Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices

Highlights Developed Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices. Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice. Developed Annual ULTC based on prac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied engineering in agriculture 2022, Vol.38 (3), p.539-551
Hauptverfasser: Deutschman, Mark Robert, Koep, Sarah
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 551
container_issue 3
container_start_page 539
container_title Applied engineering in agriculture
container_volume 38
creator Deutschman, Mark Robert
Koep, Sarah
description Highlights Developed Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices. Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice. Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration. Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC. Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment. Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision. The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income. We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs. Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characterist
doi_str_mv 10.13031/aea.14677
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2677662652</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2677662652</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2107-5b1752e6fe88bf2a3024cd4a2e680d3f224df9ac7a3be196243b8d6af7c93b4a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE9LAzEQxYMoWKsXP8GCN2Fr_m2SPUlZWi0U9KDnMJtNZMt2U5NswW9vaD14mmHmMfPeD6F7gheEYUaewMKCcCHlBZqRmrNSKqYu__XX6CbGHcaEV0LN0PNmfwj-aLui8TEVq5j6PSQbC-dDsfwKvZmGNAUY8n6MNhwh9X4s3gOY1Bsbb9GVgyHau786R5_r1UfzWm7fXjbNclsaSrAsq5bIilrhrFKto8Aw5abjkEcKd8xRyjtXg5HAWktqQTlrVSfASVOzlgObo4fz3ez2e7Ix6Z2fwphfaprTCkFFRbPq8awywccYrNOHkPOEH02wPgHSGZA-AWK_et1YmQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2677662652</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices</title><source>ASABE Technical Library</source><creator>Deutschman, Mark Robert ; Koep, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>Deutschman, Mark Robert ; Koep, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>Highlights Developed Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices. Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice. Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration. Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC. Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment. Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision. The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income. We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs. Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characteristic are useful for developing Water Quality Strategies. The cost functions, recently incorporated into PTMApp, considerably improve the ability to estimate the actual cost to achieve water quality goals and societal benefits. Keywords: Benefits, Implementation, Life cycle, Planning, PTMApp, Useful life, Water quality.</description><edition>General ed.</edition><identifier>ISSN: 1943-7838</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0883-8542</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.13031/aea.14677</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>St. Joseph: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers</publisher><subject>Conservation ; Cost estimates ; Cost function ; Environmental quality ; Financing ; Incentives ; Physical properties ; Useful life ; Water quality</subject><ispartof>Applied engineering in agriculture, 2022, Vol.38 (3), p.539-551</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2107-5b1752e6fe88bf2a3024cd4a2e680d3f224df9ac7a3be196243b8d6af7c93b4a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Deutschman, Mark Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koep, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices</title><title>Applied engineering in agriculture</title><description>Highlights Developed Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices. Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice. Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration. Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC. Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment. Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision. The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income. We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs. Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characteristic are useful for developing Water Quality Strategies. The cost functions, recently incorporated into PTMApp, considerably improve the ability to estimate the actual cost to achieve water quality goals and societal benefits. Keywords: Benefits, Implementation, Life cycle, Planning, PTMApp, Useful life, Water quality.</description><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Cost estimates</subject><subject>Cost function</subject><subject>Environmental quality</subject><subject>Financing</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Physical properties</subject><subject>Useful life</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><issn>1943-7838</issn><issn>0883-8542</issn><issn>1943-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkE9LAzEQxYMoWKsXP8GCN2Fr_m2SPUlZWi0U9KDnMJtNZMt2U5NswW9vaD14mmHmMfPeD6F7gheEYUaewMKCcCHlBZqRmrNSKqYu__XX6CbGHcaEV0LN0PNmfwj-aLui8TEVq5j6PSQbC-dDsfwKvZmGNAUY8n6MNhwh9X4s3gOY1Bsbb9GVgyHau786R5_r1UfzWm7fXjbNclsaSrAsq5bIilrhrFKto8Aw5abjkEcKd8xRyjtXg5HAWktqQTlrVSfASVOzlgObo4fz3ez2e7Ix6Z2fwphfaprTCkFFRbPq8awywccYrNOHkPOEH02wPgHSGZA-AWK_et1YmQ</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>Deutschman, Mark Robert</creator><creator>Koep, Sarah</creator><general>American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices</title><author>Deutschman, Mark Robert ; Koep, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2107-5b1752e6fe88bf2a3024cd4a2e680d3f224df9ac7a3be196243b8d6af7c93b4a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Cost estimates</topic><topic>Cost function</topic><topic>Environmental quality</topic><topic>Financing</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Physical properties</topic><topic>Useful life</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Deutschman, Mark Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koep, Sarah</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Applied engineering in agriculture</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Deutschman, Mark Robert</au><au>Koep, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices</atitle><jtitle>Applied engineering in agriculture</jtitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>539</spage><epage>551</epage><pages>539-551</pages><issn>1943-7838</issn><issn>0883-8542</issn><eissn>1943-7838</eissn><abstract>Highlights Developed Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices. Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice. Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration. Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC. Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment. Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision. The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income. We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs. Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characteristic are useful for developing Water Quality Strategies. The cost functions, recently incorporated into PTMApp, considerably improve the ability to estimate the actual cost to achieve water quality goals and societal benefits. Keywords: Benefits, Implementation, Life cycle, Planning, PTMApp, Useful life, Water quality.</abstract><cop>St. Joseph</cop><pub>American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers</pub><doi>10.13031/aea.14677</doi><tpages>13</tpages><edition>General ed.</edition><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1943-7838
ispartof Applied engineering in agriculture, 2022, Vol.38 (3), p.539-551
issn 1943-7838
0883-8542
1943-7838
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2677662652
source ASABE Technical Library
subjects Conservation
Cost estimates
Cost function
Environmental quality
Financing
Incentives
Physical properties
Useful life
Water quality
title Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T18%3A24%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improved%20Cost%20Estimates%20for%20Agricultural%20Conservation%20Practices&rft.jtitle=Applied%20engineering%20in%20agriculture&rft.au=Deutschman,%20Mark%20Robert&rft.date=2022&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=539&rft.epage=551&rft.pages=539-551&rft.issn=1943-7838&rft.eissn=1943-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.13031/aea.14677&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2677662652%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2677662652&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true