IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v95y2013icp108-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining the appearance and success of open space referenda

Author

Listed:
  • Heintzelman, Martin D.
  • Walsh, Patrick J.
  • Grzeskowiak, Dustin J.

Abstract

Many communities in the United States have begun enacting policies to preserve open space, often through local voter referenda. New Jersey sponsors such municipal action through the Green Acres Program by providing funding and low interest loans to towns that choose to increase property taxes and spend the money raised on open space preservation for the purposes of conservation and/or recreation. This paper endeavors to understand which factors contribute to the appearance and success of these measures. Although previous literature has examined this issue, this is the first study to account for spatial dependence/spatial autocorrelation and to explore dynamic issues through survival analysis. The traditional two stage model from the literature is extended by incorporating a Bayesian spatial probit for the first stage and a maximum-likelihood spatial error model in the second stage. A Cox-proportional hazard model is used to examine the timing of referenda appearance. Spatial dependence is found in the second stage of the analysis, indicating that future studies should account for its influence. There is no strong evidence for spatial dependence or correlation in the first stage. The survival model is found to be a useful complement to the traditional probit analysis of the first stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Heintzelman, Martin D. & Walsh, Patrick J. & Grzeskowiak, Dustin J., 2013. "Explaining the appearance and success of open space referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 108-117.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:108-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913002589
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.001?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Howell‐Moroney, 2004. "What Are the Determinants of Open‐Space Ballot Measures? An Extension of the Research," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 169-179, March.
    2. Jon Fiva & Jørn Rattsø, 2007. "Local choice of property taxation: evidence from Norway," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 457-470, September.
    3. Martin D. Heintzelman, 2010. "Measuring the Property-Value Effects of Local Land Use and Preservation Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(1), pages 22-47.
    4. Brasington, David M. & Hite, Diane, 2005. "Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-82, January.
    5. Christian Vossler & Michael McKee, 2006. "Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(2), pages 137-168, October.
    6. Luc Anselin & Julie Le Gallo, 2006. "Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models : spatial aspects," Post-Print hal-00485017, HAL.
    7. Vance, Colin & Geoghegan, Jacqueline, 2002. "Temporal and spatial modelling of tropical deforestation: a survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 317-332, November.
    8. Wu, Xiaoyu & Cutter, Bowman, 2011. "Who votes for public environmental goods in California?: Evidence from a spatial analysis of voting for environmental ballot measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 554-563, January.
    9. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    10. T Bellotti & J Crook, 2009. "Credit scoring with macroeconomic variables using survival analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1699-1707, December.
    11. Kahn, Matthew E & Matsusaka, John G, 1997. "Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-173, April.
    12. Patrick Puhani, 2000. "The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
    13. Simmons-Mosley, Tammie X. & Malpezzi, Stephen, 2006. "Household mobility in New York City's regulated rental housing market," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 38-62, March.
    14. Mueller, Julie M. & Loomis, John B., 2008. "Spatial Dependence in Hedonic Property Models: Do Different Corrections For Spatial Dependence Result in Economically Significant Differences in Estimated Implicit Prices?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-20.
    15. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Powers, Shawn M., 2006. "Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 373-390, July.
    16. John A. List, 2004. "Young, Selfish and Male: Field evidence of social preferences," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 121-149, January.
    17. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    18. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    19. Steven Bourassa & Eva Cantoni & Martin Hoesli, 2007. "Spatial Dependence, Housing Submarkets, and House Price Prediction," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 143-160, August.
    20. Deacon, Robert T & Shapiro, Perry, 1975. "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 943-955, December.
    21. Anselin, Luc, 2002. "Under the hood : Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 247-267, November.
    22. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates & James N. Sanchirico, 2010. "Success and design of local referenda for land conservation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 769-798.
    23. Getz, Malcom & Huang, Yuh-ching, 1978. "Consumer Revealed Preference for Environmental Goods," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(3), pages 449-458, August.
    24. Marcus Box, 2008. "The death of firms: exploring the effects of environment and birth cohort on firm survival in Sweden," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 379-393, December.
    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. Chad Chriestenson & Dawn Thilmany, 2020. "Do factors contributing to appearance and success of conservation referenda in the West differ from those found in other regions of the United States?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    2. Walsh, Patrick J. & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2015. "Understanding Local Regulation of Fracking: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 138-163, August.
    3. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    4. Lang, Corey & Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2018. "How does municipal policy affect state and local actions? Evidence from land conservation spending," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 23-36.
    5. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    6. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Altonji, Matthew & Lang, Corey & Puggioni, Gavino, 2016. "Can urban areas help sustain the preservation of open space? Evidence from statewide referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 82-91.

    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. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    2. Edmund M. Balsdon, 2012. "Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 201-232.
    3. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Uwasu, Michinori & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2005. "Voting on Open Space: An Analysis of the Decision to Hold a Referendum and of Referendum Results," Staff Papers 13837, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    5. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    6. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    7. Altonji, Matthew & Lang, Corey & Puggioni, Gavino, 2016. "Can urban areas help sustain the preservation of open space? Evidence from statewide referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 82-91.
    8. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Walsh, Patrick J. & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2015. "Understanding Local Regulation of Fracking: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-26, August.
    10. Chad Chriestenson & Dawn Thilmany, 2020. "Do factors contributing to appearance and success of conservation referenda in the West differ from those found in other regions of the United States?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    11. Robert Deacon & Felix Schläpfer, 2010. "The Spatial Range of Public Goods Revealed Through Referendum Voting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 305-328, November.
    12. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2015. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Policies: Evidence from California," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(2), pages 205-234.
    13. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Powers, Shawn M., 2006. "Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 373-390, July.
    14. Kalinin, Alexey V. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Meyer, Spencer R. & Thompson, Jonathan R., 2023. "Does land conservation raise property taxes? Evidence from New England cities and towns," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    15. Yu‐Bong Lai, 2018. "The Feasibility of the Double‐Dividend Hypothesis in a Democratic Economy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(1), pages 211-241, January.
    16. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    17. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    18. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    19. Gabriel Ahlfeldt & Wolfgang Maennig & Michaela Ölschläger, 2009. "Lifestyles and Preferences for (Public) Goods: Professional Football in Munich," Working Papers 030, Chair for Economic Policy, University of Hamburg.
    20. Maennig, Wolfgang & Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. & Steenbeck, Malte, 2016. "Après nous le déluge? Direct democracy and intergenerational conflicts in aging societies," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145793, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:108-117. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.