IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/nareaj/159272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Halstead, John M.

Abstract

Agricultural land provides a variety of " nonmarket" services to the Commonwealth, including wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and recreation . This study utilizes an iterative bidding game to estimate willingness-to-pay of residents of three central Massachusetts counties to preserve state agricultural land. Through the use of these data, estimates of the value of these nonmarket amenities are derived so that a fuUer measure of the value of agricultural land can be obtained. This information may be useful to policy makers administering such programs as the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Act (Chapter 780) which are designed to arrest the conversion of Massachusetts farmland to urban uses.

Suggested Citation

  • Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(01), pages 1-8, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nareaj:159272
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.159272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/159272/files/Measuring%20the.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.159272?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. Mark R. Correll & Jane H. Lillydahl & Larry D. Singell, 1978. "The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(2), pages 207-217.
    2. A. Myrick Freeman III, 1979. "Approaches to Measuring Public Goods Demands," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 915-920.
    3. Brookshire, David S. & Ives, Berry C. & Schulze, William D., 1976. "The valuation of aesthetic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 325-346, December.
    4. Freeman, Myrick A.III, 1979. "Approaches To Measuring Public Goods Demands," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277832, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    6. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    7. Bailey, Mark R. & Rosenberger, Lisa J. & Kolman, Michael R. & Rhodes, Mary Lee & Brady, Vivian M., 1982. "Massachusetts Agricultural Viability Study," Miscellaneous Publications 344599, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-8, April.
    2. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Cognitive Decision Processes, Information, and Contingent Valuation," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278589, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    4. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Economic Surplus Concepts and Their Use in Benefit Cost Analysis," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(02), pages 1-29, August.
    5. Brugnaro, Caetano, 2010. "Valuing Riparian Forests Restoration: a CVM Application in Corumbatai River Basin," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 48(3), pages 1-14.
    6. François Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe & Dominique Vermersch, 1995. "La méthode d'évaluation contingente : application à la qualité des eaux littorales," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 117(1), pages 89-106.
    7. Lynch, Richard J. & Weber, Jeffrey A., 1992. "Valuing Water of the Ashburton River: In-Stream Flows Versus Irrigation," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146539, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), pages 1-11, July.
    12. Jean-Paul Chavas & Rulon D. Pope, 1984. "Information: Its Measurement and Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(5), pages 705-710.
    13. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    14. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    15. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    16. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    18. Stratton, Gary R. & Smathers, Webb M., Jr. & Gooding, Robert, 1992. "Disparity between Hunters' Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation: An Empirical Example," Working Papers 117657, Clemson University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    19. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2017. "Constructing Markets: Environmental Economics and the Contingent Valuation Controversy," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 213-239, Supplemen.
    20. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Land Economics/Use;

    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:nareaj:159272. 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/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.