Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:02:53.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Setting the Standard for Farmland Preservation: Do Preservation Criteria Motivate Citizen Support for Farmland Preservation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

B. James Deaton ,
Patricia E. Norris  and
John P. Hoehn
B. James Deaton
Affiliation:
Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University
Patricia E. Norris
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
John P. Hoehn
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
Get access

Abstract

The multifunctional set of services provided by farmland complicates the task of identifying which farmland should be preserved. For this reason many states and local governments establish criteria to rank and select parcels of farmland for protection. This study examines whether criteria commonly used by state programs to guide purchases of agricultural conservation easements influence public demand for farmland preservation. The results provide policy makers with additional information to assess current ranking criteria that set the standard for farmland preservation.

Keywords

farmlandfarmland attributesPACE programsprobit modelstandards
Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , October 2003 , pp. 272 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Swait, J. (1998). “Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Method.” Final Report, Resource Valuation Branch Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Batie, S. S. (2003, April). “The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Beasley, S. D., Workman, W. G., and Williams, N. A. (1986). “Estimating Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach: Note.” Journal of Growth and Change 17, 70–78.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J. C., Dillman, B. L., and Stoll, J. R. (1985, July). “Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 17(1), 139–149.Google Scholar
Drake, L. (1992). “The Non-Market Value of Swedish Agricultural Landscape.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 19, 351–364.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. (1977). “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59, 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Halstead, J. (1984). “Measuring the Non-market Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 13(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. (1984). “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Choices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332–341.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1994). “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland.” Land Economics 70(2), 223–233.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996). “Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs.” Land Economics 72(4), 538–549.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1998). “Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Preserving Farmland and Open Space.” Ecological Economics 26(2), 211–224.Google Scholar
Krieger, D. (1999). “Saving Open Spaces: Public Support for Farmland Protection.” Working Paper Series, Center for Agriculture in the Environment, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb. Online. Available at http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/wp/99-1/wp99-1.html#toc. [Accessed May 21, 2002.]Google Scholar
Milon, J. W., Hodges, A. W., Rimal, A., Kiker, C. F., and Casey, F. (1999, August). “Public Preferences and Economic Values for Restoration of the Everglades/South Florida Ecosystem.” Economics Report, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Myers, P. (1999, January). “Livability at the Ballot Box: State and Local Referenda on Parks, Conservation, and Smarter Growth, Election Day 1998.” The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Myers, P. (2001, February). “Growth at the Ballot Box: Electing the Shape of Communities in November 2000.” The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Nickerson, C. J., and Hellerstein, D. (2003). “Protecting Rural Amenities Through Farmland Preservation Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1), 129–144.Google Scholar
Opaluch, J. J., Swallow, S. K., Weaver, T., Wessells, C., and Wichelns, D. (1993). “Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Waste Facilities: Including Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 41–59.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R. S. (1998). “Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation: Comment.” Land Economics 74(4), 557–564.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). SF-1, “General Population and Housing Characteristics: State of Michigan and Kent County.” 1990 Census of the Population. Online. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. [Accessed September 18, 2003.]Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). SF-1. “General Population and Housing Characteristics: State of Michigan and Kent County.” 2000 Census of the Population. Online. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. [Accessed September 18, 2003.]Google Scholar