du bassin de rétention des eaux ont été ciblées en fonction des coûts estimés d'établissement (ciblage des coûts), de l′élimination totale du phosphore de la surface de l'eau (ciblage des bénéfices), et des ratios avantages†coûts liés au bassin. Le ciblage fut simulé au moyen de prédictions du taux de suppression de P spécifique à chaque bassin de rétention obtenues à partir d'une adaptation d'un modèle hydrologique et d'une base de données d'un système d'information géographique (SIG) contenant les sites de chaque bassin de rétention et le coût d'opportunité du terrain. Le ciblage des PGB des bassins de rétention d'eau a un impact sur la rentabilité de la mise en œuvre de politiques, le ciblage coût†avantages étant l'approche la plus rentable. Les bassins de rétention d'eau ayant le plus haut taux d'élimination de P à moindre coût s'avéraient plus petits et sur des terrains ayant servi, auparavant, à la production de cultures de moindre valeur.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaitlin E. Kelly & Ken Belcher & Mohammad Khakbazan, 2018. "Economic Targeting of Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices to Address Phosphorus Runoff in Manitoba," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(1), pages 143-166, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:1:p:143-166
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12143
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12143?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. van der Horst, Dan, 2006. "Spatial cost-benefit thinking in multi-functional forestry; towards a framework for spatial targeting of policy interventions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 171-180, August.
    2. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen, 2003. "Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(1), pages 51-75, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Crossman, Neville D. & Bryan, Brett A., 2009. "Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 654-668, January.
    5. Wanhong Yang & Chaodong Sheng & Paul Voroney, 2005. "Spatial Targeting of Conservation Tillage to Improve Water Quality and Carbon Retention Benefits," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(4), pages 477-500, December.
    6. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, J. & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5220, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. repec:bla:canjag:v:58:y:2010:i:s1:p:481-496 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Roberts, Lisa A. & Leitch, Jay A., 1997. "Economic Valuation Of Some Wetland Outputs Of Mud Lake, Minnesota-South Dakota," Agricultural Economics Reports 23406, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    9. Wanhong Yang & Alfons Weersink, 2004. "Cost-effective Targeting of Riparian Buffers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(1), pages 17-34, March.
    10. Diane P. Dupont, 2010. "Cost‐Sharing Incentive Programs for Source Water Protection: The Grand River's Rural Water Quality Program," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(4), pages 481-496, December.
    11. Glenn Fox & Gloria Umali & Trevor Dickinson, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of Targeting Soil Conservation Measures with Respect to Off-site Water Quality," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 43(1), pages 105-118, March.
    12. C. W. Rougoor & H. Van Zeijts & M. F. Hofreither & S. Backman, 2001. "Experiences with Fertilizer Taxes in Europe," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 877-887.
    13. Boxall, Peter C. & Weber, Marian & Perger, Orsolya & Cutlac, Marius & Samarawickrema, Antony, 2008. "Results from the Farm Behaviour Component of the Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model for the Watershed Evaluation of Beneficial Management Practices Program," Project Report Series 116268, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. Hansen, LeRoy & Hellerstein, Daniel & Ribaudo, Marc & Williamson, James & Nulph, David & Loesch, Charles & Crumpton, William, 2015. "Targeting Investments To Cost Effectively Restore and Protect Wetland Ecosystems: Some Economic Insights," Economic Research Report 199283, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Roy Brouwer & Rute Pinto & Jorge Garcia‐Hernandez & Xingtong Li & Merrin Macrae & Predrag Rajsic & Wanhong Yang & Yongbo Liu & Mark Anderson & Louise Heyming, 2023. "Spatial optimization of nutrient reduction measures on agricultural land to improve water quality: A coupled modeling approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 329-353, September.
    2. Gerling, Charlotte & Wätzold, Frank, 2019. "Evaluating policy instruments for the conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate," MPRA Paper 95512, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Nobuhiko Fuwa & Asa Jose U. Sajise, 2009. "Exploring Environmental Services Incentive Policies for the Philippines Rice Sector: The Case of Intra-Species Agrobiodiversity Conservation," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Leslie Lipper & Takumi Sakuyama & Randy Stringer & David Zilberman (ed.), Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes, chapter 10, pages 221-238, Springer.
    2. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    3. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    4. Messer, Kent D. & Borchers, Allison M., 2015. "Choice for goods under threat of destruction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 137-140.
    5. 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.
    6. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Liu, Hongxing, 2018. "Land-lake Dynamics: Are there Welfare Gains from Targeted Policies in a Heterogeneous Landscape," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274310, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Kim, Youngho & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2024. "Payments and penalties in ecosystem services programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Zilberman, David & Segerson, Kathleen, 2012. "Top Ten Design Elements to Achieve More Efficient Conservation Programs," C-FARE Reports 156623, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    10. Per G. Fredriksson & Jim R. Wollscheid, 2014. "Political Institutions, Political Careers and Environmental Policy," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 54-73, February.
    11. Boxall, Peter C. & Weber, Marian & Perger, Orsolya & Cutlac, Marius & Samarawickrema, Antony, 2008. "Results from the Farm Behaviour Component of the Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model for the Watershed Evaluation of Beneficial Management Practices Program," Project Report Series 116268, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    12. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    13. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    14. Balana, Bedru Babulo & Vinten, Andy & Slee, Bill, 2011. "A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: Key issues, methods, and applications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1031, April.
    15. Polyakov, Maksym & Dempster, Fiona & Park, Geoff & Pannell, David J., 2023. "Joining the dots versus growing the blobs: Evaluating spatial targeting strategies for ecological restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    16. Hochman, Gal & Zilberman, David, 2021. "Optimal environmental taxation in response to an environmentally-unfriendly political challenger," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Prager, Katrin & Schuler, Johannes & Helming, Katharina & Zander, Peter & Ratinger, Tomas & Hagedorn, Konrad, 2011. "An analytical framework for soil degradation, farming practices, institutions and policy responses," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114773, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Crossman, Neville D. & Connor, Jeffrey D. & Bryan, Brett A. & Summers, David M. & Ginnivan, John, 2010. "Reconfiguring an irrigation landscape to improve provision of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1031-1042, March.
    20. Termansen, Mette & Zandersen, Marianne & McClean, Colin J., 2008. "Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 81-97, January.

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:1:p:143-166. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.