IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Robert J.
  • Swallow, Stephen K.
  • Bauer, Dana Marie
  • Anderson, Christopher M.

Abstract

The rural public may not only be concerned with the consequences of land management; residents may also have systematic preferences for policy instruments applied to management goals. Preferences for outcomes do not necessarily imply matching support for the underlying policy process. This study assesses relationships among support for elements of the policy process and preferences for management outcomes. Preferences are examined within the context of alternative proposals to manage growth and conserve landscape attributes in southern New England. Results are based on (a) stated preferences estimated from a multi-attribute contingent choice survey of rural residents, and (b) Likert-scale assessment of strength of support for land use policy tools. Findings indicate general but not universal correlation among policy support indicators and preferences for associated land use outcomes, but also confirm the suspicion that policy support and land use preference may not always coincide.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31346
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31346/files/32010065.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31346?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marie, Dana & Swallow, Stephen K. & Liu, Pengfei & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?," Working Paper series 170006, University of Connecticut, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    2. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    5. 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).
    6. Johnston, Robert J., 2003. "Forecasting Support For Rural Land Use Policies: The Role Of Preference Asymmetries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22156, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Howley, Peter & Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals' preferences in Contingent Valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1524-1531, May.
    8. Moon, Wanki & Kuethe, Todd H. & Kraft, Steven E. & Esseks, J. Dixon, 2005. "Public Preferences for Multifunctionality of Agriculture: National Survey of Registered Voters," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19430, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Mazzotta, Marisa J. & Spies, Thomas A. & Harmon, Mark E., 2013. "Applying the Ecosystem Services Concept to Public Land Management," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Do welfare estimates differ?," Working Papers 0911, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    11. 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).
    12. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Context Similarity and the Validity of Benefits Transfer: Is the Common Wisdom Correct?," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21221, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    15. Peter Howley & Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg, 2009. "Understanding preferences for walking attributes," Working Papers 0907, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:arerjl:31346. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/nareaea.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.