IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jrapmc/143769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements

Author

Listed:
  • Cropper, Eric D.
  • McLeod, Donald M.
  • Bastian, Christopher T.
  • Keske, Catherine M.
  • Hoag, Dana L.
  • Cross, Jennifer E.

Abstract

The market for conservation easements provides a way to ensure the continued existence of open space amenities where rural communities face development pressure. The object of this research is to identify factors affecting land trust agents’ preferences for conservation easements and to investigate preference heterogeneity among those potentially involved in easement acquisition. Stated choice surveys were sent to land trusts’ personnel (agents) across the Intermountain West. Models were segmented by attitudinal data from land trust agents regarding their organizations’ provision of ecosystem services versus their sense of place or place attachment when considering conservation easement choices. Four separate random utility models were estimated. Results indicated that preference heterogeneity for conservation easements exists across land trust agent segments. Such knowledge provides insights into factors which may affect potential demands for conservation easements in this evolving market. These outcomes might help public policy makers allocate resources towards land conservation and land use planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jrapmc:143769
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.143769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/143769/files/12-2-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.143769?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. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    2. Knaap, Gerrit-Jan & Chakraborty, Arnab, 2007. "Comprehensive Planning for Sustainable Rural Development," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-3.
    3. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    4. McGranahan, David A., 1999. "Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change," Agricultural Economic Reports 33955, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-11, October.
    6. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    7. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Andrew J. Plantinga & Douglas J. Miller, 2001. "Agricultural Land Values and the Value of Rights to Future Land Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 56-67.
    10. Goetz, Stephan J., 2007. "The Economic Case for State Land Use Decision-Making," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-5.
    11. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    12. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    13. Hoag, Dana L. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & McLeod, Donald M. & Marshall, Andrew, 2005. "Evolving Conservation Easement Markets In The West," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hansen, Kristiana & Duke, Esther & Bond, Craig & Purcell, Melanie & Paige, Ginger, 2018. "Rancher Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Southwestern Wyoming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 240-249.

    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. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    2. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    3. Joshua Duke & Lori Lynch, 2007. "Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(2), pages 123-155, June.
    4. Lynch, Lori & Duke, Joshua M., 2007. "Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States," Working Papers 7342, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    6. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    7. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    8. Duke, Joshua M. & Bernard, John C. & Vitz, Gregory, 2021. "A new food label to aid farmland preservation programs: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.
    10. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    11. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Pouta, Eija & Myyra, Sami & Hanninen, Harri, 2009. "Heterogeneous farmland owners: two approaches for objective based classification," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50787, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Schilling, Brian J. & Attavanich, Witsanu & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Marxen, Lucas J., 2014. "Measuring the effect of farmland preservation on farm profitability," MPRA Paper 100122, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2014.
    14. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    15. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    16. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economic Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Homans, Frances R. & Marshall, Elizabeth P., 2008. "Modeling Recreational Amenities in an Urban Setting: Location, Congestion, and Substitution Effects," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-16.
    18. Junui Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa & Hiromasa Takahashi, 2014. "Examining the Tradeoff Between Fixed Pay and Performance-Related Pay: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economic Analysis, Digital Initiatives at the University of Waterloo Library, vol. 6(2), pages 119-131, December.
    19. Kathryn Anderson & Diana Weinhold, 2005. "Do Conservation Easements Reduce Land Prices? The Case of South Central Wisconsin," Urban/Regional 0506001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.

    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:jrapmc:143769. 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/mcrsaea.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.