IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19611.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects Of Farmland, Farmland Preservation And Other Neighborhood Amenities On Proximate Housing Values: Results Of A Conjoint Analysis Of Housing Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Irwin, Elena G.
  • Roe, Brian E.
  • Morrow-Jones, Hazel

Abstract

Using stated-preference data from a choice-based conjoint analysis instrument, we estimate willingness to pay for the presence of neighboring land that is dedicated to agricultural use (versus a developed land use) and for the preservation of surrounding farmland as permanent cropland. The data also elucidate how individuals balance the values associated with nearby agricultural land patterns with other key neighborhood characteristics such as neighborhood parks, housing density, commute times, school quality and neighborhood safety. The median respondent from a randomly chosen sample of Columbus, Ohio homeowners was willing to pay $843 annually to avoid immediate conversion of 10 percent of agricultural land within one mile of the house valued in the conjoint experiment while the same respondent was willing to pay $277 annually to preserve the same amount of farmland as permanent cropland. We find provision of neighborhood parks within housing developments to be a strong substitute for farmland preservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Irwin, Elena G. & Roe, Brian E. & Morrow-Jones, Hazel, 2002. "The Effects Of Farmland, Farmland Preservation And Other Neighborhood Amenities On Proximate Housing Values: Results Of A Conjoint Analysis Of Housing Choice," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19611, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19611
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19611/files/sp02ir01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19611?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. A E Joseph & B Smit & G P McIlravey, 1989. "Consumer Preferences for Rural Residences: A Conjoint Analysis in Ontario, Canada," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 21(1), pages 47-63, January.
    2. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
    3. Boyle, Kevin J., 1990. "Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    4. Jan Rouwendal & Erik Meijer, 2001. "Preferences for Housing, Jobs, and Commuting: A Mixed Logit Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 475-505, August.
    5. M P G Schellekens & H J P Timmermans, 1997. "A Conjoint-Based Simulation Model of Housing-Market Clearing Processes: Theory and Illustration," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(10), pages 1831-1846, October.
    6. Elena G. Irwin & Nancy E. Bockstael, 2001. "The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 698-704.
    7. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    8. E Molin & H Oppewal & H Timmermans, 1999. "Group-Based versus Individual-Based Conjoint Preference Models of Residential Preferences: A Comparative Test," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(11), pages 1935-1947, November.
    9. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Jerald J. Fletcher & Theodore Graham-Tomasi, 1989. "Functional Form and the Statistical Properties of Welfare Measures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 414-421.
    10. Dietrich Earnhart, 2001. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 12-29.
    11. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Anderson, Soren T. & West, Sarah E., 2006. "Open space, residential property values, and spatial context," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 773-789, November.
    2. Ready, Richard C. & Abdalla, Charles W., 2003. "The Amenity And Disamenity Impacts Of Agriculture: Estimates From A Hedonic Pricing Model In Southeastern Pennsylvania," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22196, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    4. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Livy, Mitchell R. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2013. "Maintaining Public Goods: Household Valuation of New and Renovated Local Parks," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150634, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Abdul Hamid Mar Iman & Fu Yek Pieng & Christopher Gan, 2012. "A Conjoint Analysis of Buyers' Preferences for Residential Property," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 15(1), pages 73-105.
    7. 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.
    8. Carrión-Flores, Carmen & Irwin, Elena G., 2010. "Identifying spatial interactions in the presence of spatial error autocorrelation: An application to land use spillovers," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 135-153, April.
    9. Charlotte Ham & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2015. "Relative Economic Values of Open Space Provided by National Forest and Military Lands to Surrounding Communities," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 81-96, March.
    10. Song, Yan & Knaap, Gerrit-Jan, 2004. "Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 663-680, November.
    11. Mense, Andreas & Wirth, Benjamin, 2014. "Flat Prices, Cell Phone Base Stations, and Network Structure: An Instrumental Variable Approach to Endogenous Locations," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100618, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    15. Rahman, Shaikh Mahfuzur & Hardie, Ian W., 2006. "Subdivision Specific Amenities and Residential Property Values," Working Papers 28596, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Jay Mittal, 2017. "Valuing Visual Accessibility of Scenic Landscapes in a Single Family Housing Market: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," ERES eres2017_1, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    17. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
    18. 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.
    19. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    20. vom Hofe, Rainer & Mihaescu, Oana & Boorn, Mary Lynne, 2017. "Do urban parks really benefit homeowners economically? Evidence from a spatial hedonic study of the Cincinnati park system," HUI Working Papers 122, HUI Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:ags:aaea02:19611. 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/aaeaaea.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.