IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jrapmc/143769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements

Author

Listed:
  • Cropper, Eric D.
  • McLeod, Donald M.
  • Bastian, Christopher T.
  • Keske, Catherine M.
  • Hoag, Dana L.
  • Cross, Jennifer E.

Abstract

The market for conservation easements provides a way to ensure the continued existence of open space amenities where rural communities face development pressure. The object of this research is to identify factors affecting land trust agents’ preferences for conservation easements and to investigate preference heterogeneity among those potentially involved in easement acquisition. Stated choice surveys were sent to land trusts’ personnel (agents) across the Intermountain West. Models were segmented by attitudinal data from land trust agents regarding their organizations’ provision of ecosystem services versus their sense of place or place attachment when considering conservation easement choices. Four separate random utility models were estimated. Results indicated that preference heterogeneity for conservation easements exists across land trust agent segments. Such knowledge provides insights into factors which may affect potential demands for conservation easements in this evolving market. These outcomes might help public policy makers allocate resources towards land conservation and land use planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jrapmc:143769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/143769
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    4. Andrew J. Plantinga & Douglas J. Miller, 2001. "Agricultural Land Values and the Value of Rights to Future Land Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 56-67.
    5. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    6. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    7. Hoag, Dana L. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & McLeod, Donald M. & Marshall, Andrew, 2005. "Evolving Conservation Easement Markets In The West," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 4(01).
    8. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October.
    9. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    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. repec:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:240-249 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:jrapmc:143769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/mcrsaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.