A method for predicting participation in a performance-based water quality trading program
Authors:
- Joshua M. DukeJDJoshua M. Duke
- Hongxing LiuHLHongxing Liu
- Tyler MonteithTMTyler Monteith
- Joshua McGrathJMJoshua McGrath
- Nicole M. FiorellinoNFNicole M. Fiorellino
- 1 November 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier in Ecological Economics
- Vol. 177
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
Funding Information
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- National Institute of Food and Agriculture
- Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay‐for‐Performance ConservationAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2016
- Transactions costs of expanding nutrient trading to agricultural working lands: A Virginia case studyEcological Economics, 2016
- Pay for Performance: Optimizing public investments in agricultural best management practices in the Chesapeake Bay WatershedEcological Economics, 2015
- Agricultural Costs of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily LoadEnvironmental Science & Technology, 2014
- Water quality trading with asymmetric information, uncertainty and transaction costs: A stochastic agent-based simulationResource and Energy Economics, 2013
- Baseline requirements can hinder trades in water quality trading programs: Evidence from the Conestoga watershedJournal of Environmental Management, 2011
- Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake BayAgricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2008
- ECONOMICS OF POLLUTION TRADING FOR SO2AND NOXAnnual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005
- Accelerated Deployment of an Agricultural Nutrient Management ToolJournal of Environmental Quality, 2002
- What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance TradingJournal of Economic Perspectives, 1998