IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jasfmr/190728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landowner Preferences for Conservation Easements: Responses from Two Intermountain States

Author

Listed:
  • McGaffin, Graham
  • McLeod, Donald M.
  • Bastian, Christopher
  • Hoag, Catherine
  • Hoag, Dana

Abstract

Interest in conservation easements has grown, but relatively little is known about agricultural landowner preferences for conservation easements. Survey data are collected, segmented by landowner respondents’ states of residence, and analyzed. Responses indicate landowners are interested in preserving agricultural lands, but the majority of respondents were not interested in choosing conservation easement scenarios. Results suggest that interaction with conservation organizations, mistrust of land trusts, knowledge of easements, and less financial dependence on agriculture impacts preferences for conservation easements. The authors suggest that increased educational information and tradable income tax credits may improve landowner acceptance of conservation easements.

Suggested Citation

  • McGaffin, Graham & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher & Hoag, Catherine & Hoag, Dana, 2012. "Landowner Preferences for Conservation Easements: Responses from Two Intermountain States," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2012, pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jasfmr:190728
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.190728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/190728/files/370_McLeod.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.190728?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    3. Duke, Joshua M., 2004. "Participation in Agricultural Land Preservation Programs: Parcel Quality and a Complex Policy Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Olenick, Keith L. & Kreuter, Urs P. & Conner, J. Richard, 2005. "Texas landowner perceptions regarding ecosystem services and cost-sharing land management programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 247-260, April.
    5. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Coisnon & Walid Oueslati & Julien Salanié, 2013. "Spatial targeting of agri-environmental policy and urban development," Post-Print halshs-00949730, HAL.
    2. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    3. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Mykel R. Taylor & Nathan P. Hendricks & Gabriel S. Sampson & Dillon Garr, 2021. "The Opportunity Cost of the Conservation Reserve Program: A Kansas Land Example," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 849-865, June.
    6. Ghimire, Ramesh & Green, Gary T. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Cordell, H. Ken, 2014. "Do Outdoor Recreation Participants Place their Lands in Conservation Easements?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162451, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Chhetri, Sagar Godar & Li, Yanshu & Hepinstall-Cymerman, Jeffery & Siry, Jacek & Gordon, Jason, 2024. "Factors influencing forestland enrollment in Georgia's preferential property tax programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Coline Perrin & Camille Clément & Romain Melot & Brigitte Nougarèdes, 2020. "Preserving Farmland on the Urban Fringe: A Literature Review on Land Policies in Developed Countries," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    10. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    11. Gallardo, R. Karina & Wang, Qianqian, 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Pesticides' Environmental Features and Social Desirability Bias: The Case of Apple and Pear Growers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    13. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    14. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    15. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    17. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jasfmr:190728. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asfmrea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.