Preservation backfired? Open space acquisition and its impacts on land markets

Growth Management and Public Land Acquisition: Balancing Conservation and Development

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 101-115

  Song, Yan ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857323695     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. Agarwal, C., Green, G.M., Grove, J.M., Evans, T.P. and Schweik, C.M. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Land-Use Change Models: Dynamics of Space, Time, and Human Choice (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-297), Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.
2. Armsworth, P.R., Daily, G.C., Kareiva, P. and Sanchiroco, J.N. 2006. Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(14), 5403-08.
3. Bockstael, N.E. 1996. Modeling economics and ecology: The implications of a spatial perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(5), 1168-80.
4. Bolitzer, B. and Netusil, N.R. 2000. The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(3), 185-93.
5. Carmen, C.-F. and Elena, G.I. 2004. Determinants of residential land-use conversion and sprawl at the rural-urban fringe. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 889-904.
6. Chakir, R. and Parent, O. 2009. Determinants of land use changes: A spatial multinomial probit approach. Papers in Regional Science, 88, 327-44.
7. David, A.N., Peter, B. and Adina, M.M. 2006. Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: Targeting strategies for land conservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(1), 28-42.
8. Earnhart, D. 2001. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics, 77(1), 12-29.
9. Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L.A. and Bockstael, N.E. 1997. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics, 23, 251-64.
10. Henderson, K.K. and Song, Y. (2008). Can nearby open spaces substitute for the size of a property owner's private yard? International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 1(2), 147-65.
11. Irwin, E.G. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics, 78(4), 465-80.
12. Irwin, E.G. and Bockstael, N.E. 2001. The problem of identifying land use spillovers: Measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 698-704.
13. Irwin, E.G. and Geoghegan, J. 2001. Theory, data, methods: Developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 85, 7-23.
14. McConnell, V. and Walls, M. 2005. The Value of Open Space: Results from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits [Online: Resources for the Future]. Available at: http:// www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-REPORT-Open%20Spaces.pdf [accessed: 28 January 2008].
15. Shultz, S.D. and King, D.A. 2001. The use of census data for hedonic price estimates of open-space amenities and land use. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22, 239-52.
16. Song, Y. and Knaap, G.J. (2003). New urbanism and housing values: A disaggregate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 218-38.
17. Song, Y. and Knaap, G.J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 663-80.
18. Verburg, P.H., van Eck, J.R.R., de Nijs, T.C.M., Dijst, M.J. and Schot, P. 2004. Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(1), 125-50.
19. Walsh, R. 2007. Endogenous open space amenities in a locational equilibrium. Journal of Urban Economics 61(2), 319-44.