Abstract
This study investigates the carbon sequestration potential and co-benefits from policies aimed at retiring agricultural land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, a large, heavily agricultural area. In addition to empirically measuring environmental co-benefits, we also compute economic transfers, which have sometimes been referred to as a co-benefit. Very little empirical work measuring the potential magnitude of these transfers has previously been undertaken. We compare and contrast alternative targeting schemes. We find that there are considerable amount of co-benefits and transfers and that the geographic distribution of co-benefits and transfers varies significantly with the specific benefit targeted. This implies that policy design related to targeting can have very important implications for both environmental conditions and income distributions in sub-regions. Issues related to policy design in the presence of co-benefits are considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alig RJ, Adams DM, McCarl BA, Callaway JM, Winnett S (1997) Assessing effects ofmitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal model of the U.S. forest and agriculturesectors. Environ Resour Econ 9:259–274
Alig RJ, Adams DM, McCarl BA (1998) Ecological and economic impacts of forest policies:interactions across forestry and agriculture. Ecol Econ 27:63–78
Antle J, Capalbo S, Mooney S, Elliott E, Paustian K (2003) Spatial heterogeneity, contractdesign, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration polices in agriculture. J Environ Econ Manag 46:231–250
Antle JM, McCarl BA (2002) The economics of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, in International yearbook of environmental and resource economics (2002/2003), edited by T Tietenberg and H Folmer. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar pp 278–310
Babcock BA, Lakshminarayan PG, Wu J, Zilbernman D (1996) The economics of a public fundfor environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. Am J Agric Econ 78:961–971
Brown M (1994) Using gini-style indices to evaluate the spatial patterns of health practitioners:theoretical considerations and an application based on Alberta data. Social Science Medicine 38(9):1243–1256
Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C (2003) Ancillary benefits ofreduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. JEnviron Econ Manag 45:650–673
Elbakidze L, McCarl BA (2004) Should we consider the Co-benefits of agricultural GHG offsets? Choices Fall, 25–26
Feather P, Hellerstein D, Hansen L (1999) Economic valuation of environmental benefits and thetargeting of conservation programs: the case of the CRP’ U.S. Department of agriculture, economic research service.agricultural economic report 778. Washington, DC
Follett RF, Pruessner EG, Samson-Liebig SE, Kimble JM, Waltman SW (2001) Carbonsequestration under the conservation reserve program in the historic grassland soils of the united states of america.SSSA special publication number 57, SSSA, Inc., Madison, WI, 27–40
Fuglie KO (1999) Conservation tillage, pesticide use in the cornbelt, J Agric App Econ31(1):133–147
Goolsby DA, Battaglin WA, Lawrence GB, Artz RS, Aulenbach BT, Hooper RP, KeeneyDR, Stensland GJ (1999) Flux and sources of nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3report for the integrated assessment on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision AnalysisSeries No. 17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers forCoastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MA. http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products(pubs_hypox.htmlTopic3
Greenhalgh S, Sauer A (2003) Awakening the Dead Zone: An Investment for Agriculture, WaterQuality and Climate Change. Issue Brief, World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/wr/accessed in September 2004)
Iowa Farm Bureau. (2005) Carbon credit aggregation pilot project backgrounder. http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/special/carbon/default.aspx, Accessed December
Izaurralde RC, Williams JR, McGill WB, Rosenberg NJ, Quiroga Jakas MC (2005)Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and testing against long-term data, EcologicalModelling, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 19 September,http://www.sciencedirect.com
Khanna M, Yang W, Farnsworth R, Onal H (2003) Cost-effective targeting of land retirementto improve water quality with endogenous sediment deposition coefficients. Am J Agric Econ 85:538–553
Kurkalova LA, Burkart C, Secchi S (2004a) Cropland cash rental rates in the uppermississippi river basin. CARD Technical Report 04-TR 47,http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/04tr47.pdf
Kurkalova LA, Kling CL, Zhao J (2004b) Multiple benefits of carbon-friendly agriculturalpractices: empirical assessment of conservation tillage. Environ Manag 33(4):519–527
McCarl BA, Schneider UA (2001) Greenhouse gas mitigation in U.S. Agriculture and forestry. Science 294(5551):2481–82
Matthews S, O’Connor R, Plantinga AJ (2002) Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity ofpolicies for carbon sequestration in forests. Ecol Econ 40:71–87
National Audubon Society (NAS) (2000) The changing face of the UMR Basin; agriculture: selectedprofiles of farming and farm practices. National Audubon Society, Upper Mississippi River Campaign, St. Paul,Minnesota’ Available at http://www.umbsn.org/news/documents/chg_face.pdf.Accessed February 2005
Nusser SM, Goebel JJ (1997) The national resources inventory: a long-term multi-resourcemonitoring programme. Environ Ecol Stat 4:181–204
Pattanayak SK, Sommer A, Murray BC, Bondelid T, McCarl BA, Gillig D (2002) Waterquality co-benefits of greenhouse gas reduction incentives in U.S. Agriculture. Final report, prepared for U.S. EPA
Plantinga AJ, Wu J (2003) Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluatingreductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in wisconsin. Land Econ 79(1):74–85
Ribaudo MO (1989) Water quality benefits from the conservation reserve program. U.S. Department of agriculture, economic research service, agricultural economic report 606. Washington, D.C.
Smith R (1995) The conservation reserve program as a least-cost land retirement mechanism. AmJ Agric Econ 77:93–105
Uri ND (1998) Conservation tillage and the use of energy and other inputs in US agriculture. Energy Econ 20:389–410
Williams JR (1990) The erosion productivity impact calculator (EPIC) model: a case history. Philos T Roy Soc B 329(1225):421–428
Zhao J, Kurkalova LA, Kling CL (2004) Alternative green payment policies underheterogeneity when multiple benefits matter. Agr Res Econ Rev 33(1):148–158
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Senior authorship is shared equally between the first two authors.
All views are those of the authors and not necessarily the funding agencies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, H., Kurkalova, L.A., Kling, C.L. et al. Transfers and environmental co-benefits of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils: retiring agricultural land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Climatic Change 80, 91–107 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9143-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9143-1