Category Archives: Natural resource management

336. Free time at home? Do this free course!

The Australian Government is encouraging people to utilize any unexpected spare time at home by up-skilling through study. I’ve got just the thing! My course on “Agriculture, Economics and Nature” is still available for free on Coursera

The course is an introduction to the economics of agriculture, including the connections between agriculture, the environment and natural resources.

It is designed to be a six-week requiring 2-3 hours per week. But if you have more time available than that, you can do it as quickly as you like.

Here’s the blurb from the web site

Sound economic thinking is crucial for farmers because they depend on good economic decision making to survive. Governments depend on economic information to make good policy decisions on behalf of the community. This course will help you to contribute to better decision making by farmers, or by agencies servicing agriculture, and it will help you to understand why farmers respond to policies and economic opportunities in the ways they do.

You can use this course to improve your skills and knowledge and to assess whether this is a subject that you’d like to study further. The course includes high-quality video lectures, interviews with experts, demonstrations of how to build economic models in spreadsheets, practice quizzes, and a range of recommended readings and optional readings. Assessment is by quizzes and a final exam.

The key economic principles that we’ll learn about can help us understand changes that have occurred in agriculture, and support improved decision making about things like agricultural production methods, agricultural input levels, resource conservation, and the balance between agricultural production and its environmental impacts. There are literally thousands of agricultural economists around the world who work on these issues, so there is a wealth of knowledge to draw on for the course.

Here is a brief video about the course.

About 20,000 people have enrolled in the course since it was first made available. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, as you can see from the feedback reported here.

Enrol now here, and I’ll see you on the discussion forum for the course.

 

333. Reducing bushfire risks

All the world has seen media coverage of the extraordinary fires that Australia has endured this summer. They sparked an intense discussion and debate about what Australia should do to reduce bushfire risks going forward. What does our economic modelling of fire management say about that?

I had a direct stake in the fires. We have a small cabin in a coastal town an hour north of Perth, and before Christmas we had about a week of temperatures above 40°C (104°F), and a big fire threatened the town. It got to the point where they evacuated everybody, but thankfully the weather improved just enough and just in time for the firefighters to get it under control.

Over the past 8 years, I’ve been involved in a number of projects looking at the economics of bushfire risk mitigation in different contexts. We’ve done case studies in four Australian states (Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales) and in New Zealand.

The different studies analysed different combinations of fire management options. The one common element in all the studies was prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads, but in particular cases we also looked at land-use planning to exclude assets from high-risk areas, retrofitting of houses to make them more fire-resistant, fire breaks, and community education.

It was a mix of research and consulting projects, and some of it still needs to be published.

We found that the economics of bushfires are really complex and data-intensive, and often there is a lack of data to do a bullet-proof analysis. In some cases, we met some of the data needs using sophisticated fire simulation models, but in others, we relied on data synthesis and expert judgments.  Despite the variations in context and methods, we did learn some pretty clear lessons across the various analyses.

The results for prescribed burning were somewhat variable in different contexts, but overall, we found that the long-run benefits of prescribed burning tended to outweigh the costs in most cases.

Interestingly, though, we found that prescribed burning leads to reductions in average losses that are modest relative to the overall losses due to fires. These modest reductions in losses are worth pursuing – they exceed the costs of prescribed burning – but it means that we need to have realistic expectations about what prescribed burning can do for us. Especially in extremely bad (“catastrophic”) fire conditions, losses can still be large, even with the best possible prescribed burning strategy in place.

One of the questions we looked at was whether prescribed burning should be done close to properties or more distantly. Closer to properties has higher benefits, because it increases the chance that a recent prescribed burn will block the passage of a bushfire. But closer to properties also has higher costs, because of the need for additional fire-fighting crews and equipment to reduce the risk of prescribed burns escaping and doing more damage than they prevent. In a detailed analysis of this (Florec et al. 2019), we found that the costs of burning close to houses outweighed the benefits.

In the analysis we did for the Perth Hills, we found that strong land-use planning was the most cost-effective strategy. While it is easy to see the sense in that, it comes up against the reality that some people especially like to live in locations where the fire risk is especially high. We didn’t factor in the likely transaction costs to government in trying to impose a policy that a group of people is opposed to.

Another interesting finding was that a broad policy of retrofitting houses to reduce their likelihood of burning was not economically efficient. Such a policy imposes substantial costs on a large number of houses to avoid the loss of a much smaller number of houses, and we found that the numbers just don’t stack up. Interestingly, new houses in bushfire-prone areas of Western Australia are now required to meet high standards of fire resistance.

Finally, in one case where we had access to a fire simulation model, we looked at possible impacts of climate change on future losses from fires (in 2030 and 2090). In brief, the additional losses due to climate change were large, potentially very large. In the media discussions during and following the recent fires, some politicians were suggesting that bushfire risk is not a reason to pursue stronger policies to mitigate climate change; all we need to do is a better job of prescribed burning. While there certainly can be benefits from prescribed burning, our analysis shows that there is no way increased prescribed burning could come close to offsetting the worsening fire risk from even modest climate change. Indeed, increasing prescribed burning may not even be feasible following climate change, as climate change narrows the window of time within which prescribed burning can be done without excessive risk.

From a bushfire perspective, Australia would have a lot to gain from effective international action to mitigate climate change. This suggests that we should be playing a stronger role in the global climate policy process.

Further reading

Florec, V., Burton, M., Pannell, D., Kelso, J. and Milne, G. (2019). Where to prescribe burn: the costs and benefits of prescribed burning close to houses, International Journal of Wildland Fire https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18192

332. Farmer behaviour and agricultural policy

An understanding of farmers’ adoption of new practices is central to the design of effective and efficient agricultural policies. Aspects of agricultural policy that can be enhanced by good information about adoption include the design of the policy, the targeting of policy effort, and the assessment of additionality. 

In PD330 I advertised a new Special Issue on adoption of agricultural innovations in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. There is an audio interview with me about the Special Issue available here.

One of the papers, by Roger Claassen and me, focuses on the relevance to agricultural policy of understanding farmers’ decisions about taking up new practices.

One simple reason for this relevance is that much agricultural policy is concerned with getting farmers to do something they are not already doing or would not otherwise do. Examples of such policies include the following:

  • Programs of agricultural extension to encourage farmers to adopt a new technology that is believed to be more productive than the existing technology farmers are using (e.g., a higher-yielding crop variety);
  • Programs that pay farmers to adopt a practice that generates public benefits (such as protecting or planting vegetation that provides habitat for wildlife);
  • Policies that fund agricultural research, with the intent of generating information or technologies that will be beneficial for farmers or the community; and
  • Policies that use regulations to constrain the behaviour of farmers (such as regulations on clearing of native vegetation).

Since all these policies are about influencing the behaviour of farmers, of course it makes sense that their design and implementation could be enhanced if the designers had a good understanding of what influences the behaviour of farmers. Sometimes policy makers do take this seriously, but not always. I’ve been critical of Australian agri-environmental policies, for example, for often being making overly optimistic assumptions about what farmers will do if we just provide them with some information or pay them a little bit.

In practice, some practices are more attractive to farmers than others. Zero till is used by about 90% of Western Australian farmers, but a practice like variable-rate precision agriculture is used by only a minority. Any one practice is more attractive to some farmers than to others due to varying local conditions, such as rainfall or soil types. Being able to predict variations in adoption would be very helpful to policy makers for targeting their resources. Having a sense of which practices can potentially be adopted, and where, is one of the factors that ought to influence where policies like extension or incentive payments are applied.

Another policy concept that is tangled up with farmer behaviour is additionality. As we say in the paper:

A conservation action (and the resulting environmental gain) that is supported by a payment is additional if the farmer would not have taken the action if he or she had not received the payment. Environmental gains that flow from nonadditional actions cannot be attributed to the incentive program.

If the additionality of a proposed agri-environmental payment scheme is too low, it’s not worth running the scheme. Most farmers were going to adopt the practice anyway, so any incentive payment to them is just a gift, making no difference to environmental outcomes. Policies to promote some practices have high additionality (e.g. filter strips or cover crops in the U.S.) while others have much lower additionality (e.g. conservation tillage in the U.S.).

Assessing additionality is essentially about predicting behaviour. In fact, for programs that aren’t in place yet, assessment of additionality required two predictions about behaviour: what will farmers do if the program does offer them the proposed incentive scheme, and what will they do if there is no incentive payment scheme. The difference between those two predictions tells you the additional change that is attributable to the scheme.

Even assessing an incentive scheme that is already well established requires a sort of prediction. You can observe what farmers are doing with the scheme in place, but to assess additionality you still need to estimate what they would have done in the absence of the scheme.

For all these reasons, an ability to understand and predict farmers’ adoption of new practices is critically important to agricultural policy makers if they want their policies to be effective and efficient.

Further reading

Pannell, D.J. and R. Claassen. 2020. The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 31-41.

331. Conservation opportunities on uncontested lands

Not all agricultural land is productive and valuable. Looking for low-value land might be a useful strategy when seeking to increase the area devoted to conservation. In addition to being relatively cheap to purchase, it may be relatively unlikely to strike problems with social or political opposition.

I’m part of a team of researchers that is looking at this issue, led by Eve McDonald-Madden from the University of Queensland. We have a new open-access paper out in Nature Sustainability that presents a framework for thinking about whether and when restoring low-value, or “uncontested”, agricultural land for conservation purposes is likely to be a good idea.

In the paper, we talk about the different costs that are involved in acquiring and restoring a piece of land. They include the purchase price of the land, which reflects its long-term economic productivity, the transaction costs involved in acquiring the land, and the cost of restoring the land to an improved ecological condition.

We suggest that these costs are likely to be related systematically to the opportunity cost of the land for agriculture (that is, the amount of income that would have to be given up if the land was converted away from agricultural production), but that the patterns may vary.

If the reason for some land having a very low opportunity cost is that it is highly degraded and therefore unproductive, the restoration cost may be particularly high. Restoring the most degraded lands is more difficult and more expensive. In that case, it might be better to seek to acquire and restore land that is degraded, but not so extremely degraded.

If the reason for agricultural land having a low opportunity cost is low market prices for agricultural outputs, rather than land degradation, then there is no reason to expect this land to be especially expensive to restore, potentially making it an attractive target for restoration. Although, not necessarily. Whether the purchase price would be particularly low depends in part on farmers expectations about future prices, not just current prices.

In some situations, acquiring land involves particularly high transaction costs. This might be the case, for example, if there is social and political oppositon to conversion of agricultural land to conservation land. As a generalisation, we might expect that to be less of an issue if the land is degraded and unproductive for agriculture.

Another example of high transation costs could be the effects of corruption. “If corruption is socially normalized, this may lead to low levels of trust, with the result that parties incur high costs for negotiation, contracting and monitoring an agreement. If legal institutions are weak, the cost of enforcing an agreement could be very high.” In this case, even though the land might be cheap, the overall cost might mean it is better to look in a less-corrupt country for land to restore.

Recognising those complexities, we are using spatial data to try to identify cost-effective opportunities for investing in restoration of land.

Further reading

Xie, Z., Game, E.T., Hobbs, R.J., Pannell, D.J., Phinn, S.R., and McDonald-Madden, E. (2020). Conservation opportunities on uncontested lands, Nature Sustainability 3, 9–15. Journal web page (open access)

330. Adoption of agricultural innovations Special Issue

I’m the guest editor for a new Special Issue of the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. The theme of the issue is “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations” and it includes 11 papers by some of the world’s leading researchers on this topic.

There is an audio interview with me about the Special Issue available here.

The papers are intended to provide reviews or syntheses of key issues related to farmers’ adoption of new practices and technologies. Each paper focuses on a particular aspect of the literature, and the collection as a whole provides an excellent introduction to this enormous body of research.

A particularly nice feature is that all the papers in the issue are open access, meaning that anybody can read them without needing a subscription to the journal. You can access the issue here.

You can hear a brief interview with me providing background and an overview of the Special Issue. The interview is available as an episode of the AEPP Podcast.

Another one of the podcast episodes is another interview related to the Special Issue. In that one I interview Leah Palm-Forster about one of the papers that she and I helped to co-author, called “Agricultural Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap”. In that paper we talk about the similarities and differences between those two related bodies of research literature, and about possible connections that could be made between them.

Further reading

Here’s a list of all the articles in the issue.

Pannell, D.J. and Zilberman, D. 2020. Understanding adoption of innovations and behavior change to improve agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 3-7.

Norton, G.W. and J. Alwang. 2020. Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 8-20.

Heiman, A., Ferguson, J. and D. Zilberman. 2020. Marketing and Technology Adoption. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 21-30.

Pannell, D.J. and R. Claassen. 2020. The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 31-41.

Chavas, J.-P. and C. Nauges. 2020. Uncertainty, Learning and Technology Adoption in Agriculture. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 42-53.

Streletskaya, N.A., S.D. Bell, M. Kecinski, T. Li, S. Banerjee, L.H. Palm-Forster, and D.J. Pannell. 2020. Agriculture Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 54-66.

Weersink, A. and M. Fulton. 2020. Limits to Profit Maximization as a Guide to Behavior Change. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 67-79.

Montes de Oca Munguia, O. and Llewellyn, R. 2020. The Adopters Versus The Technology: Which Matters More When Predicting or Explaining Adoption? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 80-91.

Huffman, W.E. 2020. Human Capital and Adoption of Innovations: Policy Implications. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 92-99.

Llewellyn, R. and B. Brown. 2020. Predicting adoption of innovations by farmers: how is it different in smallholder agriculture? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 100-112.

Rola-Rubzen, F., T.R. Paris, J. Hawkins and B. Sapkota. 2020. Improving Gender Participation in Agricultural Technology Adoption in Asia: From Rhetoric to Practical Action. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1), 113-125.