IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea14/162451.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Outdoor Recreation Participants Place their Lands in Conservation Easements?

Author

Listed:
  • Ghimire, Ramesh
  • Green, Gary T.
  • Poudyal, Neelam C.
  • Cordell, H. Ken

Abstract

In addition to encouraging people to become more physically active and healthy, participation in outdoor recreation helps to expose people to different instances of environmental degradation in places where they recreate. This exposure may also help people to become more environmentally aware and subsequently informed about environmental conservation programs such as conservation easements. Hence, this paper examined whether people participating in outdoor recreation activities have also placed their lands in conservation easements. Using national level data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) people who participated in land-based and water-based recreation activities were examined and grouped into consumptive and non-consumptive activities. Results indicated people who participated in land-based non-consumptive recreations have greater odds of placing their lands in conservation easements than people who participated in consumptive recreation activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghimire, Ramesh & Green, Gary T. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Cordell, H. Ken, 2014. "Do Outdoor Recreation Participants Place their Lands in Conservation Easements?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162451, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea14:162451
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.162451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/162451/files/ghimire%20etal_saea2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.162451?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. 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. 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.
    3. Joseph C. Cooper & C. Tim Osborn, 1998. "The Effect of Rental Rates on the Extension of Conservation Reserve Program Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 184-194.
    4. 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.
    5. B. Delworth Gardner, 1977. "The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(5), pages 1027-1036.
    6. Duke, Joshua M., 2004. "Participation in Agricultural Land Preservation Programs: Parcel Quality and a Complex Policy Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 34-49, April.
    7. Konyar, Kazim & Osborn, C. Tim, 1990. "A National-Level Economic Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participation: A Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 42(2), pages 1-8.
    8. Zimmer, Mary R. & Stafford, Thomas F. & Stafford, Marla Royne, 1994. "Green issues: Dimensions of environmental concern," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 63-74, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Bohlen, Greg M., 2003. "Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 465-480, June.
    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. Thomas Beery & K. Ingemar Jönsson & Johan Elmberg, 2015. "From Environmental Connectedness to Sustainable Futures: Topophilia and Human Affiliation with Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Nana Tian & Neelam Poudyal & Fadian Lu, 2021. "Assessments of Landowners’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Participating in Forest Certification in Shandong, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Werner Hediger, 2013. "From Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture to the Social Responsibility of the Agri-food System," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 6(1), pages 59-80.
    13. Bergstrom, John, 1999. "Exploring and Expanding the Landscape Values Terrain," Western Region Archives 321704, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    14. Bergstrom, John C., 1998. "Exploring And Expanding The Landscape Values Terrain," Faculty Series 16653, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Bergstrom, John C., 2001. "Postproductivism And Rural Land Values," Faculty Series 16689, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Lee, Meongsu, 2018. "Impacts of Net Returns Per Acre on Land Use after Conservation Reserve Program Contract Expiration," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273877, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    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. Isik, Murat, 2005. "A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participation under Uncertainty," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19264, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. 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.
    20. Panwar, Rajat & Han, Xiaoou & Hansen, Eric, 2010. "A demographic examination of societal views regarding corporate social responsibility in the US forest products industry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 121-128, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:saea14:162451. 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/saeaaea.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.