Advertisement

Estimating the Benefits of Land Imagery in Environmental Applications: A Case Study in Nonpoint Source Pollution of Groundwater

  • Richard L. Bernknopf
  • William M. Forney
  • Ronald P. Raunikar
  • Shruti K. Mishra
Chapter

Abstract

Moderate-resolution land imagery (MRLI) is crucial to a more complete assessment of the cumulative, landscape-level effect of agricultural land use and land cover on environmental quality. If this improved assessment yields a net social benefit, then that benefit reflects the value of information (VOI) from MRLI. Environmental quality and the capacity to provide ecosystem services evolve because of human actions, changing natural conditions, and their interaction with natural physical processes. The human actions, in turn, are constrained and redirected by many institutions and regulations such as agricultural, energy, and environmental policies. We present a general framework for bringing together sociologic, biologic, physical, hydrologic, and geologic processes at meaningful scales to interpret environmental implications of MRLI applications. We set out a specific application using MRLI observations to identify crop planting patterns and thus estimate surface management activities that influence groundwater resources over a regional landscape. We tailor the application to the characteristics of nonpoint source groundwater pollution hazards in Iowa to illustrate a general framework in a land use-hydrologic-economic system. In the example, MRLI VOI derives from reducing the risk of both losses to agricultural production and damage to human health and other consequences of contaminated groundwater.

Keywords

Integrated assessment Landsat Moderate-resolution land imagery Remote sensing Nonpoint source pollution Value of information Agricultural production Land use and land cover Joint production Nitrate Groundwater contamination Hydrogeology Ecosystem service Environmental regulation Agricultural policy Renewable fuel standard Ethanol Economic loss Risk 

References

  1. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Survey (ASPRS). (2006). Moderate resolution imagery survey.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, J., & Just, R. J. (1991). Effects of commodity program structure on resource use and the environment. In R. Just & N. Bockstael (Eds.), Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems (pp. 97–128). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle, J., & McGuckin, T. (1993). Technological innovation, agricultural productivity, and environmental quality. In G. Carlson, D. Zilberman, & J. Miranowski (Eds.), Agricultural and environmental resource economics (pp. 175–220). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Antle, J., & Valdivia, R. (2006). Modeling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: A minimum-data approach. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 50, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahlroth, S., M. Nilsson, G. Finnveden, O. Hjelm, and E. Hochschorner, 2010. “Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools - suggestions for further developments.” Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press, Available online, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.016.Google Scholar
  6. Bear, J. (1979). Hydraulics of groundwater. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Bouma, J. A., van der Woerd, H. J., & Kuik, O. J. (2009). Assessing the value of information for water quality management in the North Sea. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1280–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (2002). The nature and properties of soils (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Canter, L. W. (1997). Nitrates in groundwater. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chetty, R., 2006. “A New Method of Estimating Risk Aversion.” American Economic Review 96: 1821-1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crutch-field, S. R., Cooper, J. C., & Hellerstein, D. (1997). Benefits of safer drinking water: The value of nitrate reduction (Agricultural Economic Report No. 752). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Consumer Economics Division.Google Scholar
  12. Daily, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. de Marsily, G. (1986). Quantitative hydrogeology. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  14. DeCanio, S.J. and C.S. Norman, 2005. “Economics of the ‘Critical use’ of Methyl Bromide Under the Montreal Protocol,” Contemporary Economic Policy 23(3): 376-393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earth Satellite Corporation. (1974). Earth resources survey benefit-cost study (Contract No. 14-08-0001-13519, 6 Vols and Appendices). Washington, DC: Earth Satellite Corporation.Google Scholar
  16. ECON, Incorporated. (1974). The economic value remote sensing of earth resources from space: An ERTS overview and the value of continuity of service. Princeton: ECON, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC). 1993. Issues Paper No. 5, “The Impact of Classification Revisions on Time Series.” Available at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics/issues5Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, S. (1988). Option prices for groundwater protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15:475–487Google Scholar
  19. Grossi, P., & Kunreuther, H. (2005). Catastrophic modeling: A new approach to managing risk. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hale, R. C., Hanuschak, G. A., & Craig, M. E. (1999). The appropriate role of remote sensing in U.S. agricultural statistics. National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA), FAO regional project: Improvement of agricultural statistics in Asia and pacific countries, GCP/RAS/171/JPN.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, H. (1998). Choosing an empirical production function: Theory, nonnested hypotheses, costs of specifications (Agricultural Economics Research Report No. 59). Lexington: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  22. Heal, G. (1991). Economy and climate: A preliminary framework for microeconomic analysis. In R. Just & N. Bockstael (Eds.), Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems (pp. 196–212). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hong, N., White, J. G., Weisz, R., Gumpertz, M. L., Duffera, M. G., & Cassell, D. K. (2007). Groundwater nitrate spatial and temporal patterns and correlations: Influence of natural controls and nitrogen management. Vadose Zone Journal, 6, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iowa State University Extension Service. (2010). Chartbook corn tables. Available at: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/outrea.ch/agriculture/periodicals/chartbook/files/corn.htm. Accessed on 14 Sept 2010.
  25. Isik, M., Hudson, D., & Coble, K. H. (2005). The value of site-specific information and the environment: Technology adoption and pesticide use under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan, J. L., & Elnagheeb, A. H. (1993). Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Resources Research, 29, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalbfleisch, J., & Prentice, R. (1980). The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: Wiley. 321p.Google Scholar
  28. Kalluri, S., Gilruth, P., & Bergman, R. (2003). The potential of remote sensing data for decision makers at the state, local and tribal level: Experiences from NASA’s synergy program. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleinbaum, D. (1996). Survival analysis: A self-learning text. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Kross, B. C., Olson, M. L., Ayebo, A., & Johnson, J. K. (1995). Ameliorating effects of alternative agriculture. In J. Rechchigl (Ed.), Soil amendments: Impacts on biotic systems (pp. 153–214). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Krutilla, J. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review, 57, 787–796.Google Scholar
  32. Lambert, D., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., & Malzer, G. (2006). Economic analysis of spatial-temporal patterns in corn and soybean response to nitrogen and phosphorus. Agronomy Journal, 98, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster, T. (1990). The econometric analysis of transition data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lauer, J., Porter, P., & Opplinger, E. (1997). The corn and soybean rotation effect. Agronomy advice, Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin. http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/aa/a014.aspx
  35. Lence, S., & Hayes, D. (1995). Land allocation in the presence of estimation risk. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 20, 49–63.Google Scholar
  36. Lichtenberg, E. (1991). Determination of regional environmental policy under uncertainty: Theory and case studies. In A. Dinar & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), The economics and management of water and drainage in agriculture (pp. 700–716). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Livanis, G., Salois, M., & Moss, C. (2009). A nonparametric kernel representation of the agricultural production function: Implications for economic measures of technology. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Dublin.Google Scholar
  38. Loomis, J., Bell, P., Cooney, H., & Asmus, C. (2009). A comparison of actual and hypothetical willingness to pay of parents and non-parents for protecting infant health: The case of nitrates in drinking water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 4, 697–712.Google Scholar
  39. Lubowski, R. N., Vesterby, M., Bucholtz, S., Baez, A., & Roberts, M. J. (2005). Major uses of land in the United States (USDA Economic Information Bulletin, No. 14).Google Scholar
  40. Macauley, M. K. (2006). The value of information: Measuring the contribution of space-derived earth science data to resource management. Space Policy, 22, 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Macauley, M. (2007). The role of earth observations in revolutionizing management of natural resources and the environment: Identifying the Landsat contribution, report to the United States Geological Survey. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  42. Macauley, M. (2010). Climate adaptation policy: The role and value of information (Resources for the Future, Issues Brief 10-10).Google Scholar
  43. Martinez, Y., & Albiac, J. (2006). Nitrate pollution control under soil heterogeneity. Land Use Policy, 23, 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McFadden, Daniel, 1975. “The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory.” The Bell Journal of Economics 6(2): 401-416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McFadden, Daniel, 1976. “The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence.” The Bell Journal of Economics, 7(1): 55-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meals, D. W., Dressing, S. A., & Davenport, T. E. (2010). Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, H., Sexton, N., Koontz, L., Loomis, J., Koontz, S., & Hermans, C. (2011). The users, uses, and value of Landsat and other moderate-resolution satellite imagery in the United States Executive Report (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1031).Google Scholar
  48. Mirvish, S. S. (1995). Role of N-nitroso compounds (NOC) and N-nitrosation in etiology of gastric, esophageal, nasopharyngeal and bladder cancer and contribution to cancer of known exposures to NOC. Cancer Letters, 97, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mortensen, J. R., & Beattie, B. R. (2005). Does choice of response function matter in setting maximum allowable N-application rates in Danish agriculture? (Cardon Research Papers, 2005-01). Available at: http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/researchpapers/2005-01mortensenbeattie.pdf
  51. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1964). A case study in the economics of information and coordination: The weather forecasting system. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, 420–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nelson, G., Schimmelpfennig, D., & Sumner, D. (2007). Can satellite-based land imaging data be made more valuable for agriculture? (Report to the US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Agreement 58-6000-6-0047).Google Scholar
  53. Nolan, B. T., & Hitt, K. J. (2006). Vulnerability of shallow groundwater and drinking-water wells to nitrate in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 40, 7834–7840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nolan, B. T., Ruddy, B. C., Hitt, K. J., & Helsel, D. R. (1997). Risk of nitrate in groundwaters of the Unites States—A national perspective. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, 2229–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nolan, B. T., Hitt, K. J., & Ruddy, B. C. (2002). Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged ground waters in the conterminous United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 2138–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nolan, B. T., Puckett, L. J., Ma, L., Green, C. T., Bayless, E. R., & Malone, R. W. (2010). Predicting unsaturated zone nitrogen mass balances in agricultural settings in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39, 1051–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. North Dakota State University (in conjunction with North Dakota Corn Utilization Council). (1997). Corn production guide. Available at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1130-2.htm#Index. Accessed on 12 Jan 2009.
  58. Oakes, D. B. (1982). Nitrate pollution of groundwater resources: Mechanisms and modeling. In: Proceedings of an IIASA Task Force Meeting on nonpoint nitrate pollution of municipal water supply sources (Issues of Analysis and Control, Series No. CP-82-S4). Laxenburg: International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
  59. Philips, L. (1988). The economics of imperfect information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Poe, G. L. (1999). Maximizing the environmental benefits per dollar expended: An economic interpretation and review of agricultural environmental benefits and costs. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 571–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Poe, G. L., & Bishop, R. C. (1999). Valuing the incremental benefits of groundwater protection when exposure levels are known. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13, 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prior, J., Howes, J. M., Libra, R., & VanDorpe, P. (2003). Iowa groundwater basics (Iowa Geological Survey Educational Series 6). Iowa Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  63. Ross, T. W. (1984). Uncovering regulators’ social welfare weights. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15, 152–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sheriff, G. (2005). Efficient waste? Why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27, 542–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shimshack, J. and M.B. Ward, 2005. “Regulator Reputation, Enforcement, and Environmental Compliance,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 519-540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sparco, J. (1995). Marginal valuation of health related attributes of ground water using conjoint analysis. Northeastern Agricultural and resource economics association meetings, Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
  67. The Financials. (2010). www.commodities.thefinancials.com. Verified June 15, 2010.
  68. Tomer, M. D., & Burkart, M. R. (2003). Long-term effects of nitrogen fertilizer use on ground water nitrate in two small watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32, 2158–2171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Noortwijk, J.M., and Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., 1998. Bayesian estimation of quantiles for the purpose of flood prevention. In: Coastal Engineering, 27, 3529–3541.Google Scholar
  70. Weisbrod, B. A. (1964). Collective consumption services of individual consumption goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilkie, D. S., & Finn, J. T. (1996). Remote sensing imagery for natural resources monitoring. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Williamson, R. A., Hertzfeld, H. R., Cordes, J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2002). The socioeconomic benefits of earth science and applications research: reducing the risks and costs of natural disasters in the USA. Space Policy, 18, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yadav, S.N. 1997. Dynamic optimization if nitrogen use when groundwater contamination is internalized at the standard in the long run Amercian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 931–945.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Bernknopf
    • 1
    • 2
  • William M. Forney
    • 2
  • Ronald P. Raunikar
    • 2
  • Shruti K. Mishra
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Western Geographic Science CenterUnited States Geologic SurveyMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations