Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:49:04.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

John C. Bergstrom ,
B. L. Dillman  and
John R. Stoll
John C. Bergstrom
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University
B. L. Dillman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson Univesity
John R. Stoll
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Failure of land markets to account for environmental amenity benefits may lend support to public policies to protect agricultural land. The contingent valuation method is employed to estimate willingness to pay for such amenities in Greenville County, South Carolina. Marginal household amenity benefits were estimated at $.06 per thousand acres using a payment card in a mail survey with 53 percent response. Bid payment vehicle was found not to significantly influence bids received. The informational structure of the contingent market was found to influence valuation responses, reinforcing the hypothesis that respondents react to alternative contingent market structures. The relationship between contingent market structure and directional effects upon responses is an important area for future research.

Keywords

prime landpublic policyenvironmental amenitiescontingent valuation
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , July 1985 , pp. 139 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1985

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

Bergstrom, J. C.Valuing Environmental Amenities: An Empirical Study of the Aesthetic Value of Prime Agricultural Land, unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 1982.Google Scholar
Bradford, D. “Benefit Cost Analysis and Demand for Public Goods.” Kyklos, 23(1970):775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, D. and Crocker, T.. “Advantages of Contingent Valuation Methods for Benefit Cost Analysis.” Pub. Choice, 36(1981):235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, D., Ives, B., and Schulze, W.. “The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences.” J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 3(1976):325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, D., Randall, A., and Stoll, J.. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980):478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bultena, G., Nowak, P., Haiberg, E., and Albrecht, D.. “Farmers' Attitudes Toward Land Use Planning.” J. Soil Water Conserv., Jan.- Feb.(1981):37–41.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D., Randall, A., and Stoll, J.. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980):478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bultena, G., Nowak, P., Haiberg, E., and Albrecht, D.. “Farmers' Attitudes Toward Land Use Planning.”J. Soil Water Conserv. Jan.- Feb.(1981):37–41.Google Scholar
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). Preserving Agricultural Land: Issues and Policy Alternatives, Report No. 90, Headquarters Office: 250 Memorial Lane, Ames, Iowa, 1981.Google Scholar
Collins, R. “Agricultural Land Preservation in a Land Use Planning Perspective.” J. Soil Water Conserv., 31, 5(1976):183–189.Google Scholar
Cordell, H., McLellan, R., and Legg, M.. “Managing Private Rural Land as a Visual Resource.” Paper presented at Tourism and the Next Decade: An International Symposium, March 11-15, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1979.Google Scholar
Cousins, C. and Dillman, B.. Prime Agricultural Land Conversion in the Greenville-Spartanburg-Pickens Area, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 640, 1982.Google Scholar
Cox, P., Haught, A., and Zube, E.. “Visual Quality Considerations in Regional Land Use Changes.” Growth and Change, (1972):9–15.Google Scholar
Davis, R. “Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem.” Natur. Resour. J., 3(1963):239–249.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.Mail and Telephone Surveys - The Total Design Method, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
Fields, S. F.Where Have the Farmlands Gone, National Agricultural Lands Study; Washington, D.C., 1979.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 59(1977):1,027–1,036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halstead, J. “Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” J. Northeastern Agr. Econ. Council, 13, 1(1984):12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hite, J. and Dillman, B.. “Protection of Agricultural Land: An Institutionalist Perspective.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 13, 1(1981):43–53.Google Scholar
Hoehn, J. and Randall, A.. “Contingent Valuation is a Satisfactory Benefit Cost Estimator.” Working Paper, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 1983.Google Scholar
MacMullen, C. (editor). Land Use Planning Report, Volume 7, No. 50, 1981.Google Scholar
Randall, A.Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy, Columbus, Ohio; Grid Publishing, Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
Randall, A. “The Problem of Market Failure.” Natur. Resour. J., 23(1983):131–148.Google Scholar
Randall, A., Grunewald, O., Johnson, S., Ausness, R., and Pagoulatos, A.. “Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs.” Land Econ., 54(1978):472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, A., Ives, B., and Eastman, C.. “Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements.” J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 1(1974):132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, A. and Stoll, J.. “Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 70(1980):449–455.Google Scholar
Randall, A. and Stoll, J.. “Existence Value in a Total Valuation Framework.” In Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resource at National Parks and Wilderness Areas, eds. Rowe, R. D. and Chestnut, L. G., Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, (1983):12–19.Google Scholar
Rowe, R., d'Arge, R. and Brookshire, D.. “An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility.” J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 7(1980):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditures.” Rev. Econ. Statist., 36(1954):387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauman, S. “The Countryside Visual Resource.” In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, General Technical Report PSW-35, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA, Berkely, California, 1979.Google Scholar
Schulze, W., d'Arge, R. and Brookshire, D.. “Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments.” Land Econ., 57(1981):151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellar, C, Stoll, J. and Chavas, J.. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Changes: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques.” Land Econ., 61 (1985) forthcoming.Google Scholar
Sinclair, R. “The Preservation of Agricultural Land: Concepts and Issues.” In Farmland Retention Techniques, ed. Stryker, B.et al., The Extension Service, University of Vermont, Burlington, 1982.Google Scholar
Thayer, M. “Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impact: Further Evidence.” J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 8(1981):27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willig, R. D. “Consumer's Surplus Without Apology.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 66,4(1976):589–597.Google Scholar