Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 373-390

  Kotchen, Matthew J ^a   Powers, Shawn M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WILLIAMS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Land conservation; Open space; Voter referenda

Indexed keywords

DATA STRUCTURES; DATABASE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVEYS;

LAND CONSERVATION; OPEN-SPACE; POLICY-MAKERS; VOTER REFERENDA;

CONSERVATION;

CONSERVATION PLANNING; LAND MANAGEMENT; OPEN SPACE; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC ACCESS; REFERENDUM; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

MASSACHUSETTS; NEW JERSEY; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745618945     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bates L., and Santerre R. The public demand for open space: the case of Connecticut communities. J. Urban Econ. 50 (2001) 97-111
2. Breffle W.S., Morey E.R., and Lodder T.S. Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighborhood's willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Stud. 35 (1998) 715-727
3. Champ P.A., Flores N.E., Brown T.C., and Chivers J. Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ. 78 (2002) 591-604
4. Deacon R., and Shapiro P. Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. Amer. Econ. Rev. 65 (1975) 943-955
5. Dubin J.A., Kiewiet D.R., and Noussair C. Voting on growth control measures: preferences and strategies. Econ. Politics 4 (1992) 191-213
6. Fischel W.A. Determinants of voting on environmental quality: a study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 6 (1979) 107-118
7. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. fourth ed. (2000), Prentice-Hall, NJ
8. Halvorsen R., and Palmquist R. The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. Amer. Econ. Rev. 70 (1980) 474-475
9. Howell-Moroney M. What are the determinants of open-space ballot measures? An extension of the research. Soc. Sci. Quart. 85 (2004) 169-179
10. Irwin E.G. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ. 78 (2002) 465-480
11. Kahn M.E., and Matsusaka J.G. Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. J. Law Econ. 40 (1997) 137-173
12. Kline J., and Wichelns D. Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Econ. 70 (1994) 223-233
13. Kline J., and Wichelns D. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space. Ecolog. Econ. 26 (1998) 211-224
14. E.J. McCaffery, J. Slemrod, Toward an agenda for behavioral public finance, University of Southern California Law and Economics Working Paper Series, Working Paper 21, 2004.
15. E. Nelson, M. Uwasu, S. Polasky, Voting on open space: an analysis of the decision to hold a referendum and of referendum results, Working paper, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 2005.
16. Rogers W.H. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bull. 13 (1993) 19-23
17. Romero F.S., and Liserio A. Saving open spaces: determinants of 1998 and 1999 'antisprawl' ballot measures. Soc. Sci. Quart. 83 (2002) 341-352
18. Rubinfeld D.L. Voting in a local school election: a micro analysis. Rev. Econ. Statist. 59 (1977) 30-42
19. Smith V.K., Poulos C., and Kim H. Treating open space as an urban amenity. Resource Energy Econ. 24 (2002) 107-129
20. Vossler C.A., Kerkvliet J., Polasky S., and Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 51 (2003) 261-277
21. Williams R.L. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 56 (2000) 645-646
22. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2002), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA