Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:11:51.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chance Constrained Programming Models for Risk-Based Economic and Policy Analysis of Soil Conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Minkang Zhu ,
Daniel B. Taylor ,
Subhash C. Sarin  and
Randall A. Kramer
Minkang Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Daniel B. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Subhash C. Sarin
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Randall A. Kramer
Affiliation:
Center for Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Get access

Abstract

The random nature of soil loss under alternative land-use practices should be an important consideration of soil conservation planning and analysis under risk. Chance constrained programming models can provide information on the trade-offs among pre-determined tolerance levels of soil loss, probability levels of satisfying the tolerance levels, and economic profits or losses resulting from soil conservation to soil conservation policy makers. When using chance constrained programming models, the distribution of factors being constrained must be evaluated. If random variables follow a log-normal distribution, the normality assumption, which is generally used in the chance constrained programming models, can bias the results.

Type
Agricultural, Resource, and Environmental Policies in the 1990s
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , April 1994 , pp. 58 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A. GAMS: A User Guide. Redwood City, California: The Scientific Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W. “Chance-Constrained Programming.” Management Science 6 (1959): 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, E.L., and Shimizn, K. Lognormal Distribution: Theory and Application. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
Fenton, L.F. “The Sum of Log-Normal Probability Distribution in Scatter Transmission Systems.” IRE Transactions on Communication System CS-8 (1960): 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, A.J., Morris, J.G., and Thompson, H.E. “Decision Problems under Risk and Chance Constrained Programming: Dilemmas in Transition.” Management Science, 27 (1981): 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. Decision with Multiple Objective: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. New York: Spring-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
Kirby, M.J.L. “The Current State of Chance-Constrained Programming.” In Proceedings of the Princeton Symposium on Mathematical Programming, Princeton, 1967, Kuhn, H.W., ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Knisel, W.M. “CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems.” Conservation Research Report No. 27. USDA, Washington, DC, 1980.Google Scholar
Kramer, R.A., McSweeny, W.T., and Stavros, R.W. “Soil Conservation with Uncertain Revenues and Input Supplies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (1983): 684–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, W.C. “Alternative Programming Models Involving Uncertainty.” Journal of Farm Economics 38 (1956): 595–610.Google Scholar
Sarin, C.S., and Srivastava, R.K. “On Vendor Part Delivery Dates in a Stochastic Assembling System.” Opsearch 30 (1993): 281–312.Google Scholar
Segarra, E., Kramer, R.A., and Taylor, D.B. “A Stochastic Programming Analysis of the Farm Level Implications of Soil Erosion Control.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 17 (1985): 147–154.Google Scholar
Shanholtz, V.O., Desain, C.J., Zhang, N., Kleene, J.W., and Metz, C.D. “Hydrologic/Water Quality Modeling In a GIS Environment.” St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineering paper No. 90–3033, 1990.Google Scholar
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-share Program Manual 1992, Richmond, VA, 1992.Google Scholar
Wade, J.D., and Heady, E.O. “Controlling Non-Point Sediment Source with Cropland Management: A National Economics Assessment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1977): 13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D.J., and Timmons, F. “Cost of Alternative Policies for Controlling Agricultural Soil Loss and Associated Stream Sedimentation.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35 (1980): 177–182.Google Scholar
Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D. “Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning.” Agricultural Handbook No. 537, USDA, 1978.Google Scholar