IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v82y2006i2p189-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua M. Duke
  • Lori Lynch

Abstract

A conceptual framework distinguishes farmland retention institutions and with a survey of various literatures, interviews, and original policy design, classifies 28 techniques in four types: regulatory, incentive-based, governmental-participatory, and hybrid. The analysis reveals that techniques often perceived to be incentive-based, such as PDR/PACE and TDR, are better understood as participatory and hybrid techniques, respectively. Likely fiscal impacts, stakeholder acceptability, and implementation challenges are assessed. The framework suggests that when governments select multiple techniques, attention should be paid to the implied allocation of property rights to maintain coherent land-use policy and minimize property rights conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:2:p:189-213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/82/2/189
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    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. 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. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Anderson, William D., 2001. "Development At The Urban Fringe And Beyond: Impacts On Agriculture And Rural Land," Agricultural Economic Reports 33943, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    4. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market‐Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    5. Batie, Sandra S., 2003. "The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-8, April.
    6. Scott Malcolm & Joshua Duke & John Mackenzie, 2005. "Valuing rights of first refusal for farmland preservation policy," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 285-288.
    7. Wichelns, Dennis & Kline, Jeffrey D., 1993. "The Impact of Parcel Characteristics on the Cost of Development Rights to Farmland," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 150-158, October.
    8. Lynch, Lori & Carpenter, Janet, 2003. "Is There Evidence of a Critical Mass in the Mid-Atlantic Agriculture Sector Between 1949 and 1997?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 116-128, April.
    9. Duke, Joshua M. & Malcolm, Scott A., 2003. "Legal risk in agriculture: right-to-farm laws and institutional change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 295-303.
    10. Batie, Sandra S., 2003. "The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-8, April.
    11. Wichelns, Dennis & Kline, Jeffrey D., 1993. "The Impact Of Parcel Chracteristics On The Cost Of Development Rights To Farmland," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-9, October.
    12. Phipps, Tim, 1983. "Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application To Maryland," Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5.
    13. Joshua M. Duke, 2004. "Institutions and Land-Use Conflicts: Harm, Dispute Processing, and Transactions," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 227-252, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    16. 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.
    17. Lawrence W. Libby, 1994. "Conflict on the Commons: Natural Resource Entitlements, the Public Interest, and Agricultural Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 997-1009.
    18. Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
    19. Phipps, Tim, 1983. "Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application To Maryland," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-5.
    20. Vitaliano, Donald F & Hill, Constance, 1994. "Agricultural Districts and Farmland Prices," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 213-223, May.
    21. Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2004. "Using Tontines to Finance Public Goods: Back to the Future?," NBER Working Papers 10958, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Parks, Peter J. & Quimio, Wilma Rose H., 1996. "Preserving Agricultural Land with Farmland Assessment: New Jersey as a Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 22-27, April.
    23. Parks, Peter J. & Quimio, Wilma Rose H., 1996. "Preserving Agricultural Land With Farmland Assessment: New Jersey As A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-6, April.
    24. Robert A. Blewett & Julia I. Lane, 1988. "Development Rights and the Differential Assessment of Agricultural Land: Fractional Valuation of Farmland is Ineffective for Preserving Open Space and Subsidizes Speculation," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 195-205, April.
    25. David L. Chicoine & Steven T. Sonka & Robert D. Doty, 1982. "The Effects of Farm Property Tax Relief Programs on Farm Financial Conditions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(4), pages 516-523.
    26. 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.
    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 A. Arnold & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer, 2013. "Adverse Selection in Reverse Auctions for Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 387-412.
    2. Chen, Zhu & Zhang, Anlu & Zhou, Kehao & Huang, Lingxiang, 2021. "Can payment tools substitute for regulatory ones? Estimating the policy preference for agricultural land preservation, Tianjin, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Edmund M. Balsdon, 2012. "Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 201-232.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Jing Qian & Yunfei Peng & Cheng Luo & Chao Wu & Qingyun Du, 2015. "Urban Land Expansion and Sustainable Land Use Policy in Shenzhen: A Case Study of China’s Rapid Urbanization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Duke, Joshua M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Systematic Influences of Policy Implementation and Conservation Agents on Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21234, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Bills, Nelson L., 2007. "Fifty Years of Farmland Protection Legislation in the Northeast: Persistent Issues and Emergent Research Opportunities," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-9, October.
    9. Schilling, Brian J. & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Duke, Joshua M., 2013. "Do Residual Development Options Increase Preserved Farmland Values?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    10. Mengba Liu & Anlu Zhang & Xiong Zhang & Yanfei Xiong, 2022. "Research on the Game Mechanism of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Standards Determination: Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    11. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.
    12. Lu, Chen-Fu & Cheng, Chia-Yi, 2023. "Does the change of agricultural zoning policy achieve farmland protection in Taiwan?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    13. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Liu, Xiangping & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Do Agricultural Preservation Programs Affect Farmland Conversion? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Working Papers 28569, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Bills, Nelson L., 2007. "Fifty Years of Farmland Protection Legislation in the Northeast: Persistent Issues and Emergent Research Opportunities," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-9, October.
    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. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    6. Kashian, Russell, 2004. "State Farmland Preferential Assessment: A Comparative Study," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12.
    7. Lynch, Lori & Lovell, Sabrina J., 2001. "Factors Influencing Participation In Agricultural Land Preservation Programs," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20714, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Lovell, Sabrina J. & Lynch, Lori, 2002. "Hedonic Price Analysis Of Easement Payments In Agricultural Land Preservation Programs," Working Papers 28564, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Xiangping Liu & Lori Lynch, 2011. "Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Reduce Farmland Loss? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 183-201.
    10. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Lynch, Lori & Gray, Wayne & Geoghegan, Jacqueline, 2007. "An Evaluation of Working Land and Open Space Preservation Programs in Maryland: Are They Paying Too Much?," Working Papers 6887, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Lynch, Lori & Geoghegan, Jacqueline, 2011. "FOREWORD: The Economics of Land Use Change: Advancing the Frontiers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), pages 1-6, December.
    15. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    16. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Jeffrey A Onsted & Keith C Clarke, 2011. "Forecasting Enrollment in Differential Assessment Programs Using Cellular Automata," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(5), pages 829-849, October.
    18. Brown, Jason P. & Goetz, Stephan J. & Fleming, David A., 2012. "Multifunctional Agriculture and Farm Viability in the United States," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 126929, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Steele, Scott R., 2009. "Expanding the solution set: Organizational economics and agri-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 398-405, December.
    20. Moon, Wanki, 2012. "Conceptualizing Multifunctional Agriculture from a Global Perspective," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119751, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:2:p:189-213. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.