Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection?

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 21-34

  Schläpfer, Felix ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMENITY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE PROTECTION;

SWITZERLAND; ZURICH;

EID: 0037367847     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2003.tb00046.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brunstad, R.J., Gaasland, I., and Vardal, E. (1999). Agricultural production and the optimal level of landscape preservation. Land Economics 75(4):538-546.
2. Canton of Zurich (1997). Staatsrechnung des Kantons Zürich 1997. Verwaltungsrechnung. Zurich, Switzerland: Cantonal Printing Office.
3. Deacon, R. and Shapiro, P. (1975). Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. American Economic Review 64:943-955.
4. Deller, S., Tsai, Tsung-Hsiu, Marcouiller, D.W., and English, D.B.K. (2001). The role of amenities and quality of life in rural economic growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2):352-365
5. Drake, L. (1992). The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 19:351-364.
6. Earnhart, D. (2001). Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics 77(1):12-29.
7. Executive Council (1977). Verordnung über den Natur- und Heimatschutz und über die kommunalen Erholungsflächen. Offizielle Sammlung 46:779.
8. Executive Council (1996). Änderung des Gesetzes über die Finanzierung von Massnahmen für den Natur- und Heimatschutz und für Erholungsgebiete. Beleuchtender Bericht des Regierungsrates. Kantonale Volksabstimmung, Issue "Abstimmungsvorlagen Kanton Zürich 22. September 1996", August 1996, pp. 4-5.
9. Fischel, W. (1979). Determinants of voting on environmental quality: a study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6:107-118.
10. FSO (1979/85 and 1992/97). Land use statistics 1979/85 and 1992/97. GEOSTAT. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Federal Statistical Office.
11. Garrod, G. and Willis, K. (1994). An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on property values. Environmental and Resource Economics 4(2):209-217.
12. Greene, W. (1997). Econometric Analysis. 3rd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13. Hanley, N.D., Kirkpatrick, H., Simpson, I. and Oglethorpe, D. (1998). Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modelling moorland conservation in Scotland. Land Economics 74(1):102-113.
14. Hanley, N.D., Whitby, M., and Simpson, I. (1999). Assessing the success of agrienvironmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16(2):67-80
15. Kahn, M.E. and Matsusaka, J. G. (1997). Demand for environmental goods: evidence for voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics 15:137-173.
16. Kline, J. and Armstrong, C. (2001) Autopsy of a forestry ballot initiative. Characterizing voter support for Oregon's Measure 64. Journal of Forestry 99(5):20-29.
17. Kline, J. and Wichelns, D. (1994). Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics 70:223-233.
18. Lopez, R.A., Shah, F.A., and Altobello, M.A. (1994) Amenity benefits and the optimal allocation of land. Land Economics 70(1):53-62.
19. OECD (1996). Agricultural Policies, Markets, and Evaluation 1996. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
20. Office of the Parliament (1996). Beschluss des Büros des Kantonsrates über die Ergebnisse der kantonalen Volksabstimmung vom 22. September 1996. Zürcher Amtsblatt 1996 (4 October):1641-1668.
21. Parliament of the Canton of Zurich (1974). Gesetz über die Finanzierung von Massnahmen für den Natur- und Heimatschutz und für Erholungsgebiete. Offizielle Sammlung 45, 61.
22. Poe, L.G. and Bishop, R.C. (1999). Valuing the incremental benefits of groundwater protection when exposure levels are known. Environmental and Resource Economics 13:341-367.
23. Pruckner, G. (1995). Agricultural landscape conservation in Austria: an application of the CVM. European Review of Agricultural Economics 22:173-190.
24. Roschewitz, A. (1999). Der Monetäre Wert der Kulturlandschaft. Eine Contingent Valuation Studie. Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG.
25. Willis, K.G. and Garrod, G. (1991). Landscape values: A contingent valuation approach and case study of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. ESCR Countryside Change Initiative. Working Paper 21.