Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:03:57.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Green Payment Policies When Multiple Benefits Matter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jinhua Zhao ,
Lyubov A. Kurkalova  and
Catherine L. Kling
Jinhua Zhao
Affiliation:
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Lyubov A. Kurkalova
Affiliation:
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Catherine L. Kling
Affiliation:
Resource and Environmental Policy Division, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, all at Iowa State University
Get access

Abstract

This study investigates the environmental impacts of several forms of policies that offer farmers subsides in return for the adoption of conservation tillage. The policies differ as to whether the tillage practice or one of several environmental benefits is targeted. We develop an Environmental Lorenz Curve which fully represents the performance of the targeting policies, and show that this curve can be directly used to help select the optimal targeting strategy for special classes of social welfare functions. The model is applied to the state of Iowa.

Keywords

conservation policyEnvironmental Lorenz Curvemultiple environmental benefitstargeting
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 148 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antle, J. M., and Mooney, S. (2002). “Designing Efficient Policies for Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration.” In Kimble, J. (ed.), Agriculture Practices and Policies for Carbon Sequestration in Soil (pp. 323–336). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., and Zilberman, D. (1996). “The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of CRP Contracts.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 961–971.Google Scholar
Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., and Zilberman, D. (1997). “Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities.” Land Economics 73(3), 325–339.Google Scholar
Chung, S. W., Gassman, P. W., Gu, R., and Kanwar, R. S. (2002). “Evaluation of EPIC for Assessing Tile Flow and Nitrogen Losses for Alternative Agricultural Management Systems.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 45(4), 1135–1146.Google Scholar
Chung, S. W., Gassman, P. W., Higgins, D. R., and Randall, G. W. (2001). “EPIC Tile Flow and Nitrate Loss Predictions for Three Minnesota Cropping Systems.” Journal of Environmental Quality 30, 822–830.Google Scholar
Chung, S. W., Gassman, P. W., Kramer, L. A., Williams, J. R., and Gu, R. (1999). “Validation of EPIC for Two Watersheds in Southwest Iowa.” Journal of Environmental Quality 28, 971–979.Google Scholar
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). (2000). “Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.” National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Edwards, D. R., Benson, V. W., Williams, J. R., Daniel, T. C., Lemunyon, J., and Gilbert, R. G. (1994). “Use of the EPIC Model to Predict Runoff Transport of Surface-Applied Inorganic Fertilizer and Poultry Manure Constituents.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 37(2), 403–409.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, R. C., Williams, J. R., McGill, W. B., Rosenberg, N. J., and Quiroga Jakas, M. C. (2002). “Simulating Soil C Dynamics with EPIC: Model Description and Testing Against Long-Term Data.” Unpublished manuscript, Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
King, K. W., Richardson, C. W., and Williams, J. R. (1996). “Simulation of Sediment and Nitrate Loss on a Vertisol with Conservation Tillage Practices.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 39(6), 2139–2145.Google Scholar
Kurkalova, L. A., Kling, C. L., and Zhao, J. (2003). “Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior.” CARD Working Paper No. 01-WP 286, Iowa State University, Ames. Online. Available at http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/01wp286.pdf.Google Scholar
Kurkalova, L. A., Kling, C. L., and Zhao, J. (2004). “Multiple Benefits of Carbon-Friendly Agricultural Practices: Empirical Assessment of Conservation Tillage.” Environmental Management (forthcoming). Also online. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=issue&eissn=1432-1009&issue=current. [Accessed March 2004.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R., Kimble, J. M., Follet, R. F., and Cole, C. V. (1998). The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor, MI: Sleeping Bear Press.Google Scholar
Nusser, S. M., and Goebel, J. J. (1997). “The National Resources Inventory: A Long-Term Multi-Resource Monitoring Programme.” Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4, 181–204.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1994). The 1992 National Resources Inventory Database. USDA/NRCS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2004). “Conservation Security Program: Proposed Rule.” Federal Register 69(1), 194–224.Google Scholar
West, T. O., and Post, W. M. (2002). “Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis.” Soil Sciences Society of America Journal 66, 1930-1946.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. (1990). “The Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) Model: A Case History.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 329, 421–428.Google Scholar