No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Subsidy Strategies for Soil Erosion Control
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2016
Abstract
This article reports on analyses of the cost effectiveness of three soil erosion control policy alternatives, specifically 1) uniform-rate cost sharing, 2) variable-rate cost sharing, and 3) fixed subsidy payments per unit reduction in erosion. A brief discussion of the place of these alternative subsidy strategies within the context of the current policy environment is presented. Integer programming is employed to simulate adoption of “best management practices” (BMPs) on a set of representative farms in a case study water-shed in response to these alternative subsidy strategies. Conclusions and policy implications are outlined.
- Type
- Submitted Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1987
References
American Agricultural Economies Association Soil Conservation Task Force (AAEA). “Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation Policy in the United States.” Occasional Paper No. 2, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1986.Google Scholar
Blisard, N., and Keller, L. H.. An Economie Analysis of Terraces as an Erosion Control Alternative on West Tennessee Farms.
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Bulletin No. 628, 1983.Google Scholar
Boggess, W., McGrann, J., Boehlje, M., and Heady, E. O.. “Farm-Level Impacts of Alternative Soil Loss Control Policies.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 34(1979):177–183.Google Scholar
Brubaker, S., and Castle, E. N.. “Alternative Policies and Strategies to Achieve Soil Conservation.” In Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives. Ed. Halcrow, H. A., Heady, E. O., and Cotner, M. L.. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982.Google Scholar
Bouwes, N. D., Southgate, D., Lovejoy, S., and Sharp, B.. Analysis of Cost Sharing for Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction, ESCS Staff Report, Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service, USDA, 1980.Google Scholar
Cook, K. “Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Control: A Time for Sticks.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(1985):105–106.Google Scholar
Epp, D. J., and Shortle, J. S.. “Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Control: Voluntary or Mandatory?” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(1985):111–114.Google Scholar
Food Security Act of 1985. Public Law 99-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, D. L., and Keller, L. H.. Economic Evaluation of Alternative Crop and Soil Management Systems for Reducing Soil Erosion Losses on West Tennessee Farms.
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Bulletin No. 627, 1982.Google Scholar
Jent, C. H., Bell, F. F., and Springer, M. E.. Predicting Soil Losses in Tennessee Under Different Management Systems.
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Bulletin No. 508, 1967.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. V., Eleveld, B., and Setia, P. P.. “Discount-Rate and Commodity-Price-Change Effects on Compensation to Farmers for Adopting Soil Conservation Practices.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39(1984):273–277.Google Scholar
Kugler, D. E. “Variable Cost-Sharing Level Program Implications for Kentucky's Jackson Purchase Area: An Economic and Policy Study of Cash Grain Production Considering Soil Depletion.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1984.Google Scholar
Michalson, E. L., and Brooks, R.. Conservation Cost-Sharing Based on the Development of an Off-Site Sediment Damage Function. AER Series 245, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1983.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. K., Brach, J. C., and Swanson, E. R.. “Costs and Benefits of Terraces for Erosion Control.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35 (1980):233–236.Google Scholar
Ray, R. M., and Walch, H. N.. Farm Planning Manual.
Agricultural Extension Service, University of Tennessee, 1981.Google Scholar
Seale, R. D., Hubbard, J. W., and Kaiser, E. H.. “Subsidy and Tax Effects of Controlling Stream Sedimentation in South Carolina.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(1985):144–148.Google Scholar
Sharp, B.M.H., and Bromley, D. W.. “Agricultural Pollution: The Economics of Coordination.” Amer. J: Agr. Econ., 61(1979):591–600.Google Scholar
Spurlock, S. R., and Clifton, I. D.. “Efficiency and Equity Aspects of Nonpoint Source Pollution Controls.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 14(1982):123–129.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. R., and Frohberg, K. K.. “The Welfare Effects of Erosion Controls, Banning Pesticides and Limiting Fertilizer Application in the Corn Belt.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 58(1977):25–36.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Summary Evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Program, Phase I. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1980a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). North Fork Forked Deer River (NFFD) Watershed Plan. Prepared by North Fork Forked Deer River Watershed District, Gibson County Soil Conservation District, Gibson County Body of Commissioners, assisted by Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Forest Service, 1980b.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accounting Office (USGAO). Report to the Congress of the United States: Agriculture's Soil Conservation Programs Miss Full Potential in the Fight Against Soil Erosion. RCED84-48, 1983.Google Scholar
Walker, D. J., and Timmons, J. F.. In Search of the Best Solution for Nonpoint Pollution: Effluent Taxes or Cost-Share Subsidies?, AER Series 229, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1980.Google Scholar