IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersrr/7248.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?

Author

Listed:
  • Cattaneo, Andrea
  • Claassen, Roger
  • Johansson, Robert C.
  • Weinberg, Marca

Abstract

From 1985 to 2002, most Federal conservation dollars going to farm operators have been to retire land from crop production. Yet most U.S. farmland (850 million acres) remains in active production. The Farm Security and Rural Investment (FSRI) Act of 2002 sharply increased conservation funding and earmarked most of the increase for working-land payment programs (WLPPs). The design and implementation of WLPPs will largely determine the extent to which environmental goals are achieved and whether they are cost effective. We simulate potential environmental gains as well as adjustments in agricultural production, price, and income associated with various WLPP features to illustrate tradeoffs arising from WLPP design and implementation. Competitive bidding with the use of environmental indices to rank producers for enrollment is most cost effective. Payments based on past conservation will help support farm incomes, but limit the amount of additional environmental benefit that can be generated under a fixed budget.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersrr:7248
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7248/files/er050005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7248?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. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.
    2. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    3. Kaplan, Jonathan D. & Johansson, Robert C., 2004. "A Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Environmental Improvement: Marrying Agri-Environmental Payments and Water Quality Regulations," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Smith, Katherine R. & Weinberg, Marca, 2006. "Measuring the Success of Conservation Programs," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-8, July.
    5. Robbin Shoemaker, 1989. "Agricultural Land Values and Rents under the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(2), pages 131-137.
    6. Peter Feather & Daniel Hellerstein, 1997. "Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 151-162.
    7. Andrea Cattaneo, 2003. "The Pursuit of Efficiency and Its Unintended Consequences: Contract Withdrawals in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 449-469.
    8. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2002. "The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1415-1451.
    9. Morgan, Cynthia & Owens, Nicole, 2001. "Benefits of water quality policies: the Chesapeake Bay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 271-284, November.
    10. G. Cornelis Kooten & Rita Athwal & Louise M. Arthur, 1998. "Use of Public Perceptions of Groundwater Quality Benefits in Developing Livestock Management Options," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 46(3), pages 273-285, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Browning, Edgar K, 1987. "On the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(1), pages 11-23, March.
    13. Dixit, Avinash & Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1997. "Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Government Policy Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(4), pages 752-769, August.
    14. Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren & Intarapapong, Walaiporn, 2002. "Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Reichelderfer, Katherine H., 1985. "Do USDA Farm Program Participants Contribute to Soil Erosion?," Agricultural Economic Reports 307990, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Johansson, Robert C. & Kaplan, Jonathan D., 2004. "A Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Environmental Improvement: Marrying Agri-Environmental Payments and Water Quality Regulations," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 91-104, April.
    17. Won Kim, Chong & Phipps, Tim T. & Anselin, Luc, 2003. "Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 24-39, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1997. "Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction," Agricultural Economic Reports 34025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. Lynch, Sarah, 1994. "Designing Green Support Programs," Policy Studies Program Reports, Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, number 134111, January.
    21. Variyam, Jayachandran N. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 1991. "Economic Perceptions And Agricultural Policy Preferences," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    2. Dobbs, Thomas L., 2006. "Working Lands Agri-environmental Policy Options and Issues for the Next United States Farm Bill," Economics Staff Papers 32013, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Dobbs, Thomas L., 2006. "Working Lands Agri-environmental Policy Options and Issues for the Next United States Farm Bill," Staff Papers 060003, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Johansson, Robert & Peters, Mark & House, Robert, 2007. "Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming Model," Technical Bulletins 184314, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Marc N. Conte & Robert M. Griffin, 2017. "Quality Information and Procurement Auction Outcomes: Evidence from a Payment for Ecosystem Services Laboratory Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 571-591, April.
    7. Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Hand, Michael S., 2009. "Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers: Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially Disadvantaged Operators' Enrollment Trends," Economic Information Bulletin 55641, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Greenhalgh, Suzie & Taylor, Michael A. & Selman, Mindy & Guiling, Jenny, 2008. "Reverse Auctions: Are they a Cost-Effective Alternative to Traditional Agricultural Conservation Spending?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6192, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.
    10. 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).
    11. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric, 2012. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs A Preliminary Analysis of New Data," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124721, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    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. 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.
    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. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Some Hard Truths About Agriculture and the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 24-33, April.
    4. Lichtenberg, Erik & Smith-Ramirez, Ricardo, 2003. "Cost Sharing, Transaction Costs, And Conservation," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22141, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. 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.
    6. Wanhong Yang & Madhu Khanna & Richard Farnsworth & Hayri Önal, 2005. "Is Geographical Targeting Cost-Effective? The Case of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 70-88.
    7. Claassen, Roger & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Peters, Mark & Breneman, Vincent E. & Weinberg, Marca & Cattaneo, Andrea & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hopkins, Jeffrey W. & Johnsto, 2001. "Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape," Agricultural Economic Reports 33983, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Johansson, Robert C. & Cooper, Joseph & Peters, Mark, 2006. "An agri-environmental assessment of trade liberalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 37-48, June.
    9. Katherine Baylis & Peter Feather & Merritt Padgitt & Carmen Sandretto, 2002. "Water-Based Recreational Benefits of Conservation Programs: The Case of Conservation Tillage on U.S. Cropland," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 384-393.
    10. 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.
    11. Isik, Murat, 2005. "A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participation under Uncertainty," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19264, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Ricardo Smith Ramírez, 2007. "Testing for information asymmetries in voluntary conservation contracts," Working Papers DTE 402, CIDE, División de Economía.
    15. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    16. O'Donoghue, Erik J. & MacDonald, James M. & Nehring, Richard F., 2005. "At What Rate Do Farmers Substitute Manure For Commercial Fertilizers?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19252, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    18. Assogba, Noel Perceval & Zhang, Daowei, 2022. "The conservation reserve program and timber prices in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    19. Isik, Murat & Yang, Wanhong, 2004. "An Analysis of the Effects of Uncertainty and Irreversibility on Farmer Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Feng, Hongli & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Gassman, Philip W., 2006. "Environmental conservation in agriculture: Land retirement vs. changing practices on working land," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 600-614, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:uersrr:7248. 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/ersgvus.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.