IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aes008/36853.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nitrate Pollution Externality Associated with Increased Corn Demand for Ethanol: a Case Study of Olmsted County in Minnesota

Author

Listed:
  • Harpankar, Kshama

Abstract

Land use practices generate various environmental externalities. With the increased interest in biofuel production, it is imperative to understand the benefits and costs associated with resource allocation choices made for biofuel production. This paper contributes to the full cost accounting of biofuels research by estimating potential nitrate pollution cost associated with land use change that may result from increasing corn prices due to demand from ethanol producers. The increased demand for corn from ethanol producers is assumed to translate into changed spatial pattern of land use. Specifically this paper develops a regression model to empirically explain the relationship between groundwater nitrate levels in private wells in Olmsted County in Minnesota and a number of variables that may affect nitrate levels in groundwater including land use practices. Coefficients of the regression model are then employed to estimate the potential nitrate pollution levels under each land use scenario assumed. Finally percentage change in nitrate concentrations predicted under each land use scenario is applied to the observed nitrate concentrations in the private wells and a cost estimate is developed based on number of wells expected to exceed the 10 mg/L level.

Suggested Citation

  • Harpankar, Kshama, 2008. "Nitrate Pollution Externality Associated with Increased Corn Demand for Ethanol: a Case Study of Olmsted County in Minnesota," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36853, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aes008:36853
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.36853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/36853/files/Harpankar.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.36853?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. 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.
    2. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    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. Bhim B Ghaley & Harpinder S Sandhu & John R Porter, 2015. "Relationship between C:N/C:O Stoichiometry and Ecosystem Services in Managed Production Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Blancard, Stéphane & Martin, Elsa, 2014. "Energy efficiency measurement in agriculture with imprecise energy content information," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 198-208.
    5. 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.
    6. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    7. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Forio, Marie Anne Eurie & Villa-Cox, Gonzalo & Van Echelpoel, Wout & Ryckebusch, Helena & Lock, Koen & Spanoghe, Pieter & Deknock, Arne & De Troyer, Niels & Nolivos-Alvarez, Indira & Dominguez-Granda,, 2020. "Bayesian Belief Network models as trade-off tools of ecosystem services in the Guayas River Basin in Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    9. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    10. Murendeni Kwinda & Stefan John Siebert & Helga Van Coller & Tlou Samuel Masehela, 2024. "Identifying Plant Functional Traits of Weeds in Fields Planted with Glyphosate-Tolerant Maize for Preferable Weed Management Practices," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    12. Jules Pretty, 1999. "Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 253-274, September.
    13. Qingqing Yang & Yanhui Gao & Xinjun Yang & Jian Zhang, 2022. "Rural Transformation Driven by Households’ Adaptation to Climate, Policy, Market, and Urbanization: Perspectives from Livelihoods–Land Use on Chinese Loess Plateau," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    15. 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.
    16. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    17. LeClair, Mark S. & Franceschi, Dina, 2006. "Externalities in international trade: The case for differential tariffs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 462-472, June.
    18. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    19. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.

    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:ags:aes008:36853. 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/aesukea.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.