IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipp/wpaper/1110.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the income value of private amenities in California oak woodlands

Author

Listed:
  • Jose L. Oviedo
  • Lynn Huntsinger
  • Pablo Campos
  • Alejandro Caparrós

Abstract

A contingent valuation technique was applied to a 2004 sample of oak woodland landowners in California to assess its usefulness in estimating the non-market income and land price value of oak woodland properties. Non-market benefits have long been considered an important influence on rangeland landowners, but beyond comparing market production and land price, few studies have attempted to place a monetary value on them. Landowners were asked to estimate the maximum amount of earnings that they were willing to forgo before selling their property to invest in more commercially profitable non-agrarian assets, and the proportion of the price of their land that they think is explained by the environmental and/or amenity benefits that they derive from their land. The results showed that, on average, they were willing to pay $54 per acre for their land amenities and that 57% of the land market price is explained by these amenities. Regression analysis reveals that the value of amenities to landowners increases as the stated woodland market price increases, but gets saturated as property size increases. The proposed approach sheds light on landowner behavior and values and offers insights for outreach and policy development for private oak woodlands, and should be further developed and tested.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose L. Oviedo & Lynn Huntsinger & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2011. "Assessing the income value of private amenities in California oak woodlands," Working Papers 1110, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:1110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://investigacion.cchs.csic.es/RePEc/ipp/wpaper/csic-ipp-wp-2011-10_oviedo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur H. Smith & William E. Martin, 1972. "Socioeconomic Behavior of Cattle Ranchers, with Implications for Rural Community Development in the West," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 54(2), pages 217-225.
    2. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Hudson, Darren & Martin, Steven W., 2007. "Effects of Seed and Farm Characteristics on Cottonseed Choice: A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment in the Mississippi Delta," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 1-13, December.
    3. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2004. "Economics of Forest and Agricultural Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 18160, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    4. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    5. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    6. Bell, Caroline D. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Park, William M., 1994. "A Logit Analysis Of Participation In Tennessee'S Forest Stewardship Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Torell, L. Allen & Rimbey, Neil R. & Tanaka, John A. & Bailey, Scott A., 2001. "The Lack Of A Profit Motive For Ranching: Implications For Policy Analysis," Current Issues in Rangeland Resource Economics: Symposium Proceedings (2001) 16629, Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics: WCC-55.
    8. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-18.
    9. William E. Martin & Gene L. Jefferies, 1966. "Relating Ranch Prices and Grazing Permit Values to Ranch Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 48(2), pages 233-242.
    10. Torell, L. Allen & Rimbey, Neil R. & Ramirez, Octavio A. & McCollum, Daniel W., 2005. "Income Earning Potential versus Consumptive Amenities in Determining Ranchland Values," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Richard B. Standiford & Richard E. Howitt, 1992. "Solving Empirical Bioeconomic Models: A Rangeland Management Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 421-433.
    12. C. Arden Pope III, 1985. "Agricultural Productive and Consumptive Use Components of Rural Land Values in Texas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(1), pages 81-86.
    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. José L. Oviedo & Lynn Huntsinger & Pablo Campos, 2015. "Reconciling landowner income and land prices: the case of Spanish and California oak woodlands," Working Papers 1502, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    2. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    3. David K. Lambert & Gordon Myer, 1988. "Incremental impacts of the tax reform act of 1986 on western beef cattle ranch values," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(5), pages 425-432.
    4. Jeffrey Gillespie & Richard Nehring, 2013. "Comparing economic performance of organic and conventional U.S. beef farms using matching samples," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 178-192, April.
    5. Tanaka, John A. & Rimbey, Neil R. & Torell, L. Allen, 2005. "Rangeland Economics, Ecology, And Sustainability: Implications For Policy And Economic Research," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7.
    6. Sabina Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2005. "The Effect of Uncertainty on Contingent Valuation Estimates: A Comparison," Working Papers 2005-15, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    7. James R. Wasson & Donald M. McLeod & Christopher T. Bastian & Benjamin S. Rashford, 2013. "The Effects of Environmental Amenities on Agricultural Land Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 466-478.
    8. Anwar Hussain & Ian A. Munn & Jerry Brashier & W. Daryl Jones & James E. Henderson, 2013. "Capitalization of Hunting Lease Income into Northern Mississippi Forestland Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 137-153.
    9. Martin, William E. & Tinney, J. Craig & Gum, Russell L., 1978. "Comparing Estimates of Market and Nonmarket Values for Products of a Given Land Base," Economics Statistics and Cooperative Services (ESCS) Reports 329532, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Dominik Schreyer, 2019. "Football spectator no-show behaviour in the German Bundesliga," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(45), pages 4882-4901, September.
    11. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7172 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. MacKinnon, J G, 1989. "Heteroskedasticity-Robust Tests for Structural Change," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 77-92.
    14. Fenech, Jean-Pierre & Skully, Michael & Xuguang, Han, 2014. "Franking credits and market reactions: Evidence from the Australian convertible security market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-19.
    15. Bliss, Mark A. & Gul, Ferdinand A., 2012. "Political connection and leverage: Some Malaysian evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2344-2350.
    16. Gu, Chen & Kurov, Alexander & Wolfe, Marketa Halova, 2018. "Relief Rallies after FOMC Announcements as a Resolution of Uncertainty," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-18.
    17. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    18. David A. Volkman, 1999. "Market Volatility And Perverse Timing Performance Of Mutual Fund Managers," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 22(4), pages 449-470, December.
    19. Goncalves, Silvia & Kilian, Lutz, 2004. "Bootstrapping autoregressions with conditional heteroskedasticity of unknown form," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 89-120, November.
    20. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Claire Lelarge & John Van Reenen & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2007. "Technology, Information, and the Decentralization of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1759-1799.
    21. Daiki Maki, 2015. "Wild bootstrap tests for unit root in ESTAR models," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(3), pages 475-490, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contingent valuation; landowners; non-market valuation; private environmental benefits;
    All these keywords.

    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
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:ipp:wpaper:1110. 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: Adelheid Holl (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ippcses.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.