Search

To reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas and address concerns about climate change, the USA is increasingly developing renewable, domestic energy sources, notably biomass for the production of ethanol and biodiesel. Illinois, as one of the farming states of the Midwest, has significant potential to produce bioenergy crops. Land requirements place these crops in competition with traditional agricultural uses. To understand this interaction, this study examines the spatial and economic conditions for introducing bioenergy crops into the landscape in Illinois, which varies in soil quality and climatic conditions, and therefore in the profitability of various land uses. We use a spatial dynamic model to represent the decisions of individual farmer agents who select crops to increase their income. With this dynamic, evolutionary game approach we study the changing spatial arrangement of four key crops (corn, soybeans, miscanthus and switchgrass) which is influenced by decision rules, demands, prices, subsidies and carbon credits as well as the location of ethanol plants and transportation patterns. With a growing demand for biofuels farmers adjust their priorities towards productive bioenergy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus which result in new land-use patterns across Illinois. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Development projects that impact wetlands commonly require compensatory mitigation, usually through creation or restoration of wetlands on or off the project site. Over the last decade, federal support has increased for third-party off-site mitigation methods. At the same time, regulators have lowered the minimum impact size that triggers the requirement for compensatory mitigation. Few studies have examined the aggregate impact of individual wetland mitigation projects. No previous study has compared the choice of mitigation method by regulatory agency or development size. We analyze 1058 locally and federally permitted wetland mitigation transactions in the Chicago region between 1993 and 2004. We show that decreasing mitigation thresholds have had striking effects on the methods and spatial distribution of wetland mitigation. In particular, the observed increase in mitigation bank use is driven largely by the needs of the smallest impacts. Conversely, throughout the time period studied, large developments have rarely used mitigation banking, and have been relatively unaffected by changing regulatory focus and banking industry growth. We surmise that small developments lack the scale economies necessary for feasible permittee responsible mitigation. Finally, we compare the rates at which compensation required by both county and federal regulators is performed across major watershed boundaries. We show that local regulations prohibiting cross-county mitigation lead to higher levels of cross- watershed mitigation than federal regulations without cross-county prohibitions. Our data suggest that local control over wetland mitigation may prioritize administrative boundaries over hydrologic function in the matter of selecting compensation sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]