| . |
Ruben N. Lubowski's
Scholarly Papers
Click on the title of any column to sort the table by that
column. |
|
|
| |
|
|
Aggregate Statistics |
|
Total Downloads
753 |
Total
Citations
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
|
Andrew J. J. Plantinga Oregon State University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Robert N. Stavins Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
02 Apr 02
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
30 Nov 03
|
|
334 (24,137)
|
10
|
|
| |
Abstract:
We conduct a national-scale study of the determinants of agricultural land values to better understand how current farmland prices are influenced by the potential for future land development. The theoretical basis for the empirical analysis is a spatial city model with stochastic returns to future land development. From the theoretical model, we derive an expression for the current price of agricultural land in terms of annual returns to agricultural production, the price of recently developed land parcels, and expressions involving model parameters that are represented in the empirical model by nonlinear functions of observed variables and parameters to be estimated. We estimate the model of agricultural land values with a cross-section on approximately three thousand counties in the contiguous U.S. The results provide strong support for the model, and provide the first evidence that option values associated with irreversible and uncertain land development are capitalized into current farmland values. The empirical model is specified in a way that allows us to identify the contributions to land values of rents from near-term agricultural use and rents from potential development in the future. For each county in the contiguous U.S., we estimate the share of the current land value attributable to future development rents. These results give a clearer indication of the magnitude of land development pressures and yield insights into policies to preserve farmland and associated environmental benefits.
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Andrew J. J. Plantinga Oregon State University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Robert N. Stavins Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
08 Jan 05
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
13 May 05
|
|
140 (60,181)
|
10
|
|
| |
Abstract:
When and if the United States chooses to implement a greenhouse gas reduction program, it will be necessary to decide whether carbon sequestration policies - such as those that promote forestation and discourage deforestation - should be part of the domestic portfolio of compliance activities. We investigate the cost of forest-based carbon sequestration. In contrast with previous approaches, we econometrically examine micro-data on revealed landowner preferences, modeling six major private land uses in a comprehensive analysis of the contiguous United States. The econometric estimates are used to simulate landowner responses to sequestration policies. Key commodity prices are treated as endogenous and a carbon sink model is used to predict changes in carbon storage. Our estimated marginal costs of carbon sequestration are greater than those from previous engineering cost analyses and sectoral optimization models. Our estimated sequestration supply function is similar to the carbon abatement supply function from energy-based analyses, suggesting that forest-based carbon sequestration merits inclusion in a cost-effective portfolio of domestic U.S. climate change strategies.
abatement, carbon, climate change, costs, forestry, greenhouse gases, land use, land-use change, sequestration
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
Patrick Sullivan U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Daniel Hellerstein U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) LeRoy Hansen U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Robert Johansson U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Steven Koenig U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) William D. McBride U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) David A. McGranahan U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Michael J. Roberts U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Stephen J Vogel U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Shawn Bucholtz U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS)
|
| Posted: |
|
19 Nov 04
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
07 Feb 06
|
|
110 (73,512)
|
|
|
| |
Abstract:
This report estimates the impact that high levels of enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) have had on economic trends in rural counties since the program's inception in 1985 until today. The results of a growth model and quasi-experimental control group analysis indicate no discernible impact by the CRP on aggregate county population trends. Aggregate employment growth may have slowed in some high-CRP counties, but only temporarily. High levels of CRP enrollment appear to have affected farm-related businesses over the long run, but growth in the number of other nonfarm businesses moderated CRP's impact on total employment. If CRP contracts had ended in 2001, simulation models suggest that roughly 51 percent of CRP land would have returned to crop production, and that spending on outdoor recreation would decrease by as much as $300 million per year in rural areas. The resulting impacts on employment and income vary widely among regions having similar CRP enrollments, depending upon local economic conditions.
Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, rural development, rural employment, land retirement impacts, land-use changes, recreation spending
|
|
|
4.
|
|
What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions
|
Show Abstracts |
Hide Abstracts |
Versions (2)
|
hide multiple versions |
Export Bibliographic Info |
|
Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Andrew J. J. Plantinga Oregon State University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Robert N. Stavins Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
|
Posted:
|
|
05 Nov 07
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
14 Oct 08
|
|
85 ( 88,458) |
1
|
|
|
|
|
Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Andrew J. J. Plantinga Oregon State University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Robert N. Stavins Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
14 Oct 08
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
14 Oct 08
|
|
57
|
1
|
|
| |
Abstract:
Land-use changes involve important economic and environmental effects with implications for international trade, global climate change, wildlife, and other policy issues. We use an econometric model to identify factors driving land-use change in the United States between 1982 and 1997. We quantify the effects of net returns to alternative land uses on private landowners' decisions to allocate land among six major uses, drawing on detailed micro-data on land use and land quality that are comprehensive of the contiguous U.S. This analysis provides the first evidence of the relative historical importance of markets and Federal farm policies affecting land-use changes nationally.
Land Use, Land-Use Change, Econometric Analysis, Simulations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Andrew J. J. Plantinga Oregon State University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Robert N. Stavins Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
|
| Posted: |
|
05 Nov 07
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
21 Jan 08
|
|
28
|
1
|
|
| |
Abstract:
Land-use changes involve important economic and environmental effects with implications for international trade, global climate change, wildlife, and other policy issues. We use an econometric model to identify factors driving land-use change in the United States between 1982 and 1997. We quantify the effects of net returns to alternative land uses on private landowners' decisions to allocate land among six major uses, drawing on detailed micro-data on land use and land quality that are comprehensive of the contiguous U.S. This analysis provides the first evidence of the relative historical importance of markets and Federal farm policies affecting land-use changes nationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
Valentina Bosetti Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Alexander Golub Environmental Defense Anil Markandya Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milan
|
| Posted: |
|
10 Aug 09
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
15 Sep 09
|
|
36 (135,392)
|
|
|
| |
Abstract:
Discussions over tropical deforestation are currently at the forefront of climate change policy negotiations at national, regional, and international levels. This paper analyzes the effects of linking Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) to a global market for greenhouse gas emission reductions. We supplement a global climate-energy-economy model with alternative cost estimates for reducing deforestation emissions in order to examine a global program for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 ppmv of CO2 equivalent. Introducing REDD reduces global forestry emissions through 2050 by 20-22% in the Brazil-only case and by 64-88% in the global REDD scenarios. At the same time, REDD lowers the total costs of the climate policy by an estimated 10-25% depending on which tropical countries participate and whether the “banking” of excess credits for use in future periods is allowed. As a result, REDD could enable additional reductions of at least 20 ppmv of CO2-equivalent concentrations with no added costs compared to an energy-sector only policy. The cost savings from REDD are magnified if banking is allowed and there is a need to increase the stringency of global climate policy in the future in response, for example, to new scientific information. Results also indicate that REDD decreases carbon prices in 2050 by 8-23% with banking and 11-26% without banking. While developing regions, particularly Latin America, gain the value of REDD opportunities, the decrease in the carbon price keeps the value of international carbon market flows relatively stable despite an increase in volumes transacted. We also estimate that REDD generally reduces the total portfolio of investments and research and development of new energy technologies by 1-10%. However, due to impacts on the relative prices of different fossil fuels, REDD has a slight positive estimated effect on investments in coal-related technologies (IGCC and CCS) as well as, in some cases, non-electric energy R&D. This research confirms that integrating REDD into global carbon markets can provide powerful incentives for the preservation of tropical forests while lowering the costs of global climate change protection and providing valuable policy flexibility.
Carbon market, Climate change, Innovation, Mitigation, Policy costs, Offsets, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), Technological change, Tropical deforestation
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
Nigel Key U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Michael J. Roberts U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS)
|
| Posted: |
|
20 Dec 05
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
21 Dec 05
|
|
26 (151,483)
|
2
|
|
| |
Abstract:
No abstract available.
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
Barrett E. Kirwan University of Maryland - Agricultural & Resource Economics (AREC) Ruben N. Lubowski U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS) Michael J. Roberts U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Economic Research Service (ERS)
|
| Posted: |
|
21 Dec 05
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
24 Dec 05
|
|
22 (161,510)
|
|
|
| |
Abstract:
No abstract available.
|
|