Demand for landscape management: Regulation versus financing

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 27-41

  Schulz, Thomas ^a   Schlápfer, Felix ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Amenities; Demand analysis; Ecosystem services; Income elasticity; Landscape management; Open space; Public goods; Referendum; Voting

Indexed keywords

AMENITY; DEMAND ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FINANCE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; OPEN SPACE; PUBLIC SPENDING; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; SWITZERLAND; ZURICH [SWITZERLAND];

EID: 58049191422     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920801942040     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Anselin, L. (1988) Spatial econometrics: Methods and models, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
2. Ascher, W. and Steelman, T. (2006) Valuation in the environmental policy process. Policy Sci., 39:1, pp. 73-90.
3. Bisang, K. (2004) Nature at the ballot box. Referendums and environmental policymaking in California and Switzerland, PhD dissertation, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
4. (2000) Verordnung über Staatsbeiträge für den Natur- und Heimatschutz und über kommunale Erholungsflächen, Cantonal Printing Office, Zurich, Switzerland
5. (2005) Beschluss des Regierungsrates über die Ergebnisse der kantonalen Volksabstimmung vom 5. Juni 2005. Zürcher Amtsblatt, 17, pp. 613-625.
6. Cornes, R. and Sandler, T. (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
7. Deacon, R. and Shapiro, P. (1975) Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. Am. Econ. Rev., 65:5, pp. 943-955.
8. Dubin, J. A., Kiewiet, D., Roderick, D. and Noussair, C. (1992) Voting on growth control measures: Preferences and strategies. Econ. Polit., 4, pp. 191-213.
9. (1998) Verordnung über das Bundesinventar der Landschaften und Naturdenkmäler (VBLN), Federal Printing Office, Bern, Switzerland
10. (2000) Verordnung über das Bundesinventar der schützenswerten Ortsbilder der Schweiz (VISOS), Federal Printing Office, Bern, Switzerland
11. (1997) Land use statistics 1992/1997. GEOSTAT, Federal Office of Statistics, Neuchatel, Switzerland
12. (2004) Direkte Bundessteuer, Steuerperiode 1999/2000, Natüriche Personen, Federal Tax Administration, Bern, Switzerland
13. Geoghegan, J. (2002) The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy, 19:1, pp. 91-98.
14. Johnson, J. D. and Rasker, R. (1995) The role of economic and quality of life values in rural business location. J. Rural Stud., 11:4, pp. 405-416.
15. Kahn, M. E. and Matsusaka, J. G. (1997) Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. J. Law Econ., 40:1, pp. 137-173.
16. Kline, J. (2006) Public demand for preserving local open space. Society Nat. Resources, 19:7, pp. 645-659.
17. Kline, J. and Wichelns, D. (1994) Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Econ., 70:2, pp. 223-233.
18. Kotchen, M. J. and Powers, S. M. (2006) Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 52:1, pp. 373-390.
19. Loomis, J. B. (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: An empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ., 76:2, pp. 312-321.
20. Love, L. L. and Crompton, J. L. (1999) The role of quality of life in business (re)location decisions - Are economic developers, manufacturers and industrial real estate brokers operating on the same wave length?. J. Business Res., 44:3, pp. 211-222.
21. Nelson, E., Michinori, U. and Polasky, S. (2007) Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?. Ecol. Econ., 62:3, pp. 580-593.
22. (1996) Beschluss des Büros des Kantonsrates über die Ergebnisse der kantonalen Volksabstimmung vom 22. September 1996. Zürcher Amtsblatt, 4, pp. 1641-1668.
23. Press, D. (2003) Who votes for natural resources in California. Society Nat. Resources, 16:9, pp. 835-846.
24. Schlapfer, F. and Schmitt, M. (2007) Anchors, endorsements, and preferences A field experiment. Resource Energy Econ., 29:3, pp. 229-243.
25. Schlapfer, F. and Hanley, N. (2003) Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection?. J. Agric. Econ., 54:1, pp. 21-34.
26. Schlapfer, F. and Hanley, N. (2006) Contingent valuation and collective choice. Kyklos, 59:1, pp. 115-135.
27. Schlapfer, F. and Witzig, P. J. (2006) Public support for river restoration funding in relation to local river eco-morphology, population density, and mean income. Water Resources Res., 42
28. Shields, T. G. and Goidel, R. K. (1997) Participation rates, socioeconomic class biases, and congressional elections: A crossvalidation. Am. J. Polit. Sci., 41:2, pp. 683-691.
29. Solecki, W. D., Mason, R. J. and Martin, S. (2004) The geography of voter support for open-space initiatives: A case study of New Jersey's 1998 ballot measure. Social Sci. Q., 85:3, pp. 624-639.
30. Tiebout, C. (1956) A pure theory of local government expenditure. J. Polit. Econ., 64, pp. 416-424.