An Economic Evaluation of Shelterbelts on Saskatchewan Grain and Mixed Farms
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Shelterbelts have a long history in the Canadian Prairies. They were used for protecting crops, livestock, and buildings from extreme wind. However, removing shelterbelts in Saskatchewan has been observed in recent periods. Changes in farming technology (adoption of no-till method, reduction in summer-fallow area), inconvenience of large machinery movement, loss of land, and short-run economic goals of producers may contribute to this removal. Shelterbelts provide benefits to producers and offer several goods and services to society. The carbon sequestration ability of shelterbelts can play an essential role in achieving Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target. Further removal of shelterbelts can create more challenges to achieving this target. Producers make decisions about maintaining or removal of shelterbelts. How such decisions are made is not clearly understood. Are such choices supported on economic grounds? Existing studies have supported the economic goals of the producers to be an essential factor in adopting new technology. Whether producers are better off with shelterbelts is unknown for Saskatchewan. From the producers' perspective, an economic evaluation of a farm with shelterbelts is needed. Moreover, one may hypothesize regional differences in shelterbelt's impact on farm returns. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the economics of a farm with shelterbelts in Saskatchewan's Black, Brown, and Dark Brown soil zone. It considered field shelterbelts for a grain farm and a combination of field and livestock shelterbelts for a crop-beef mixed farm. Three scenarios were selected for the grain farm (Baseline Scenario – farm without shelterbelts, Scenario One – farm-maintained shelterbelts, and Scenario Two – farm removed shelterbelts). Two scenarios were selected for the crop-beef mixed farm (Baseline Scenario - farm without shelterbelts, Scenario One - farm maintained shelterbelts). Both farms were subjected to economic evaluation using financial analysis, which was incorporated in the form of a simulation model. This model resulted in estimates of the net present value (NPV) of farm returns from shelterbelts over 60 years. Results suggest that the economics of farms with shelterbelts differed across soil zones. For grain producers, neither field shelterbelts nor removing shelterbelts once planted was an economically preferred option in all three soil zones. On the other hand, shelterbelts were economically preferred for all mixed farm producers, particularly in the Black soil zone. Since previous studies have shown shelterbelts benefit society, a case could be made for government intervention. However, policies that would entice maintaining or not removing field shelterbelts need further investigation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».