Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?

Ecological Economics

Volumn 62, Issue 3-4, 2007, Pages 580-593

  Nelson, Erik ^a   Uwasu, Michinori ^a   Polasky, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Open space; Referenda; Sprawl

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL METHOD; CONSERVATION PLANNING; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; NATURE RESERVE; OPEN SPACE; PERCEPTION; POPULATION DENSITY; REFERENDUM; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; STATE ROLE; UNEMPLOYMENT; URBAN POPULATION; URBANIZATION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247565999     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.027     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Deacon R., and Shapiro P. Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. American Economic Review 65 (1975) 943-955
2. Duke J., and Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 131-145
3. Fair R. The effect of economic events on votes for president. Review of Economics and Statistics 6 (1978) 159-173
4. Fischel W. Determinants of voting on environmental quality: a study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6 (1979) 107-118
5. Geoghegan J., Lynch L., and Bucholtz S. Capitalization of open spaces into housing values and the residential property tax revenue impacts of agricultural easement programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32 (2003) 33-45
6. Goldsmith A.A. Plebiscites, fiscal policy, and the poor: learning from the US experience with direct democracy. Development Policy Review 23 (2005) 553-566
7. Greene W. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. (2003), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
8. Halvorsen R., and Palmquist R. The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review 70 (1980) 474-475
9. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47 (1979) 153-161
10. Howell-Moroney M. Community characteristics, open space preservation and regionalism: is there a connection?. Journal of Urban Affairs 26 (2004) 109-118
11. Howell-Moroney M. What are the determinants of open-space ballot measures? An extension of the research. Social Science Quarterly 85 (2004) 169-179
12. Irwin E. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 78 (2002) 465-480
13. Irwin E., and Bockstael N. The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (2001) 698-704
14. Kahn M., and Matsusaka J. Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics 40 (1997) 137-173
15. Kline J., and Wichelns D. Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Economics 70 (1994) 223-233
16. Kline J., and Wichelns D. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space. Ecological Economics 26 (1998) 211-224
17. Kotchen M., and Powers S. Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52 (2006) 373-390
18. LCV. League of Conservation Voters. Data on spatial pattern of environmental organization memberships (2004)
19. Leip, D., 2004. Dave Leip's atlas of U.S. presidential elections. Accessed at http://www.uselectionatlas.org.
20. Maddala G. Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics (1983), Cambridge University Press, New York
21. Manski C., and Lerman S. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples. Econometrica 45 (1977) 1977-1988
22. Marshall E. Open-space amenities, interacting agents, and equilibrium landscape structure. Land Economics 80 (2004) 272-293
23. Matsusaka J.G. Explaining voter turnout patterns: an information theory. Public Choice 84 (1995) 91-117
24. Myers P. Livability at the ballot box: state and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, election day 1998. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (1999)
25. Press D. Saving open space: the politics of local preservation in California (2002), University of California Press, Berkeley
26. Riker R.H., and Ordeshook P.C. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62 (1968) 25-42
27. Schläpfer F., and Hanley N. Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection?. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 (2003) 21-35
28. Schläpfer F., Roschewitz A., and Hanley N. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecological Economics 51 (2004) 1-16
29. Shachar R., and Nalebuff B. Follow the leader: theory and evidence on political appearance. The American Economic Review 89 (1999) 525-547
30. Solecki W., Mason R., and Martin S. The geography of support for open-space initiatives: a case study of New Jersey's 1998 ballot measure. Social Science Quarterly 85 (2004) 624-639
31. Thalmann P. The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion. Public Choice 119 (2004) 179-217
32. Thorsnes P. The value of a suburban forest reserve: estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots. Land Economics 78 (2002) 426-441
33. TPL. Trust for Public Land, 2004. LandVote database. Accessed at http://www.tpl.org.
34. Turner M. Landscape preferences and patterns of residential development. Journal of Urban Economics 57 (2005) 19-54
35. Romero F.S., and Liserio A. Saving open spaces: determinants of 1998 and 1999 "antisprawl" ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly 83 (2002) 341-352
36. Smith, S., 2002. Poll analysis: Nader not responsible for Gore's loss. Accessed at http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm.
37. USBLS. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004. The local area unemployment statistics program. Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm.
38. USCB. United States Census Bureau, 1990. Census 1990. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html.
39. USCB. United States Census Bureau, 1992. 1992 Census of governments. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cog92.html.
40. USCB. United States Census Bureau, 2000. Census 2000. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
41. USCB. United States Census Bureau, 2004. Census 2000 U.S. Gazetteer Files. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/places2k.html.
42. USCB. United States Census Bureau, 2005. Population estimates. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.
43. USDA-ERS. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service, 2006. U.S. and state farm income data. Accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm.
44. USDA-NASS. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997 Census of Agriculture (1997)
45. Wooldridge J. Introductory Econometrics: a Modern Approach. 2nd ed. (2003), South-Western College Pub., Cincinnati, Ohio
46. Vesterby M., and Krupa K. Major uses of land in the United States, 1997. Economic Research Service Statistical Bulletin No. SB973 (2001), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
47. Vossler C., and Kerkvliet J. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (2003) 631-649
48. Vossler C., Kerkvliet J., Polasky S., and Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51 (2003) 261-277