Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space

Ecological Economics

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 211-224

  Kline, Jeffrey ^a   Wichelns, Dennis ^b  

^a PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental amenities; Farmland and open space preservation; Land use; Public preferences

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; OPEN SPACE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

EID: 0032143995     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00115-8     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Addelman, S., Kempthorne, O., 1961. Orthogonal main-effect plans. ARL Technical Report 79. US Air Force, Office of Aerospace Research, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, OH.
2. Aiken, D, 1989. State farmland preferential assessment statutes. Research Bulletin 310. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 77 pp.
3. Beasley S., Workman W., Williams N. Estimating amenity values of urban fringe farmland: a contingent valuation approach: Note. Growth Change. 17:1986;70-78.
4. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S., 1991. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 390 pp.
5. Bergstrom J., Dillman B., Stoll J. Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: The case of prime agricultural land. South. J. Agric. Econ. 17:1985;139-149.
6. Berry D. Preservation of open space and the concept of value. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 35:1976;113-124.
7. Blamey R., Common M., Quiggin J. Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: consumers of citizens? Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 39:1995;263-288.
8. Boyle K. Dichotomous-choice, contingent-valuation questions: Functional form is important. Northeast J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 19:1990;125-131.
9. Buist, H., Fischer, C., Michos, J., Tegene, A., 1995. Purchase of Development Rights and the Economics of Easements. AER-718. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 20 pp.
10. Cameron T. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 15:1988;355-379.
11. Chicoine D. Farmland values at the urban fringe: An analysis of sale prices. Land Econ. 57:1981;353-362.
12. deHaven-Smith L. Environmental belief systems: public opinion on land use regulation in Florida. Environ. Behav. 20:1988;276-299.
13. Drake L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 19:1992;351-364.
14. Dubgaard, A., 1994. Valuing recreation benefits from the Mols Bjerge area, Denmark. In: Dubgaard, A., Bateman, I., Merlo, M. (eds.), Economic Valuation of Benefits from Countryside Stewardship. Vauk, Kiel, pp. 145-166.
15. Edwards S., Anderson G. Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: Some considerations. Land Econ. 63:1987;168-178.
16. General Laws of Rhode Island: 1988 Reenactment. Farmland Preservation Act, 42-82. Michie, Charlottesville, VA.
17. General Laws of Rhode Island: 1993 Reenactment. Natural Heritage Preservation Program, 42-17.5. Michie, Charlottesville, VA.
18. Halstead J. Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: A case study. J. Northeast. Agric. Econ. Council. 13:1984;12-19.
19. Hanemann W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66:1984;332-341.
20. Harman, H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 487 pp.
21. Hoehn J. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: Theory and methods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:1991;289-299.
22. Kaiser, H., 1958. The varimax criterion for varimax rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrica 23, Chicago, IL, pp. 187-200.
23. Kaiser H. The application of electric computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20:1960;141-151.
24. Kline J., Wichelns D. Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Econ. 70:1994;223-233.
25. Loomis J. Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: current practices and proposed solutions. Land Econom. 63:1987;396-402.
26. Lopez R., Shah F., Altobello M. Amenity benefits and the optimal allocation of land. Land Econom. 70:1994;53-62.
27. McConnell K. Models for referendum data: the structure of discreet choice models for contingent valuation. J. Env. Econom. Management. 18:1990;19-34.
28. McConnell K., Bockstael N. Aggregation in recreation economics: issues of estimation and benefit measurement. Northeast J. Ag. Resour. Econom. 13:1990;181-186.
29. McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.), Frontiers of Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY.
30. Merlo, M., Puppa, F., 1994. Public benefits valuation in Italy: A review of forestry and farming applications. In: Dubgaard, A., Bateman, I., Merlo, M. (eds.), Economic Valuation of Benefits from Countryside Stewardship. Vauk, Kiel, pp. 117-132.
31. Mulaik, S., 1972. The Foundations of Factor Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
32. Northeast Farmland Preservation Project, 1986. Farmland Preservation Directory: Northeastern United States. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY.
33. Opaluch J., Swallow S., Weaver T., Wessells C., Wichelns D. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 24:1993;41-59.
34. Pruckner G. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: An application of the CVM. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 22:1995;173-190.
35. Reyment, R., K. Joreskog, 1993. Applied Factor Analysis in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 371 pp.
36. Riera, P., 1994. Amenity aspects of Spanish countryside policy. In: Dubgaard, A., Bateman, I., Merlo, M. (eds.), Economic Valuation of Benefits from Countryside Stewardship. Vauk, Kiel, pp. 133-144.
37. Sagoff, M., 1988. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 271 pp.
38. Schnidman, F., Smiley, M., Woodbury, E., 1990. Retention of Land for Agriculture: Policy, Practice, and Potential in New England. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
39. Sellar C., Chavas J., Stoll J. Specification of the logit model: the case of valuation of nonmarket goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 13:1986;382-390.
40. Shonkwiler J., Reynolds J. A note on the use of hedonic price models in the analysis of land prices at the urban fringe. Land Econ. 62:1986;58-63.
41. Spash C.L., Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 12:1995;191-208.
42. Swallow S., Weaver T., Opaluch J., Michelman T. Heterogeneous preferences and aggregation in environmental policy analysis: A landfill siting case. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76:1994;432-443.
43. Walsh R., Johnson D., McKean J. Issues in nonmarket valuation and policy application: A retrospective glance. West. J. Agric. Econ. 14:1989;178-188.
44. Zube E. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecol. 1:1987;37-45.
45. Zube E., Sell J. Human dimensions of evolutional change. J. Planning Lit. 1:1986;162-176.