IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gla/glaewp/2001_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What determines the demand for programmes providing local environmental public goods

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley
  • Felix Schlapfer

Abstract

Benefits from providing a local public good such as landscape protection may depend on individuals’ physical surroundings, as well as on socio-economic factors such as income. A framework is formulated that describes public support for regional landscape protection as a function of socio-economic variables and land use patterns. Models are then estimated using data from a referendum on increasing public funding for local landscape protection in the Swiss canton of Zurich, using detailed land use statistics. These represent proportions of open landscape and landscape features that are viewed as particularly valuable for aesthetic and other reasons. Cross-sectional estimation results suggest that attitudes towards public landscape protection are indeed strongly influenced by the local landscape and its recent dynamics. A comparison of results for this local environmental public good with referendum outcomes on national-level environmental issues and non-environmental public goods is also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "What determines the demand for programmes providing local environmental public goods," Working Papers 2001_7, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    • Handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2001_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_22271_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pruckner, Gerald J, 1995. "Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 22(2), pages 173-190.
    2. Rolf Jens Brunstad & Ivar Gaasland & Erling Vårdal, 1999. "Agricultural Production and the Optimal Level of Landscape Preservation (," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 538-546.
    3. Nick Hanley & Hilary Kirkpatrick & David Oglethorpe & Ian Simpson, 1998. "Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modelling moorland conservation in Scotland," Chapters, in: John M. Antle & Joseph N. Lekakis & George P. Zanias (ed.), Agriculture, Trade and the Environment, chapter 8, pages 154-169, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Drake, Lars, 1992. "The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(3), pages 351-364.
    5. 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.
    6. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Farhed A. Shah & Marilyn A. Altobello, 1994. "Amenity Benefits and the Optimal Allocation of Land," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 53-62.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1994. "An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on property values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 209-217, April.
    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. Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "Calibration of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods with Voting and Tax Liability Data: Provision of Landscape Amenities in Switzerland," Working Papers 2002_2, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.

    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. 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.
    2. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Javier Lozano Ibáñez & Javier Rey-Maquieira Palmer & Carlos Mario Gómez Gómez, 2004. "Land, Environmental Externalities and Tourism Development," Working Papers 2004.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Katrin Oltmer & Peter Nijkamp & Raymond Florax & Floor Brouwer, 2000. "A Meta-Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agri-Environmental Policies in the European Union," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-083/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Kan, Iddo & Haim, David & Rapaport-Rom, Mickey & Shechter, Mordechai, 2009. "Environmental amenities and optimal agricultural land use: The case of Israel," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1893-1898, April.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Rolf Jens Brunstad & Ivar Gaasland & Erling Vardal, 2005. "Multifunctionality of agriculture: an inquiry into the complementarity between landscape preservation and food security," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 469-488, December.
    13. Aliza Fleischer & Yacov Tsur, 2009. "The Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape and Rural–Urban Land Allocation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 132-153, February.
    14. Kenneth Løvold RØDSETH, 2008. "Efficient Supply of Cultural Landscape in a CGE Framework," EcoMod2008 23800116, EcoMod.
    15. 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.
    16. Mara Thiene & Yacov Tsur, 2013. "Agricultural Landscape Value and Irrigation Water Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 641-653, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Comin, Diego & Rode, Johannes, 2013. "From Green Users to Green Voters," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63678, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    20. Schläpfer, Felix & Baur, Ivo, 2017. "Does CAP spending reflect taxpayer preferences? An analysis of expenditures for public goods and income redistribution in relation to preference indicators," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261105, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gla:glaewp:2001_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: Business School Research Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpglauk.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.