IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zwi/wpaper/25.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?

Author

Listed:
  • Bauer, Dana

    (Boston University)

  • Liu, Pengfei

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Swallow, Stephen K.

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Johnston, Robert J.

    (Clark University)

Abstract

This paper reports on a stated preference study of exurban Rhode Island residents that assessed the relative attractiveness of a variety of commercial and recreational land uses. Focus group participants and town planners proclaimed a demand for certain commercial developments such as grocery stores and fine-dining restaurants, but survey respondents generally exhibit a strong preference for no additional development beyond the status quo current rate of development. If additional development is to occur, then recreational type development is generally preferred over commercial development. Results identify distinct groups of residents with heterogeneous preferences for different types of development.

Suggested Citation

  • Bauer, Dana & Liu, Pengfei & Swallow, Stephen K. & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?," Working Papers 25, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:zwi:wpaper:25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cag.uconn.edu/are/zwickcenter/documents/workingpapers/wp25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Stephen K. Swallow & Timothy J. Tyrrell & Dana Marie Bauer, 2003. "Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1000-1015.
    3. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    4. Michael P. McGonagle & Stephen K. Swallow, 2005. "Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    6. Steven C. Deller & Tsung-Hsiu (Sue) Tsai & David W. Marcouiller & Donald B.K. English, 2001. "The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life In Rural Economic Growth," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 352-365.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    11. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Anderson, Christopher M., 2003. "Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 65-82, April.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & James J. Opaluch & Thomas A. Grigalunas & Marisa J. Mazzotta, 2001. "Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 305-325.
    13. Bates, Laurie J. & Santerre, Rexford E., 2001. "The Public Demand for Open Space: The Case of Connecticut Communities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 97-111, July.
    14. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    15. Elena G. Irwin & Kathleen P. Bell & Nancy E. Bockstael & David A. Newburn & Mark D. Partridge & JunJie Wu, 2009. "The Economics of Urban-Rural Space," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 435-459, September.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    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. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    3. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    4. Elsa Varela & Zein Kallas, 2022. "Societal preferences for the conservation of traditional pig breeds and their agroecosystems: Addressing preference heterogeneity and protest responses through deterministic allocation and scale‐exten," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 761-788, September.
    5. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    6. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    7. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Daniel, Marissa “Jo” & Cai, Zhen, 2014. "Family-forest Owners’ Willingness to Harvest Sawlogs and Woody Biomass: The Effect of Price on Social Availability," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    9. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    11. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Newell, Laurie W. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Real-payment choice experiments: Valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 37-47.
    13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    14. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    16. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    17. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    20. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rural development; commercial development; recreation; preservation; public preferences; stated preferences; land use planning; choice experiment; ranking;
    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:zwi:wpaper:25. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dauctus.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.