IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/anresc/v65y2020i1d10.1007_s00168-020-00975-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do factors contributing to appearance and success of conservation referenda in the West differ from those found in other regions of the United States?

Author

Listed:
  • Chad Chriestenson

    (University of Wisconsin – Madison)

  • Dawn Thilmany

    (Colorado State University)

Abstract

As urban growth and competition for natural resources heighten, the attention to preserving such resources, including land, is also growing. As one example, the appearance and passage of conservation referenda represents a high-profile, grassroots political effort across the USA. In this study, factors influencing the appearance and passage of ballot initiatives in Colorado are compared to previous literature, identifying potential regional variation in such drivers. Results suggest that, while some place-based characteristics like total population and educational attainment have a consistent effect, the role of income and households with children does not. It appears support for conservation is much more broadly distributed across the population in the West and that residents view conservation as an ongoing activity, not a singular event. Likewise, there is some evidence that Western voters view agriculture and conservation as mutually exclusive. Although fundamental results do not change, accounting for spatial effects alters the magnitude and significance of factors affecting both appearance and passage of conservation referenda.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:anresc:v:65:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s00168-020-00975-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s00168-020-00975-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00168-020-00975-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00168-020-00975-7?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. James J. Heckman, 1977. "Sample Selection Bias As a Specification Error (with an Application to the Estimation of Labor Supply Functions)," NBER Working Papers 0172, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Jason Bell & Joel Huber & W. Kip Viscusi, 2009. "Voter-weighted environmental preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 655-671.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Bev Wilson & Arnab Chakraborty, 2013. "The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-26, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Tessa Conroy & Stephan Weiler, 2015. "Where Are The Women Entrepreneurs? Business Ownership Growth By Gender Across The American Urban Landscape," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(4), pages 1872-1892, October.
    12. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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).
    17. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    18. Dostie, Benoit & Dupré, Ruth, 2012. "“The people's will”: Canadians and the 1898 referendum on alcohol prohibition," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 498-515.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:spr:anresc:v:65:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s00168-020-00975-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.