Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective

Agroforestry Systems

Volumn 61-62, Issue 1-3, 2004, Pages 299-310

  Alavalapati, J R R ^a   Shrestha, R K ^a   Stainback, G A ^a   Matta, J R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Externalities; Profitability; Silvopasture; Willingness to accept (WTA); Willingness to pay (WTP)

Indexed keywords

AGROFORESTRY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3342980646     PISSN: 01674366     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029006.64395.72     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M. and Louviere J. 1998. Stated preference approach for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80: 64-75.
2. Alavalapati J.R.R. and Nair RK. 2001. Socioeconomic and institutional perspectives of agroforestry. pp. 71-81. In: Palo M. and Uusivuori J. (eds) World Forests, Society, and Environment - Markets and Policies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
3. Boggess C.F., Flaig E.G. and Fluck R.C. 1995. Phosphorus budget-basin relationships for Lake Okeechobee tributary basins. Ecol Eng 5: 143-162
4. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G. and Schulze W.D. 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation: Are the underlying preference the same? J Environ Econ Manag 44: 391-422.
5. Clason T.R. 1995. Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine plantations. Agroforest Syst 29: 227-238.
6. Coase R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3: 1-44.
7. Coase R.H. 1992. The institutional structure of production. Am Econ Rev 82(4): 713-719.
8. Cooper J.C. and Keim R.W. 1996. Incentive payments to encourage farmer adoption of water quality protection practices. Am J Agr Econ 78: 54-64.
9. FAS 2002. Beef cattle and calf inventory by county: Livestock, dairy, and poultry summary, Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/.
10. Feather P., Hellerstein D. and Hansen.L 1999. Economic valuation of environmental benefits and the targeting of conservation programs: The case of the CRP. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 778.
11. Felder J. 2001. Coase Thorem 1-2-3. Am Econ 45: 54-60.
12. Garrett H.E., Rietveld W.J. and Fisher R.F. (eds) 2000. North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 402 pp.
13. Grado S.C., Hovermale C.H. and Louis D.J.S. 2001. A financial analysis of a silvopasture system in southern Mississippi. Agroforest Syst 53: 313-322.
14. Harvey R. and Havens K. 1999. Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Lake Okeechobee Issue Team for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, 43 pp.
15. Heimlich R.E., Wiebe K.D., Claassen R., Gadsby D. and House R.M. 1998 Wetlands and agriculture: Private interests and public benefits. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER765, Washington DC. 104 pp.
16. Kingsbury L. and Boggess W. 1999. An economic analysis of riparian landowners' willingness to participate in Oregon's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Selected paper for the annual meeting of the Agricultural Economics Association, August 8-11, Nashville, Tennessee. 15 pp.
17. Kuhfeld W.F., Tobias R.D. and Garratt M. 1994. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res 31: 545-557.
18. Lant C.L. 1991. Potential of the Conservation Reserve Program to control agricultural surface water pollution. Environ Manage 15: 507-518.
19. Lohr L., Park T. 1994. Discrete/continuous choices in contingent valuation surveys: Conservation decisions in Michigan. Rev Agri Econ 16: 1-15.
20. Loomis J.B., Kent P., Stange L., Fausch K. and Covich A. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33: 103-117.
21. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. 2000. State Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 402 pp.
22. Lundgren G.K., Conner J.R. and Pearson H.A. 1983. An economic analysis of forest grazing on four timber management situation. South J Appl For 7: 119-124.
23. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. pp. 105-142. In: Zarembka P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
24. Milon J.W., Hodges A.W., Rimal A., Kiker C.F. and Casey F. 1999. Public preferences and economic values for restoration of the Everglades/South Florida ecosystems. Economics Report 99-1, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 124 pp.
25. Montagnini F. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An under-exploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. (This volume).
26. Nair P.K.R. 2001. Agroforestry. In Our Fragile World: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development, Forerunner to The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Chapter 1.25: 375-393. UNESCO, Paris, France & EOLSS, UK.
27. Nair V.D. and Graetz D.A. 2004. Agroforestry as an approach to minimizing nutrient loss from heavily fertilized soils: The Florida experience (This volume).
28. Peterson E.W.F. 2001. The Political Economy of Agricultural, Natural Resource, and Environmental Policy Analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 373 pp.
29. Pimentel D., Harvey C., Resosudarmo P., Sinclair K., Kurz D., McNair M., Crist S., Shpritz L., Fitton L., Saffouri R. and Blair R. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267: 1117-1123.
30. Purvis A., Hoehn J.P., Sorenson V.L. and Pierce F.J. 1989. Farmers' response to a filter strip program: Results from a contingent valuation survey. J Soil Water Conserv 44: 501-504.
31. Ribaudo M.O., Horan R.D. and Smith M.E. 1999. Economics of water quality protection from nonpoint sources. USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
32. Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004a. Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ (in press).
33. Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004b. Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis J Agr Applied Econ (in press).
34. Stainback G.A., Alavalapati J.R.R., Shrestha R.R., Larkin S. and Wong G. 2004. Environmental Economic Valuation of Silvopasture: A Dynamic Optimization Approach. J Agr Applied Econ (in press).
35. Stainback G.A. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004. An Economic Analysis Restoring Longleaf Pine on Ranchlands. Forest Policy Econ (in press).
36. Train K.E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74: 230-239.
37. USDA 1997. Census of Agriculture: National, state, and county tables. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington DC (http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/).
38. rd Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 364 pp.
39. van Kooten G.C. 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies and the Common Good, UBC Press, Vancouver, 450 pp.
40. Westcott P., Young C.E. and Price J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act: Provision and implications for commodity markets. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. AIB778. 67 pp.
41. Zinkhan F.C. and Mercer D.E. 1997. An assessment of agroforestry systems in the southern U.S.A. Agroforest Syst 35: 303-321.