July 31-830-Emily Zimmerman
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•32 vistas
This document describes a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of conservation scenarios using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). The tool quantifies direct costs, such as installation and maintenance, and opportunity costs of best management practices (BMPs) using geospatial and hydrologic models. For a case study in central Iowa, conservation scenarios were analyzed. Direct and opportunity costs, such as forgone crop revenues, were estimated to be $3.19 million annually for a scenario involving cover crops, wetlands, and saturated buffers on over 45,000 acres. The tool aims to identify high-benefit, low-cost BMP placements and support conservation planning.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a July 31-830-Emily Zimmerman
Similar a July 31-830-Emily Zimmerman (20)
Más de Soil and Water Conservation Society
Más de Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Último
Último (20)
July 31-830-Emily Zimmerman
- 1. A Tool to Evaluate Economic Opportunities and Tradeoffs Using the ACPF Emily Zimmerman, John Tyndall, Emma Bravard Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University July 31, 2019 Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Meeting
- 2. Brief Background Policy • State nutrient reduction strategies • Federal farm bill Biophysical Data & Tools • High-resolution geospatial data • Hydrologic models and landscape planning tools
- 3. Key Objectives Using a case study in central Iowa: • Quantify direct costs and potential opportunity costs associated with best management practices (BMPs) for conservation scenarios created in the ACPF. • Apply direct costs and potential opportunity costs to account for costs and to identify opportunities for BMP placement in conservation scenarios in the ACPF.
- 4. Methods: Costs • Direct Costs: Expenses that are directly associated with specific costs of a product, activity, etc. • Opportunity Costs: Costs that are associated with the value of the alternative product, activity, etc. that is forgone.
- 5. Methods: Direct Costs • Common direct costs: • BMP design and site preparation • Installation, infrastructure, planting stock, etc. • Management, general operating • All BMPs have direct costs, but direct costs vary by BMP • Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Decision Support Tool • https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/bmpcosttools/
- 6. Methods: Direct Costs • Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Decision Support Tool • https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/bmpcosttools/ Practice Average Direct Cost (2019 USD) Multi-purpose contour prairie strip $56/acre/year Contour buffer strip $52/acre/year Cover crops $65/acre/year Drainage water management $240/acre/year Grass waterways $65/acre/year Riparian forest buffer $250/acre/year Vegetative filter strip $120/acre/year Wetlands $620/acre/year Bioreactors $900/bioreactor/year Saturated buffers $245/1,000 feet/year Bowman & Tyndall (2016); Bravard & Tyndall (2019)
- 7. Methods: Opportunity Costs • Calculated area-weighted Corn Suitability Ratings (CSR) from gSSURGO data for each field • Used area-weighted CSR and county-level rental rates to prioritize fields with low yields (and thus likely lower revenues) • County-level rental rates from ISU Extension Ag Decision Maker Soil Unit CSR Acres Rating by Unit Unit A 82 8 82 * 8 = 656 Unit B 92 16 92 * 16 = 1,472 Unit C 79 16 79 * 16 = 1,264Field A: 40 acres Weighted CSR = Σ(Rating by Unit) Σ(acre) = 84 CSR * $2.69 = $225.96/acre= (3,392) (40)
- 8. Methods: Application with ACPF Biophysical Risk OpportunityCosts Critical Priority: Opportunity, Low cost, high biophysical risk … Marginal Priority: Tradeoff, High cost, low biophysical risk High Medium Low High Moderate Low Marginal Medium High High Low Low Critical High Moderate Identifying opportunities:
- 9. Methods: Application with ACPF Identifying opportunities:
- 10. Methods: Application with ACPF Evaluating scenarios: Scenario: Cover crops on all corn and soybean areas, headwater wetlands, and saturated buffers. • Cover crops: 45,255 ac • Wetlands: 857 ac • Saturated buffers: 146 ac Annual direct costs and opportunity costs: $3.19 million (2017 dollars)
- 11. Future Directions • Updating direct costs using custom rate information for BMPs • Expanding productivity index beyond CSR (and Iowa) to other US Cornbelt states • National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) • Crop Productivity Index (CPI) • Maintaining or enhancing resolution of potential opportunity costs • Creating a toolbox for use alongside the ACPF in ArcGIS
- 12. Questions? • Emily Zimmerman, emilyz@iastate.edu • John Tyndall, jtyndall@iastate.edu • Emma Bravard, ebravard@iastate.edu Acknowledgements: David James, Sarah Porter, Mark Tomer Article: Zimmerman, E.K., Tyndall, J.C., Schulte, L.A. 2019. Using Spatially Targeted Conservation to Evaluate Nitrogen Reduction and Economic Opportunities for Best Management Practice Placement in Agricultural Landscapes. Environmental Management. Accepted. DOI: 10.1007/s00267- 019-01190-7.
Notas del editor
- I want to begin by providing a brief context about the research that I’m going to share about this morning – specifically about why we chose to focus on costs associated with applying best management practices in the scenarios that users can create using the ACPF. As others have spoken about this morning, several agricultural states, including states in the US Cornbelt and in the Chesapeake basin, have been charged with reducing excess non-point source, agricultural nutrients reaching their surface waters. While strategies differ by state, implementing agricultural best management practices in key locations on the landscape are an important and central component in many of the state nutrient reduction strategies. In support of implementation, conservation programming at the state-level and in the federal farm bill provide monetary funds for facilitating best management practice use. Over a similar timeframe, the technical capacity for land managers to use biophysical data and tools to identify conservation opportunities has steadily grown, facilitated in part by increasingly available high-resolution geospatial data and useful hydrologic models and landscape planning tools, like the ACPF. Advancements in these data and tools has allowed conservation scenarios, such as the example on the right, showing opportunities for best management practice placement at the field- and watershed- level to become accessible to stakeholders. The development of these conservation scenarios can play an important role in planning, implementing, and evaluating policies designed to improve environmental outcomes in agricultural landscapes, including conservation programming in the federal farm bill and in state-level nutrient reduction strategies. Yet comprehensively tracking the cost of BMP application has been a challenge largely because up-to-date data regarding the direct and potential opportunity costs of BMP use is lacking – and is an important gap that our research seeks to address.
- Understanding direct costs and potential opportunity costs is important for several reasons. First, inadequate cost information, commensurate financial support, and limited decision support have contributed to constraints on landowner adoption of BMPs and reduced implementation. In addition to constraining landowners, the direct and opportunity costs associated with individual BMPs at regional levels can be significant, and when applied at watershed scales total costs have been roughly estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually (e.g., Robotyagov et al. 2014). State-level policy and federal farm bill legislation, budgets fluctuate over time, sometimes meaning total conservation funding and programming support for technical service and conservation planning relevant to BMP application may be limited. Thus, state-level nutrient reduction strategies will need to be operationalized with cost-effectiveness (e.g., highest environmental gain per dollar spent) as a central component of comparing and selecting implementation strategies (Classen and Ribaudo 2016). This type of combined hydrologic and cost information is required to more accurately guide understanding of conservation funding needs, and provide policy-oriented technical information required for cost- and outcome-effective implementation of nutrient reduction strategies at regional scales (Duke et al. 2013).
- First, I want to talk about the two types of costs that we account for: direct costs and opportunity costs.
- Annualized across 20 years, using a 4% real discount rate. Opportunity costs are not considered here. Saturated buffer assumes a 40 acre drainage area, two control structures, and 1000 feet of tile.