IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v82y2019icp258-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums

Author

Listed:
  • Prendergast, Patrick
  • Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna
  • Lang, Corey

Abstract

The ubiquitous use of ballot referendums in the public finance of land conservation means that conservation policy is often made at the individual voter level. However, studies to date have relied on either aggregate vote outcomes or surveys of residents of small geographic areas facing high growth. In this article, we utilize an original national survey to investigate a series of questions that pertain to individual opinion on open space preservation with a special focus on respondents’ perception of open space in their community. We find that most demographic variables that are determinants of open space and land use preferences in studies that use aggregate data and cover a limited geographic range are not statistically significant in our models. We also find that perceptions about the amount of open space available in ones’ community, not objective open space measurements, are a statistically significant and robust determinant of open space bond support. Our results indicate that policy advocates may be able to increase the probability of support for public financing of open space preservation by focusing on people’s perceptions of the scarcity and disappearance of open space.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:82:y:2019:i:c:p:258-268
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718304812
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.009?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. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    2. McLeod, Donald M. & Woirhaye, Jody & Menkhaus, Dale J., 1999. "Factors Influencing Support For Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Brunner, Eric & Sonstelie, Jon, 2003. "Homeowners, property values, and the political economy of the school voucher," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 239-257, September.
    4. Oates, Wallace E., 2005. "Property taxation and local public spending: the renter effect," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 419-431, May.
    5. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Román Mínguez & José-María Montero & Gema Fernández-Avilés, 2013. "Measuring the impact of pollution on property prices in Madrid: objective versus subjective pollution indicators in spatial models," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 169-191, April.
    8. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 637-655, November.
    9. 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.
    10. William D. Solecki & Robert J. Mason & Shannon Martin, 2004. "The Geography of Support for Open‐Space Initiatives: A Case Study of New Jersey's 1998 Ballot Measure," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(3), pages 624-639, September.
    11. William R. Lowry, 2018. "The Exceptionalism of the Open Space Issue in American Politics," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1363-1376, December.
    12. 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.
    13. McLeod, Donald M. & Woirhaye, Jody & Menkhaus, Dale J., 1999. "Factors Influencing Support for Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 44-56, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Nahuelhual, Laura & Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B., 2004. "Using Random Parameters to Account for Heterogeneous Preferences in Contingent Valuation of Public Open Space," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Michiel N. Daams & Frans J. Sijtsma & Arno J. van der Vlist, 2016. "The Effect of Natural Space on Nearby Property Prices: Accounting for Perceived Attractiveness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(3), pages 389-410.
    17. Francine Romero & Adrian Liserio, 2002. "Saving Open Spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 “Antisprawl” Ballot Measures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 341-352, March.
    18. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Newman, David H. & Bowker, J.M., 2005. "Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 757-770, August.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1994. "Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 1-9, May.
    23. William R. Lowry & W. Scott Krummenacher, 2017. "Coalitions and Conservation: Conditional Impacts of Coalitions on Ballot Measures for Open Space," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 357-377, June.
    24. Wendy K. Tam Cho & Brian J. Gaines, 2004. "The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 152-171, January.
    25. Fischel, William A., 1979. "Determinants of voting on environmental quality: A study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 107-118, June.
    26. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    27. P. Joan Poor & Kevin J. Boyle & Laura O. Taylor & Roy Bouchard, 2001. "Objective versus Subjective Measures of Water Clarity in Hedonic Property Value Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 482-493.
    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. Michael B. Jones, 2021. "Standing in the environment: new fashion grassroots and old fashion court advocacy in the time of Trump," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 173-182, June.
    2. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    3. Chen, Xin & Jiang, Li & Zhang, Guoliang & Meng, Lijun & Pan, Zhihua & Lun, Fei & An, Pingli, 2021. "Green-depressing cropping system: A referential land use practice for fallow to ensure a harmonious human-land relationship in the farming-pastoral ecotone of northern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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. 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.
    4. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    12. Adanu, Kwami & Hoehn, John P. & Norris, Patricia & Iglesias, Emma, 2012. "Voter decisions on eminent domain and police power reforms," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 187-194.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates, 2012. "On Fiscal Illusion and Ricardian Equivalence in Local Public Finance," NBER Working Papers 18040, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    20. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.

    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:lauspo:v:82:y:2019:i:c:p:258-268. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.