IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v9y2024i11p135-d1519642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dataset to Quantify Spillover Effects Among Concurrent Green Initiatives

Author

Listed:
  • Rong Zhang

    (International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Qi Zhang

    (Department of Geography and Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Conghe Song

    (Department of Geography and Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Li An

    (International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

Abstract

Green initiatives are popular mechanisms globally to enhance environmental and human wellbeing. However, multiple green initiatives, when overlapping geographically and targeting the same participants, may interact with each other, giving rise to what is termed “spillover effects”, where one initiative and its outcomes influence another. This study examines the spillover effects among four major concurrent initiatives in the United States (U.S.) and China using a comprehensive dataset. In the U.S., we analysed county-level data in 2018 for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both operational for over 25 years. In China, data from Fanjingshan and Tianma National Nature Reserves (2014–2015) were used to evaluate the Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP) and the Forest Ecological Benefit Compensation (FEBC) program. The dataset comprises 3106 records for the U.S. and 711 plots for China, including several socio-economic variables. The results of multivariate linear regression indicate that there exist significant spillover effects between CRP & EQIP and GTGP & FEBC, with one initiative potentially enhancing or offsetting another’s impacts by 22% to 100%. This dataset provides valuable insights for researchers and policymakers to optimize the effectiveness and resilience of concurrent green initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Rong Zhang & Qi Zhang & Conghe Song & Li An, 2024. "Dataset to Quantify Spillover Effects Among Concurrent Green Initiatives," Data, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-8, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:9:y:2024:i:11:p:135-:d:1519642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/9/11/135/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/9/11/135/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    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. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    3. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. KURKALOVA, Lyubov A. & WADE, Tara R., 2013. "Aggregated Choice Data And Logit Models: Application To Environmental Benign Practices Of Conservation Tillage By Farmers In The State Of Iowa," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 13(2), pages 119-128.
    5. Author-Name: Luca Di Corato & Cesare Dosi & Michele Moretto, 2014. "Bidding for Conservation Contracts," Working Papers 2014.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Skidmore, Samuel & Santos, Paulo & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Seeing REDD: A Microeconomic Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in Indonesia," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126688, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    8. Zhang, Qi & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Song, Conghe & Tao, Shiqi & Huang, Qingfeng, 2019. "Rural household income distribution and inequality in China: Effects of payments for ecosystem services policies and other factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 114-127.
    9. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    10. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    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. Pratt, Bryan & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "Cover Practice Definitions and Incentives in the Conservation Reserve Program," Economic Information Bulletin 327358, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    15. Hualin Xie & Lingjuan Cheng & Tiangui Lv, 2017. "Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Fallow Winter Wheat and Ecological Compensation Standards in a Groundwater Funnel Area in Hengshui, Hebei Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    16. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.
    18. Patrick Baur, 2020. "When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1175-1194, December.
    19. Vergamini, Daniele & White, Benedict & Viaggi, Davide, 2015. "Agri-Environmental Policies design in Europe, USA and Australia: is an auction more cost-effective than a self-selecting contract schedule?," 2015 Fourth Congress, June 11-12, 2015, Ancona, Italy 207357, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    20. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.

    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:gam:jdataj:v:9:y:2024:i:11:p:135-:d:1519642. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.