Distance, density, local amenities, and suburban development preferences in a rapidly growing East Tennessee county
Changing land-use patterns and amenity-driven migration have brought agriculture back into people’s lives, but there is a disconnection between the realities of production agriculture and romantic images attached to farming. To the extent that “rurality” is attached to farming, people may desire to live in rural places, but they may be unprepared for the realities of living near a working farm. Greater numbers of communities are facing “either/or” outcomes regarding the conversion of “open space” land to residential or commercial uses versus landscape preservation. This study explored the perceptions and preferences of a community regarding the conversion of a hypothetical parcel of open space to a working dairy or to a residential subdivision. Results suggest that the opportunity costs of foregoing open space for residential development are high, with implications for valuing the conservation of traditions that are tied to the land versus conversion of land solely for development purposes. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 28 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: https://afhvs.wildapricot.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10460|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Raymond B. Palmquist & Fritz M. Roka & Tomislav Vukina, 1997.
"Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, and Residential Property Values,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 114-124.
- Raymond B. Palmquist & Fritz M. Roka & Tomislav Vukina, "undated". "Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, and Residential Property Values," Working Paper Series 12, North Carolina State University, Department of Economics.
- Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 2003. "Protecting Rural Amenities Through Farmland Preservation Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), April.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Secchi, Silvia & Babcock, Bruce A., 2005. "Living with Hogs in Iowa: The Impact of Livestock Facilities on Rural Residential Property Values," ISU General Staff Papers 200511010800001363, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Joseph A. Herriges & Silvia Secchi & Bruce A. Babcock, 2003.
"Living with Hogs in Iowa: The Impact of Livestock Facilities on Rural Residential Property Values,"
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications
03-wp342, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Joseph A. Herriges & Silvia Secchik & JBruce A. Babcock, 2005. "Living with Hogs in Iowa: The Impact of Livestock Facilities on Rural Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Secchi, Silvia & Babcock, Bruce A., 2003. "Living with Hogs in Iowa: The Impact of Livestock Facilities on Rural Residential Property Values," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10683, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Dimitri, Carolyn & Effland, Anne & Conklin, Neilson C., 2005. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy," Economic Information Bulletin 59390, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521848053 is not listed on IDEAS
- Lynch, Lori & Duke, Joshua M., 2007. "Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States," Working Papers 7342, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Richard C. Ready & Charles W. Abdalla, 2005. "The Amenity and Disamenity Impacts of Agriculture: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 314-326.
- Fuglie, Keith O. & MacDonald, James C. & Ball, V. Eldon, 2007. "Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture," Economic Brief 6382, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:28:y:2011:i:4:p:519-532. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.