Farmland preservation programs and the importance of rural amenities

Economics and Contemporary Land Use Policy: Development and Conservation at the Rural-Urban Fringe

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 217-236

  Nickerson, Cynthia J ^a   Hellerstein, Daniel M ^b  

^a Economic Research Service of the USDA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 72149099144     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781936331659     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. AFT (American Farmland Trust). 2002a. Fact Sheet: Status of State PACE Programs. http://www.farmlandinfo.org (accessed January 2002 ).
2. AFT (American Farmland Trust) 2002b. Fact Sheet: Status of Local PACE Programs. http://www.farmlandinfo.org (accessed January 2002 ).
3. AFT (American Farmland Trust) 2002c. State Farmland Protection Statutes by State. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/laws.html (accessed January 2002 ).
4. Agresti, A. 1996. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
5. Barnard, C. H. 2000. Urbanization Affects a Large Share of Farmland. Rural Conditions and Trends 10(2): 57-63.
6. Beasley, S. D., W. G. Workman, and N. A. Williams. 1986. Estimating Amenity Values for Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach: Note. Growth and Change 17(4): 70-78.
7. Bergstrom, J., B. Dillman, and J. Stoll. 1985. Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 17(1): 139-149.
8. Bockstael, N. E. 1996. Modeling Economics and Ecology: The Importance of a Spatial Perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1168-1180.
9. Cattaneo, A., S. Bucholtz, J. Dewbre, and C. Nickerson. 2002. The CRP Balancing Act: Trading Off Costs and Multiple Environmental Benefits. Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meetings. July, Long Beach, CA.
10. Duke, J. M., and R. A. Hyde. 2002. Identifying Public Preferences for Land Preservation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Ecological Economics 42(1-2): 131-145.
11. Furuseth, O. 1987. Public Attitudes toward Local Farmland Protection Programs. Growth and Change 18(3): 49-61.
12. Hellerstein, D., C. Nickerson, J. Cooper, P. Feather, D. Gadsby, D. Mullarkey, A. Tegene, and C. Barnard. 2002. Farmland Protection: The Role of Public Preference for Rural Amenities. Agricultural Economics Report no. 815. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
13. Irwin, E. G. 2002. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78(4): 464-480.
14. Kline, J., and D. Wichelns. 1996. Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs. Land Economics 72(4): 538-549.
15. Kline, J., and D. Wichelns. 1998. Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Preserving Farmland and Open Space. Ecological Economics 26(2): 211-224.
16. Krieger, D. 1999. Saving Open Spaces: Public Support for Farmland Protection. Working Paper Series wp99-1. April. Chicago: Center for Agriculture in the Environment.
17. Nickerson, C. J., and D. Hellerstein. 2003. Protecting Rural Amenities through Farmland Preservation Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 129-144.
18. Samuelson, P. 1954. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 3817-3819.
19. Swallow, S. K. 1997. Modelling Public Preferences for Environmental Management Planning and Decisions. In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, edited by O. Saastamoinen and S. Tikka. Mekrijärvi, Finland, March 1996. Scandinavian Forest Economics 36(1): 23-41.