IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare08/5986.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Ozgoc-Caglar, C. Derya
  • Farnsworth, Richard L.

Abstract

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program and other voluntary Federal conservation programs follow a similar approach for enrollment. Consistent with the legislation, agency personnel identify eligibility criteria, suitable conservation practices, and a process to score, rank, and select applications for funding. Our research outlines a formal multiple criteria decision analysis system that is broadly applicable to current Federal conservation programs to score, rank, and enroll applications, and distribute program funds. Then, we apply the decision system to Indiana’s EQIP program using data from 2005. The incorporation of GLEAMS model improved our estimates of water quality impacts by reintroducing the spatial heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Ozgoc-Caglar, C. Derya & Farnsworth, Richard L., 2008. "A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 5986, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare08:5986
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.5986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/5986/files/cp08oz01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.5986?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. Powell, Mark & Wilson, James, 1997. "Risk Assessment for National Natural Resource Conservation Programs," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-49, Resources for the Future.
    2. Robert C. Johansson & Andrea Cattaneo, 2006. "Indices for Working Land Conservation: Form Affects Function," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 567-584.
    3. Feather, Peter & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hansen, LeRoy T., 1999. "Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP," Agricultural Economic Reports 34027, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Powell, Mark R. & Wilson, James D., 1997. "Risk Assessment for National Natural Resource Conservation Programs," Discussion Papers 10859, Resources for the Future.
    5. Cattaneo, Andrea & Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Myers, Christina, 2006. "Balancing the Multiple Objectives of Conservation Programs," Economic Research Report 7257, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Stefan Hajkowicz & Andrew Higgins & Kristen Williams & Daniel P. Faith & Michael Burton, 2007. "Optimisation and the selection of conservation contracts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 39-56, March.
    7. Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Johnson, Stanley R. & Bouzaher, Aziz, 1995. "A Multi-Objective Approach to Integrating Agricultural Economic and Environmental Policies," Staff General Research Papers Archive 955, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Robert C. Johansson & Andrea Cattaneo, 2006. "Indices for Working Land Conservation: Form Affects Function," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 567-584.
    10. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    11. Hansen, LeRoy T. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 2006. "Better Targeting, Better Outcomes," Economic Brief 34099, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Bellenger, Moriah J. & Herlihy, Alan T., 2010. "Performance-based environmental index weights: Are all metrics created equal?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1043-1050, March.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Alwynelle (Nell) S. AM, 1999. "Invited Editorial: Risk Assessment Challenges at USDA," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 323-326, June.
    5. Yang, Wanhong & Isik, Murat, 2003. "Integrating Farmer Decision-Making to Target Land Retirement Programs," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22062, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    7. Pannell, David J. & Gibson, Fiona L., 2014. "Testing metrics to prioritise environmental projects," Working Papers 163211, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Johan René van Dorp & Salvador Cruz Rambaud & José García Pérez & Rafael Herrerías Pleguezuelo, 2007. "An Elicitation Procedure for the Generalized Trapezoidal Distribution with a Uniform Central Stage," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 156-166, September.
    9. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi, 2003. "Subsidies! The Other Incentive-Based Instrument: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp345, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    10. Mykel R. Taylor & Nathan P. Hendricks & Gabriel S. Sampson & Dillon Garr, 2021. "The Opportunity Cost of the Conservation Reserve Program: A Kansas Land Example," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 849-865, June.
    11. Cattaneo, Andrea & Claassen, Roger & Johansson, Robert C. & Weinberg, Marca, 2005. "Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?," Economic Research Report 7248, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. D. K. Mohanty & Avik Pradhan & M. P. Biswal, 2020. "Chance constrained programming with some non-normal continuous random variables," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 57(4), pages 1281-1298, December.
    13. Khanna, Madhu & Yang, Wanhong & Farnsworth, Richard L. & Onal, Hayri, 2002. "Evaluating The Cost Effectiveness Of Land Retirement Programs," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19740, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Feng, Hongli & Kling, Catherine L. & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia, 2007. "Cac Versus Incentive-Based Instruments in Agriculture: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10796, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Johansson, Robert C. & Claassen, Roger & Peters, Mark, 2002. "New Conservation Initiatives In The 2002 Farm Bill," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19760, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    19. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Ebrahim Ahmadisharaf & Alfred Kalyanapu & Eun-Sung Chung, 2015. "Evaluating the Effects of Inundation Duration and Velocity on Selection of Flood Management Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2543-2561, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aare08:5986. 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/aaresea.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.