Landowner response to policies regulating land improvements in Finland: Lease or search for other options?

Land Use Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 367-376

  Pouta, E ^a   Myyra S ^a   Pietola, K ^a  

^a MTT   (Finland)

Author keywords

Contingent behaviour; Heterogeneity; Land ownership in Finland; Land use; Landlord; Latent class model

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND TENURE; LAND USE CHANGE; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDOWNER; LANDOWNERSHIP; POLICY ANALYSIS; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

FINLAND;

EID: 80053942887     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allen D., Lueck D. The Nature of the Farm Contract, Risk, and Organization in Agriculture 2003, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
2. Bellman R. Dynamic Programming 1957, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
3. Bierlen R., Parsch L.D., Dixon B.L. How cropland contract type and term decisions are made: evidence from an Arkansas tenant survey. IFAMR 1999, 2(1):103-121.
4. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23:421-446.
5. Cary J.W., Wilkinson R.L. Perceived profitability and farmers' conservation behaviour. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 48:13-21.
6. Chaudhuri A., Maitra P. On the choice of tenancy contracts in rural India. Economica 2002, 69(275):445-459.
7. Chouinard H.H., Paterson T., Wandschneider P.R., Ohler A.M. Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Econ. 2008, 84:66-82.
8. Ciaian P., d'Artis K., Swinnen J. EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultural Policy 2010, Centre for European Policy studies, Brussels.
9. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method 1978, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
10. Dorfman J.H. Modeling multiple adoption decisions in a joint framework. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 78:547-557.
11. European Council, 2003. Council Regulation No. 1782/2003.
12. Englin J., Cameron T.A. Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1996, 7:133-147.
13. Fraser E. Land tenure and agricultural management: soil conservation on rented and owned fields in southwest British Columbia. Agric. Human Values 2004, 21:73-79.
14. Green G., Sunding D., Zilberman D., Parker D. Explaining irrigation technology choices: a microparametric approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 78:1064-1072.
15. Grijalva T.C., Berrens R.B., Bohara A.A., Shaw W.D. Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:401-414.
16. Holden S., Hailu Y. Land redistribution, tenure insecurity, and intensity of production: a study of farm households in Southern Ethiopia. Land Econ. 2002, 78:573-590.
17. Huoneenvuokralaki 31.3.1995/481. FINLEX - Valtion säädöstietopankki. Available in the Internet: (In Finnish.). http://www.finlex.fi/fi.
18. Jongeneel R.A., Polman N.B.P., Slangen L.H.G. Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional?. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:81-94.
19. Karppinen H. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fenn. 1998, 32:43-59.
20. Keane M.P., Wolpin K.I. The solution and estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models by simulation and interpolation: Monte Carlo evidence. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1994, LXXVI:648-672.
21. Kline J., Alig R., Johnson R. Forest owners' incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33:29-43.
22. Koontz T.M. Money talks - but to whom? Financial versus non-monetary motivations in land use decisions?. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2001, 14:51-65.
23. Knowler D., Bradshaw B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 2007, 32:25-48.
24. Kurtz W., Lewis B. Decision-making framework for nonindustrial private forest owners: an application in the Missouri Ozarks. J. Forest. 1981, 79:285-288.
25. Kuuluvainen J., Karppinen H., Ovaskainen V. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Sci. 1996, 42:300-309.
26. Lambert D.M., Sullivan P., Claassen R. Working farm participation and acreage enrolment in the conservation reserve program. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39:151-169.
27. Lighthall D. Farm structure and chemical use in the corn belt. Rural Sociol. 1995, 60:505-520.
28. Maanvuokralaki 08.10.2003. FINLEX - Valtion säädöstietopankki. Available in the Internet: (In Finnish.). http://www.finlex.fi/fi.
29. Marty T., Kurtz W.B., Gramann J.H. PNIF owner attitudes in the Midwest: a case study in Missouri and Wisconsin. North. J. Appl. Forest. 1988, 5:194-197.
30. Maybery D., Crase L., Gullifer C. Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle. J. Econ. Psychol. 2005, 26:59-72.
31. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
32. Metsälaki 12.12.1996/1093. FINLEX - Valtion säädöstietopankki. Available in the Internet: (In Finnish). http://www.finlex.fi/fi.
33. Myyrä S., Ketoja E., Yli-Halla M., Pietola K. Land improvements under land tenure insecurity: the case of pH and phosphate in Finland. Land Econ. 2005, 81:557-569.
34. Myyrä S., Pietola K., Yli-Halla M. Exploring long-term land improvements under land tenure insecurity. Agric. Syst. 2007, 92:63-75.
35. Myyrä, S., Pouta, E., Hänninen, H., 2008. Suomalainen pellonomistaja. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Maa- ja elintarviketalous, pp. 115, 182. Available in the internet: (In Finnish: English abstract.). http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/met115.pdf.
36. Myyrä S., Pouta E. Farmland owners' land sale preferences: can they be affected by taxation programs?. Land Econ. 2010, 86:245-262.
37. Pietola K., Oude Lansink A. Farmer response to policies promoting organic farming technologies in Finland. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2001, 28:1-15.
38. Pietola K., Väre M., Oude Lansink A. Timing and type of exit from farming: farmers' early retirement programmes in Finland. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2003, 30:99-116.
39. Pouta, E., Myyrä, S., Hänninen, H., 2011. Farm land owners' objectives in Finland: two approaches for owner classifications. Soc. Nat. Resour., in press.
40. Provencher B. Structural versus reduced-form estimation of optimal stopping problems. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79:357-368.
41. Pyykkönen P. Factors Affecting Farmland Prices in Finland 2006, Pellervo Economic Research Institute, Publication No. 19, Helsinki, Available in the Internet:. http://www.ptt.fi/dokumentit/julk19_0106071420.pdf.
42. Rainey R.L., Dixon B.L., Ahrendsen B.L., Parsch L.D., Bierlen R.W. Arkansas landlord selection of land-leasing contract type and terms. IFAMR 2005, 8(1):1-19.
43. Rodgers C. Property rights, land use and the rural environment: a case for reform. Land Use Policy 2009, 26S:134-141.
44. Ryan J.C., Barnard R., Collender R., Erickson K. Government payments to farmers contribute to rising land values. Agric. Outlook (June-July 2001) 2001, 22-26.
45. Salamon S., Fransworth D., Bullock D., Yusuf R. Family factors affecting adoption of sustainable farming systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1997, 52:265-271.
46. Slangen L.H.G., Polman N.B.P. Land lease contracts: properties and the value of bundles of property rights. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2008, 55(4):397-412.
47. Soule M.J., Tegene A., Wiebe K.D. Land tenure and adaptation of conservation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 82:993-1005.
48. Wedel M., DeSarbo W.S. A review of recent developments in latent class regression models. Advanced Methods of Marketing Research 1994, 352-388. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge. R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.).
49. Yearbook of Farm Statistics SVT Maa- metsä- ja kalatalous 2003, Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskus, Helsinki, p. 62.