The Spatial Range of Public Goods Revealed Through Referendum Voting

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 305-328

  Deacon, Robert T ^a   Schläpfer, Felix ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Revealed preference; Spatial range of environmental amenities; Voting

Indexed keywords

RESTORATION;

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; PROMINENT FEATURES; REVEALED PREFERENCE; RIVER RESTORATION PROJECTS; VOTING;

RIVERS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; PUBLIC GOODS; REFERENDUM; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

BERN [SWITZERLAND]; SWITZERLAND; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77958502887     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9380-7     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Abeles-Allison M, Connor LJ (1990) An analysis of local benefits and costs of Michigan hog operations experiencing environmental conflicts. Agricultural Economics Report No. 536. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
2. Acharya G, Bennett LL (2001) Valuing open space and land-use patterns in urban watersheds. J Real Estate Finance Econ 22(2-3): 221-237.
3. Banzhaf HS, Walsh RP (2008) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout. Am Econ Rev 98(3): 63-843.
4. Bayer P, Ferreira F, McMillan R (2007) A unified framework for measuring preferences for schools and neighborhoods. J Polit Econ 115(4): 588-638.
5. Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) Non-users' willingness to pay for a National Park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 31(6): 571-582.
6. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Nishikawa N, Lake I (2000) The Axford Debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to aggregation of benefits data. J Environ Plann Manag 43(2): 291-302.
7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) the aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60: 450-460.
8. Berner Zeitung (1997) Various editions. Verlag Berner Zeitung, Bern, Switzerland.
9. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD et al (2005) Ecology-synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308(5722): 636-637.
10. Bowen HR (1943) The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Q J Econ 58: 27-48.
11. Boyle KJ, Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Hudson SP (1994) An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manag 27(1): 64-83.
12. Burkhardt-Holm P, Giger W, Güttinger H, Ochsenbein U, Peter A, Scheurer K, Segner H, Staub E, Suter ME (2005) Where have all the fish gone? The reasons why the fish catches in Swiss rivers are declining. Environ Sci Technol 39: 441A-447A.
13. Canton of Bern (1997) Abstimmungsprotokolle der Gemeinden des Kantons Bern bei der kantonalen Volksabstimmung über den Volksvorschlag, für einen Renaturierungsfonds im Wassernutzungsgesetz vom 23. November 1997 (Voting Protocols).
14. Cornes R (1993) Dyke maintenance and other stories: some neglected types of public goods. Q J Econ 108(1): 259-271.
15. Cornes R, Sandler T (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Deacon R, Shapiro P (1975) Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. Am Econ Rev 65(5): 943-955.
17. Epple D, Sieg H (1999) Estimating equilibrium models of local jurisdictions. J Polit Econ 107(4): 645-681.
18. Epple D, Romer T, Sieg H (2001) Interjurisdictional sorting and majority rule: an empirical analysis. Econometrica 69(6): 1437-1465.
19. Federal Office of Statistics (2006) Federal Census data 1990. Statweb, Federal Office of Statistics, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
20. Fischel WA (1979) Determinants of voting on environmental quality: a study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum. J Environ Econ Manag 6(2): 107-118.
21. FOEFL (1999) Methoden zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fliessgewässer. Vollzug Umwelt: Mitteilungen zum Gewässerschutz, Nr. 26/27. Federal Office for the Environment, Forest, and Landscape, Bern, Switzerland.
22. FTA (2004) Direkte Bundessteuer, Steuerperiode 1999/2000, Natürliche Personen. Federal Tax Administration, Bern (Data provided in the internet; accessed June 2005).
23. Geoghegan J (2002) The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91-98.
24. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol Econ 23(3): 251-264.
25. Greene WH (2008) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
26. Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68(3): 297-304.
27. Hegg C, Gerber D, Röthlisberger G (2000) Unwetterschaden-Datenbank der Schweiz. In: International symposium interpraevent. Villach, Austria, Proceedings vol 1, pp 37-48.
28. Herriges JA, Secchi S, Babcock BA (2005) Living with hogs in Iowa: the impact of livestock facilities on rural residential property values. Land Econ 81(4): 530-545.
29. Hirshleifer J (1983) From weakest-link to best-shot: the voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice 41: 371-386.
30. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78(4): 465-480.
31. Kahn ME, Matsusaka JG (1997) Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. J Law Econ 40(1): 137-173.
32. Kline J, Wichelns D (1994) Using referendum data to characterize public support for purchasing development rights to farmland. Land Econ 70(2): 223-233.
33. Kolstad CD (2000) Environ Econ. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Kotchen MJ, Powers SM (2006) Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. J Environ Econ Manag 52(1): 373-390.
35. Kriesi H (2007) The participation in Swiss direct-democratic votes. In: Vreese CH (eds) The dynamics of referendum campaigns. An international perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 117-141.
36. Loomis JB (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ 76(2): 312-321.
37. Lupia A (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias-information and voting- behavior in California insurance reform elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 88(1): 63-76.
38. Lupia A, Matsusaka JG (2004) Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annu Rev Polit Sci 7: 463-482.
39. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ 76(1): 100-113.
40. McConnell KE (1990) Double counting in hedonic and travel cost models. Land Econ 66(2): 121-127.
41. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76(4): 689-708.
42. Michaels RG, Smith VK (1990) Market-segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models-the case of hazardous-waste sites. J Urban Econ 28(2): 223-242.
43. Martinez MD, Gill J (2005) The effects of turnout on partisan outcomes in U. S. presidential elections 1960-2000. J Polit 67: 1248-1274.
44. Mottier V (1993) La structuration sociale de la participation aux votations fédérales. In: Kriesi HP (eds) Citoyenneté et démocratie directe. Seismo, Zurich, pp 123-144.
45. Nelson E, Uwasu M, 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(3-4): 580-593.
46. Noam EM (1981) The valuation of legal-rights. Q J Econ 96(3): 465-476.
47. Noam EM (1982) Demand-functions and the valuation of public-goods. Public Choice 38(3): 271-280.
48. Oates W (1972) Fiscal federalism. Harcourt, Brace.
49. OMSP (2002) Gemeindedaten. Office of Municipalities and Spatial Planning, Canton of Bern, Switzerland (Data provided in the Internet, accessed: July 2005).
50. Palmquist RB, Roka FM, Vukina T (1997) Hog operations, environmental effects, and residential property values. Land Econ 73(1): 114-124.
51. Parsons GR (1991) A note on choice of residential location in travel cost demand models. Land Econ 67(3): 360-364.
52. Parsons GR, Platinga AJ, Boyle KJ (2000) Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Econ 76(1): 86-99.
53. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20(3): 199-207.
54. Phaneuf D, Smith VK (2005) Recreation demand models. In: Maler KG, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 672-761.
55. Ready RC, Abdalla CW (2005) The amenity and disamenity impacts of agriculture: estimates from a hedonic pricing model. Am J Agric Econ 87(2): 314-326.
56. Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 324-344.
57. Rubinfeld DL (1977) Voting in a local school election-micro-analysis. Rev Econ Stat 59(1): 30-42.
58. Schläpfer F, Hanley N (2003) Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection? J Agric Econ 54(1): 21-34.
59. Schläpfer F, Hanley N (2006) Contingent valuation and collective choice. Kyklos 59: 115-135.
60. Schläpfer F, Witzig PJ (2006) Public support for river restoration funding in relation to local river eco-morphology, population density, and mean income. Water Resour Res 42(12): W12412.
61. Schmidheiny K (2006) Income segregation and local progressive taxation: Empirical evidence from Switzerland. J Public Econ 90(3): 429-458.
62. Smith VK, Kopp R (1980) The spatial limits of the travel cost recreation demand model. Land Econ 56(1): 64-72.
63. Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "scope" test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manag 31(3): 287-301.
64. Smith VK (1993) Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources-an interpretive appraisal. Land Econ 69(1): 1-26.
65. Swisstopo (1999) GEOSTAT Datasets GG25, GN5, GRENZ5, and PK25. Swisstopo (Federal Office of Topography), Bern, Switzerland.
66. Taylor AE (1955) Advanced calculus. Blaisdell, Waltham.
67. Vossler CA, Kerkvliet J (2003) A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public good. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 631-649.
68. WSPL (2003) OEKOMORPH. Ökologie der Fliessgewässer. Produktebeschreibung. Water and Soil Protection Laboratory and Office of Water Protection and Waste Management. Bern, Switzerland.
69. Wernli B (2001) Contraintes institutionnelles, influences contextuelles et participation aux électoins fédérales en Suisse. Haupt, Bern.
70. Whittington D, MacRae D (1986) The issue of standing in cost-benefit analysis. J Policy Anal Manag 5(4): 665-682.