IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v33y2004i02p209-219_00.html

A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation

Author

Listed:
  • Duke, Joshua M.
  • Ilvento, Thomas W.

Abstract

Public preferences for the nonmarket services of permanently preserved agricultural land are measured and compared using conjoint analysis. The results from a survey of 199 Delawareans suggest environmental and nonmarket-agricultural services are the most important preserved-land attributes. Results also suggest that open space associated with wetlands on farms is neither an amenity nor a disamenity. On the margin, preserved parcels with agricultural and environmental attributes provide net benefits, which may exceed $1,000,000 for a 1,000-acre parcel. Preserved forestland provides benefits per acre that are statistically equivalent to cropland, though forestland may be less expensive to preserve.

Suggested Citation

  • Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 209-219, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:33:y:2004:i:02:p:209-219_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500005785/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Androkovich, Robert A. & Desjardins, Ivan & Tarzwell, Gordon & Tsogaris, Peter, 2008. "Land Preservation in British Columbia: An Empirical Analysis of the Factors Underlying Public Support and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(3), pages 1-15, December.
    4. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    5. Ken Belcher & Andrea Germann & Josef Schmutz, 2007. "Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 333-342, September.
    6. Yuan, Yuan & Boyle, Kevin J. & You, Wen & Fuller, Harry M., 2012. "A Nationwide Comparison of Farmland Conservation Easement Valuation," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124836, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Xin Yang & Michael Burton & Yinying Cai & Anlu Zhang, 2015. "Exploring Heterogeneous Preference for Farmland Non-market Values in Wuhan, Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Xiangping Liu & Lori Lynch, 2011. "Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Reduce Farmland Loss? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 183-201.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    12. 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).
    13. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    14. 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), pages 1-16.
    15. Lori Lynch & Wayne Gray & Jacqueline Geoghegan, 2007. "Are Farmland Preservation Program Easement Restrictions Capitalized into Farmland Prices? What Can a Propensity Score Matching Analysis Tell Us? ," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 502-509.
    16. Liu, Xiangping & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Do Agricultural Preservation Programs Affect Farmland Conversion? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Working Papers 28569, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    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:cup:agrerw:v:33:y:2004:i:02:p:209-219_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.