IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i12d10.1007_s10668-021-02035-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land use preferences considering resource economics: case of organic versus conventional wheat production in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Gökhan Uzel

    (Bursa Uludag University)

  • Serkan Gürlük

    (Bursa Uludag University)

  • Esma Aslak

    (Bursa Uludag University)

  • Feza Karaer

    (Bursa Uludag University)

Abstract

The organic agricultural production system is considered to be the best alternative to the conventional system in order to solve agricultural externality problems. The adoption of such systems provide environmental, social, and financial benefits to the related communities. The related community may receive economic benefits although they might not recognize those benefits. The current paper examines prospective organic wheat production’s positive impacts on Turkish economy. This research seeks to find the optimal cultivated land requirement to be allocated for organic wheat production, and contributes to the available literature by measuring environmental and social effects using the proxy values of regular wheat production in the country. Results dictate that the social optimum amount of conventional wheat production must be 1.3 million hectares. If the annual negative externality of wheat production, which is 227.5 USD/ha, is taken into account, the total annual external cost would be 1,416,061,536 USD/year. The importance of conversion and superiority of organic farming are stressed in the literature only at the micro-level or farm-level rather than the macroeconomic level. Macroeconomic results examined in the current paper complete micro-level studies in the context of agricultural externalities. The study indicates that macroeconomic efficiency of organic production is higher than the conventional system. However, it is suggested that a mild transition path be implemented for better land conversion in developing countries such as Turkey. The system of good agricultural practices may have some advantages for this path.

Suggested Citation

  • Gökhan Uzel & Serkan Gürlük & Esma Aslak & Feza Karaer, 2022. "Land use preferences considering resource economics: case of organic versus conventional wheat production in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 14375-14392, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s10668-021-02035-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-02035-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-02035-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-02035-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Park & Edward Barbier & Joanne Burgess, 1998. "The Economics of Forest Land Use in Temperate and Tropical Areas," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 473-487, April.
    2. Anthony Trewavas, 2001. "Urban myths of organic farming," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6827), pages 409-410, March.
    3. J. Hartwick, 1992. "Deforestation and national accounting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(5), pages 513-521, September.
    4. Lucile Muneret & Matthew Mitchell & Verena Seufert & Stéphanie Aviron & El Aziz Djoudi & Julien Pétillon & Manuel Plantegenest & Denis Thiéry & Adrien Rusch, 2018. "Evidence that organic farming promotes pest control," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(7), pages 361-368, July.
    5. Edward B. Barbier, 2003. "Habitat–Fishery Linkages And Mangrove Loss In Thailand," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(1), pages 59-77, January.
    6. Uematsu, Hiroki & Mishra, Ashok K., 2012. "Organic farmers or conventional farmers: Where's the money?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 55-62.
    7. Eric Kiprotich Bett & David Michael Ayieko, 2017. "Economic potential for conversion to organic farming: a net present value analysis in the East Mau Catchment, Nakuru, Kenya," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1307-1325, August.
    8. Cacho, Oscar, 2001. "An analysis of externalities in agroforestry systems in the presence of land degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 131-143, October.
    9. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    10. Nguyen Khanh Doanh & Nguyen Thi Thu Thuong & Yoon Heo, 2018. "Impact of Conversion to Organic Tea Cultivation on Household Income in the Mountainous Areas of Northern Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Elwasila Saeed Elamin Mohamed, 2020. "Resource Rents, Human Development and Economic Growth in Sudan," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Hediger, Werner, 2003. "Sustainable farm income in the presence of soil erosion: an agricultural Hartwick rule," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 221-236, June.
    13. Szvetlana Acs & Paul Berentsen & Ruud Huirne & Marcel van Asseldonk, 2009. "Effect of yield and price risk on conversion from conventional to organic farming ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 393-411, July.
    14. Smith, Laurence G. & Jones, Philip J. & Kirk, Guy J.D. & Pearce, Bruce D. & Williams, Adrian. G., 2018. "Modelling the production impacts of a widespread conversion to organic agriculture in England and Wales," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 391-404.
    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. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    2. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Gregor Devine & Michael Furlong, 2007. "Insecticide use: Contexts and ecological consequences," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 281-306, September.
    4. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2014. "Do organic farmers feel happier than conventional ones? An exploratory analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 38-43.
    5. Barbieri, Pietro & Starck, Thomas & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Nesme, Thomas, 2023. "Biological nitrogen fixation of legumes crops under organic farming as driven by cropping management: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    6. Pingping Fang & David Abler & Guanghua Lin & Ali Sher & Quan Quan, 2021. "Substituting Organic Fertilizer for Chemical Fertilizer: Evidence from Apple Growers in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    7. Gunnar Köhlin & Peter J. Parks, 2001. "Spatial Variability and Disincentives to Harvest: Deforestation and Fuelwood Collection in South Asia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(2), pages 206-218.
    8. Demmeler, M., 2004. "Ressourceneffizienz regionaler und ökologischer Lebensmittel - Eine kombinierte Anwendung von Ökobilanzierung und ressourcenökonomischer Analyse," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    9. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    10. Tanner, Michael K. & Moity, Nicolas & Costa, Matthew T. & Marin Jarrin, Jose R. & Aburto-Oropeza, Octavio & Salinas-de-León, Pelayo, 2019. "Mangroves in the Galapagos: Ecosystem services and their valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 12-24.
    11. Schilling, Brian J. & Attavanich, Witsanu & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Marxen, Lucas J., 2014. "Measuring the effect of farmland preservation on farm profitability," MPRA Paper 100122, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2014.
    12. Saem Lee & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Patrick Poppenborg & Hio-Jung Shin & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Lanoie, Paul & Laplante, Benoît & Tanguay, Georges A., 1994. "La firme et l’environnement," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(2), pages 97-111, juin.
    14. Aguilera, Eduardo & Díaz-Gaona, Cipriano & García-Laureano, Raquel & Reyes-Palomo, Carolina & Guzmán, Gloria I. & Ortolani, Livia & Sánchez-Rodríguez, Manuel & Rodríguez-Estévez, Vicente, 2020. "Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2004. "Deforestation, Production Intensity and Land Use under Insecure Property Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 1128, CESifo.
    16. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Alice Issanchou & Karine Daniel & Pierre Dupraz & Carole Ropars-Collet, 2018. "Soil resource and the profitability and sustainability of farms: A soil quality investment model," Working Papers SMART 18-01, INRAE UMR SMART.
    18. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    19. Edward B. Barbier, 2016. "The Protective Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in a Wealth Accounting Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 37-58, May.
    20. Bin Amin, Sakib & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Khan, Farhan & Manal Rahman, Faria, 2024. "Does technology have a lead or lag role in economic growth? The case of selected resource-rich and resource-scarce countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s10668-021-02035-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.