Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:57:25.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Parcel Characteristics on the Cost of Development Rights to Farmland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Dennis Wichelns  and
Jeffrey D. Kline
Dennis Wichelns
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Jeffrey D. Kline
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the economic impact of selected farmland characteristics on the appraised value of development rights. Price elasticities are estimated for the size and location of farmland parcels, the amount of road frontage, the existence of panoramic views, and the distance to urban centers. Estimated elasticities suggest that parcel characteristics have a substantial impact on the cost of preserving farmland. For example, the per-acre cost of development rights is estimated to be 53 percent higher on farmland parcels that have a panoramic view of water than on parcels that have no water view. Similarly, the per-acre cost of development rights on a typical 25-acre farm is estimated to be 90 percent higher than on a typical 150-acre farm. Results suggest that the net social benefits obtained through farmland preservation programs may be enhanced by considering the impact of farmland characteristics on the marginal costs of purchasing development rights, when selecting among a set of candidate farms.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 150 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

Beasley, Steven D., Workman, William G., Williams, Nancy A. “Estimating Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach: Note,” Growth and Change, 17, No. 4 (1986).Google Scholar
Bergstrom, John C., Dillman, B.L., and Stoll, John R. “Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1985.Google Scholar
Chicoine, David L. “Farmland Values at the Urban Fringe: An Analysis of Sale Prices,” Land Economics, 57, No. 3 (1981).Google Scholar
Conrad, Jon M., and LeBlanc, David. “The Supply of Development Rights: Results from a Survey in Hadley, Massachusetts,” Land Economics, 55, No. 2 (1979).Google Scholar
Derr, Donn A. “Historical Overview of Purchase of Development Rights Programs in the Northeast,” Purchase of Development Rights Programs in the Northeast, Ed. John Mackenzie, Bulletin 474, Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, Newark, DE, 1988.Google Scholar
Duncan, Myrl L. “Toward a Theory of Broad-based Planning for the Preservation of Agricultural Land,” Natural Resources Journal, 24 (1984).Google Scholar
Field, Barry C. and Conrad, Jon M. “Economics of Compensation in Development Rights Programs,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 4, No. 2 (1975).Google Scholar
Furuseth, Owen J. “Public Attitudes Toward Local Farmland Protection Programs,” Growth and Change, 18, No. 3 (1987).Google Scholar
Halstead, John M. “Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 13, No. 1 (1984).Google Scholar
Lembeck, Stanford M., Willits, Fern K., and Crider, Donald M. “Public Attitudes Toward Farmland Preservation in Pennsylvania: Analysis of a Statewide Survey,” Report 226, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1991.Google Scholar
Lessley, Billy V. “Integrating Purchase of Development Rights Programs with Agricultural Districts and Use-Value Assessment,” Purchase of Development Rights Programs in the Northeast, Ed. John Mackenzie, Bulletin 474, Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, Newark, DE, 1988.Google Scholar
Mills, Edwin S. Urban Economics, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1972.Google Scholar
Molnar, Joseph J., and Smith, Steven L. “Farmland Protection: Attitudes and Preferences of Landowners in Three Alabama Counties,” Rural Sociology Series Number 6, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, 1984.Google Scholar
Morris, Doug E. “A Critical Look at PDR Program Efficiency,” Purchase of Development Rights Programs in the Northeast, Ed. John Mackenzie, Bulletin 474, Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, Newark, DE, 1988.Google Scholar
Muth, Richard F. “Economic Change and Rural-Urban Land Conversions,” Econometrica, 29, No. 1 (1961).Google Scholar
Phipps, Tim. “Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application to Maryland,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 12, No. 1 (1983).Google Scholar
Pitt, David G., Phipps, Tim, and Lessley, Billy V. “Participation in Maryland's Agricultural Land Preservation Program: The Adoption of an Innovative Agricultural Land Policy,” Landscape Journal, 1987.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S., and Reynolds, J.E. “A Note on the Use of Hedonic Price Models in the Analysis of Land Prices at the Urban Fringe,” Land Economics, 62, No. 1 (1986).Google Scholar
Small, Leslie and Derr, Donn A. “Controlling Development Rights: The Alternatives,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 31 (1976): (Sept./Oct.).Google Scholar
Waddington, David Gordon. Willingness to Pay for Farmland Preservation, Unpublished Masters Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1990.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Gary. “The Sale of Development Rights and Zoning in the Preservation of Open Space: Lindahl Equilibrium and a Case Study,” Land Economics, 57, No. 3 (1981).Google Scholar