Evaluation of the economic costs and benefits of methods for reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico: Topic 6 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
In this report we analyze the Topic 5 report’s recommendations for reducing nitrogen losses to the Gulf ofMexico (Mitsch et al. 1999). We indicate the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of different control measures, and potential benefits within the Mississippi River Basin. For major nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, we examine both national and basin costs and benefits.Based on the Topic 2 economic analysis (Diaz and Solow 1999), the direct measurable dollar benefits to Gulf fisheries of reducing nitrogen loads from the Mississippi River Basin are very limited at best. Although restoring the ecological communities in the Gulf may be significant over the long term, we do not currently have information available to estimate the benefits of such measures to restore the Gulf’s long-term health. For these reasons, we assume that measures to reduce nitrogen losses to the Gulf will ultimately prove beneficial, and we concentrate on analyzing the cost-effectiveness of alternative reduction strategies.We recognize that important public decisions are seldom made on the basis of strict benefit–cost analysis, especially when complete benefits cannot be estimated. We look at different approaches and different levels of these approaches to identify those that are cost-effective and those that have limited undesirable secondary effects, such as reduced exports, which may result in lost market share.We concentrate on the measures highlighted in the Topic 5 report, and also are guided by the source identification information in the Topic 3 report (Goolsby et al. 1999). Nonpoint sources that are responsible for the bulk of the nitrogen receive most of our attention. We consider restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer levels, and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers for denitrification. We also examine giving more emphasis to nitrogen control in regions contributing a greater share of the nitrogen load.
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | monograph biblioteca |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
NOAA/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Service
1999
|
| Subjects: | Ecology, Environment, Fisheries, Management, |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1834/30515 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In this report we analyze the Topic 5 report’s recommendations for reducing nitrogen losses to the Gulf ofMexico (Mitsch et al. 1999). We indicate the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of different control measures, and potential benefits within the Mississippi River Basin. For major nonpoint sources, such as agriculture, we examine both national and basin costs and benefits.Based on the Topic 2 economic analysis (Diaz and Solow 1999), the direct measurable dollar benefits to Gulf fisheries of reducing nitrogen loads from the Mississippi River Basin are very limited at best. Although restoring the ecological communities in the Gulf may be significant over the long term, we do not currently have information available to estimate the benefits of such measures to restore the Gulf’s long-term health. For these reasons, we assume that measures to reduce nitrogen losses to the Gulf will ultimately prove beneficial, and we concentrate on analyzing the cost-effectiveness of alternative reduction strategies.We recognize that important public decisions are seldom made on the basis of strict benefit–cost analysis, especially when complete benefits cannot be estimated. We look at different approaches and different levels of these approaches to identify those that are cost-effective and those that have limited undesirable secondary effects, such as reduced exports, which may result in lost market share.We concentrate on the measures highlighted in the Topic 5 report, and also are guided by the source identification information in the Topic 3 report (Goolsby et al. 1999). Nonpoint sources that are responsible for the bulk of the nitrogen receive most of our attention. We consider restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer levels, and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffers for denitrification. We also examine giving more emphasis to nitrogen control in regions contributing a greater share of the nitrogen load. |
|---|