Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-m9wwp Total loading time: 0.283 Render date: 2021-08-02T04:55:15.624Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Cost-Effective Targeting for Reducing Soil Erosion in a Large Agricultural Watershed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Craig M. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas
Jeffrey R. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Amirpouyan Nejadhashemi
Affiliation:
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Sean A. Woznicki
Affiliation:
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
John C. Leatherman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Get access

Abstract

Erosion of agricultural croplands is a significant contributor of sedimentation to reservoirs. Here, physiographic and economic models for a large agricultural watershed (2377 square miles with 27 subwatersheds) are integrated for the reduction of sedimentation of one Midwestern reservoir. Sediment reduction and the cost-effectiveness of three agricultural best management practices (no-till, filter strip, and permanent vegetation) implementation were considered under three modeling scenarios: random assignment; the globally most cost-effective approach; and a cost-effective targeting approach. This study demonstrates how physiographic and economic data can be harnessed to yield readily comprehendible cost-effective targeting maps. Cost-effective targeting may be preferable to watershed managers for its “user-friendliness” without too great a sacrifice of the globally most cost-efficient solution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014

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

Arabi, M.R., Govindaraju, S., and Hantush, M.M.. “Cost-Effective Allocation of Watershed Management Practices Using a Genetic Algorithm.” Water Resources Research 42,10(2006): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azzaino, Z.J., Conrad, M., and Ferraro, P.J.. “Optimizing the Riparian Buffer: Harold Brook in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed, New York.” Land Economics 78,4(2002):501-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, R.Cost-Effective Conservation Programs: The Role of Economics.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64,2(2009):53A54A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D., and Barnes, P.. 2008. “Management practices to control sediment loading from agricultural landscapes in Kansas.” Sedimentation in Our Reservoirs: Causes and Solutions, Hargrove, William L., ed. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service: Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
Doering, O.C., Diaz-Hermelo, F., Howard, C., Heimlich, R., Hitzhusen, F., Kazmierczak, R., Lee, J., Libby, L., Milon, W., Prato, T., and Ribaudo, M.. “Evaluation of Economic Costs and Benefits of Methods for Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of Mexico: Topic 6 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.” NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 20. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, 1999.Google Scholar
Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H., and Arnold, J.G.. “The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Histological Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions.” Transactions of the ASABE 50,4(2007): 1211-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giri, S., Nejadhashemi, A.P., and Woznicki, S.A.. “Evaluation of Targeting Methods for Implementation of Best Management Practices in the Saginaw River Watershed.” Journal of Environmental Management 103(2012):2440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargrove, W.L., Johnson, D., Snethen, D., and Middendorf, J.. “From Dust Bowl to Mud Bowl: Sedimentation, Conservation Measures, and the Future of Reservoirs.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65,1(2010):14A17A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, C.D., and Yang, W.F.. “Optimal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategies for a Reservoir Watershed in Taiwan.” Journal of Environmental Management 85(2007):908-17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juracek, K.E. Reservoir Sediment Studies in Kansas. Lawrence, KS: U.S. Geological Survey, 2007.Google Scholar
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). FFY 2009 Annual Report of Progress. Topeka, KS: KDHE, 2009.Google Scholar
Kansas Water Office (KWO). Tuttle Creek Lake Reservoir Fact Sheet. Topeka, KS: KWO, 2010.Google Scholar
Khanna, M., Yang, W., Farnsworth, R., and Önal, H.. “Cost-Effective Targeting of Land Retirement to Improve Water Quality with Endogenous Sediment Deposition Coefficients.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85,3(2003): 538-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langemeier, M., and Nelson, R.G.. Water Quality Indices and Net Returns for Crop Rotations in the Lower Blue Watershed: Summary Report for Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, 2006.Google Scholar
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., and Veith, T.L.. “Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations.” Transactions of the ASABE 50,3(2007): 885900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Northeast Kansas Erosion and Sediment Yield Report. Salina, KS: NRCS, 1992.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Rate for Federal Water Projects. Washington, DC, 2009. Kansas Environmental Quality Incentives Program (KS EQIP). Salina, KS: Kansas EQIP Practice Payment Schedule, 2009.Google Scholar
Nejadhashemi, A., Smith, C.M., Williams, J.R., Douglas-Mankin, K.R., and Golden, B.B.. An Analysis of Sedimentation Reduction Strategies for Tuttle Creek Lake. Final Progress Report to the Kansas Water Resources Competitive Grants Program. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, 2011.Google Scholar
Nelson, N., Bontrager, A., Douglas-Mankin, K.R., Barnes, P., Devlin, D., and Frees, L.. Cheney Lake Watershed: Prioritization of Conservative Practice Implementation. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. MF-3031, 2011.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D.M., and Duncan, S.R.. Corn Cost-Return Budget in Northeast Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. MF-571, 2008a.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D.M., and Duncan, S.R.. Grain Sorghum Cost-Return Budget in Northeast Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. MF-573, 2008b.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D.M., and Duncan, S.R.. Soybean Cost-Return Budget in Northeast Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. MF-570, 2008c.Google Scholar
O'Brien, D.M., and Duncan, S.R.. Wheat Cost-Return Budget in Northeast Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. MF-572, 2008d.Google Scholar
Petrolia, D.R., and Gowda, P.H.. “An Analysis of the Role of Tile-Drained Farmland under Alternative Nitrogen Abatement Policies.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31,3(2006):580-94.Google Scholar
Refsgaard, J.C.Parameterisation, Calibaration, and Validation of Distributed Hydrological Models.” Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam) 198,1(1997):6997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, H.G., Popp, J., Maringanti, C., and Chaubey, I.. “Selection and Placement of Best Management Practices Used to Reduce Water Quality Degradation in Lincoln Lake Watershed.” Water Resources Research 47(2009): 113.Google Scholar
Smith, C.M., Peterson, J.M., and Leatherman, J.C.. “Attitudes of Great Plains Producers about Best Management Practices, Conservation Programs, and Water Quality.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62(2007) :97A103A.Google Scholar
Smith, C.M., and Williams, J.R.. KSU-Vegetative Buffer: a Spreadsheet Program to Estimate the Costs and Returns of Vegetative Buffers. Manhattan, KS: Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 2010.Google Scholar
Smith, C.M., Williams, J.R., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Woznicki, S.A., and Leatherman, J.C.. “An Economic Analysis of Cropland Management Strategies for Reducing Sedimentation versus Dredging of a Reservoir.” Lake and Reservoir Management 29(2013): 151-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veith, T.L., Wolfe, M.L., and Heatwole, C.D.. “Cost-Effective BMP Placement: Optimization versus Targeting.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineer 47,5(2004): 1585-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.R., Pendell, D.L., Llewelyn, R.V., Peterson, D.E., and Nelson, R.G.. “Returns to Tillage Systems under Changing Input and Output Market Conditions.” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 72,1(2009):7893.Google Scholar
Woznicki, S.A., and Nejadhashemi, A.P.. “Spatial and Temporal Variabilities of Sediment Delivery Ratio.” Water Resources Management 27(2013):2483-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woznicki, S.A., Nejadhashemi, A.P., and Smith, C.M.. “Assessing Best Management Practice Implementation Strategies under Climate Change Scenarios.” Transactions of the ASABE 54,1(2011): 171-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W., Khanna, M., and Farnsworth, R.. “Effectiveness of Conservation Programs in Illinois and Gains from Targeting.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87,5(2005): 1248-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W., Khanna, M., Farnsworth, R., and H. Önal. “Integrating Economic, Environmental and GIS Modeling to Target Cost-Effective Land Retirement in Multiple Watersheds.” Ecological Economics 46(2003):249-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y., Dabney, S.M., and Bingner, R.L.. “Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Sediment Reduction in the Mississippi Delta.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57,5(2002):259-67.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Cost-Effective Targeting for Reducing Soil Erosion in a Large Agricultural Watershed
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Cost-Effective Targeting for Reducing Soil Erosion in a Large Agricultural Watershed
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Cost-Effective Targeting for Reducing Soil Erosion in a Large Agricultural Watershed
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *