IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v36y2004i02p277-286_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reinventing Regulation of Agriculture: Alternative Performance Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Author

Listed:
  • Pease, James W.
  • Bosch, Darrell J.

Abstract

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are point sources of pollution and require Clean Water Act permits. The 2003 regulations allow Large CAFOs to propose alternative performance standards (APS) that offer equivalent or better environmental performance than the baseline technology. Principal obstacles to APS success include the complexities of demonstrating superior performance, cost uncertainties for obtaining approval, CAFO risks of participation, inter- and intra-organizational barriers of permitting agencies, and potential lawsuits brought by environmental groups. Despite obstacles, APS offers potential for technology innovations and reduced environmental compliance costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Pease, James W. & Bosch, Darrell J., 2004. "Reinventing Regulation of Agriculture: Alternative Performance Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 277-286, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:36:y:2004:i:02:p:277-286_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800026572/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blackman, Allen & Mazurek, Janice, 1999. "The Cost of Developing Site-Specific Environmental Regulations: Evidence from EPA's Project XL," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-35-rev, Resources for the Future.
    2. Darrell J. Bosch & James W. Pease, 2000. "Economic Risk and Water Quality Protection in Agriculture," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 438-463.
    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. Blackman, Allen & Guerrero, Santiago, 2012. "What drives voluntary eco-certification in Mexico?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 256-268.
    2. Canales Medina, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Modeling the factors affecting farmers’ timing of adoption of in-field conservation cropping practices," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Blackman, Allen & Woodward, Richard T., 2010. "User financing in a national payments for environmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1626-1638, June.
    4. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Non‐Mandatory Approaches to Environmental Protection," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 291-324, July.
    5. Kurkalova, Lyubov A., 2014. "On optimal placement of best management practices in agricultural watersheds," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169768, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Ekman, Sone, 2002. "Cost-Effective Farm-Level Nitrogen Abatement in the Presence of Environmental and Economic Risk," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24860, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Mukherjee, Sacchidananda, 2008. "Factors influencing farmers\u2019 willingness to protect groundwater from nonpoint source of pollution in the Lower Bhavani River Basin, Tamil Nadu," Conference Papers h041886, International Water Management Institute.
    8. Calatrava-Leyva, Javier & Franco, Juan Agustin & Gonzalez-Roa, Maria del Carmen, 2005. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Olive Groves: The Case of Spanish Mountainous Areas," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24661, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Anderson, Jock R., 2003. "Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 161-197.
    10. Totti Könnölä & Gregory C. Unruh & Javier Carrillo- Hermosilla, 2005. "IE WP 23/04 Prospective Voluntary Agreements to Escape Carbon Lock-in," Others 0509005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Keith Brouhle & Charles Griffiths & Ann Wolverton, 2004. "The Use of Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policymaking in the U.S," NCEE Working Paper Series 200405, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised May 2004.
    12. Stephenson, Kurt & Bosch, Darrell J., 2003. "Nonpoint Source And Carbon Sequestration Credit Trading: What Can The Two Learn From Each Other?," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22229, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Huhtanen, Pekka & Nousiainen, Juha & Turtola, Eila, 2011. "Dairy farm nutrient management model: 2. Evaluation of different strategies to mitigate phosphorus surplus," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(5), pages 383-391, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government 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:cup:jagaec:v:36:y:2004:i:02:p:277-286_02. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.