IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124836.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Nationwide Comparison of Farmland Conservation Easement Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan, Yuan
  • Boyle, Kevin J.
  • You, Wen
  • Fuller, Harry M.

Abstract

Farmland loss is considered a serious problem by the public, and it is in part addressed by government initiatives to preserve farmland through the use of conservation easement programs. In order to prioritize which tracts are protected with these programs, it is important to understand and measure the non-market benefits of agricultural land. The contribution of this work is to provide national-level estimates of benefits as well as examine the possibility of geographic heterogeneity in preferences across states. This study uses choice experiment data on farmland attributes in the US, Georgia, Ohio and Maine. Sample selection was tested for and rejected. A random parameters logit model was estimated and significant preference heterogeneity was confirmed. This result indicates that although some variables may seem insignificant, they may actually be important to many individuals, but those individuals simply don’t agree on the value of those attributes. Consequently, a broad-based funding mechanism such as taxes may be less popular than more targeted mechanisms. After testing for scale and parameter equality, it was found that the US and Maine had different underlying parameters, which indicates that federal-level policy may be inappropriate, as some states may have different preferences for which farmland attributes should be prioritized.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan, Yuan & Boyle, Kevin J. & You, Wen & Fuller, Harry M., 2012. "A Nationwide Comparison of Farmland Conservation Easement Valuation," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124836, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124836
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124836/files/AAEA_paper-1%20Yuan.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124836?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. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 139-149, July.
    2. Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 2003. "Protecting Rural Amenities Through Farmland Preservation Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 129-144, April.
    3. Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(01), pages 1-8, April.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & John C. Bergstrom, 2011. "Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 639-660.
    5. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-11, October.
    6. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    8. Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-8, April.
    9. Moon, Wanki & Griffith, Jacob Wayne, 2011. "Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 455-465, August.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    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. 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. 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).
    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. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1989. "The Optimal Quantity Of Land In Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-10, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Bergstrom, John, 1999. "Exploring and Expanding the Landscape Values Terrain," Western Region Archives 321704, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    7. Bergstrom, John C., 1998. "Exploring And Expanding The Landscape Values Terrain," Faculty Series 16653, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Dietrich Earnhart, 2006. "Using Contingent-Pricing Analysis to Value Open Space and Its Duration at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 17-35.
    9. B. James Deaton & John P. Hoehn & Patricia E. Norris, 2007. "Net Buyers, Net Sellers, and Agricultural Landowner Support for Agricultural Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(2), pages 153-165.
    10. 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.
    11. Anderson, Kathryn & Weinhold, Diana, 2008. "Valuing future development rights: The costs of conservation easements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 437-446, December.
    12. Bergstrom, John C., 2001. "Postproductivism And Rural Land Values," Faculty Series 16689, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    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.
    14. Poe, Gregory, 1997. ""Maximizing the Environmental Benefits per Dollar Expended" An Economic Interpretation and Review of Agricultural Environmental Benefits and Costs," EB Series 186405, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    15. Bowker, James Michael & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation Of The Nonmarket Benefits Of Agricultural Land Retention In Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-8, October.
    16. Bergstrom, John C., 2001. "The Role and Value of Natural Capital in Regional Landscapes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 283-296, August.
    17. Skaggs, Rhonda K. & Harper, Wilmer M., 1999. "Predicting Land Purchase Behavior In A Fast Growth, Intensely Agricultural County," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35711, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    19. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    20. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    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:aaea12:124836. 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.