IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v82y2006i2p189-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua M. Duke
  • Lori Lynch

Abstract

A conceptual framework distinguishes farmland retention institutions and with a survey of various literatures, interviews, and original policy design, classifies 28 techniques in four types: regulatory, incentive-based, governmental-participatory, and hybrid. The analysis reveals that techniques often perceived to be incentive-based, such as PDR/PACE and TDR, are better understood as participatory and hybrid techniques, respectively. Likely fiscal impacts, stakeholder acceptability, and implementation challenges are assessed. The framework suggests that when governments select multiple techniques, attention should be paid to the implied allocation of property rights to maintain coherent land-use policy and minimize property rights conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:2:p:189-213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/82/2/189
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    3. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market-Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    4. Batie, Sandra S., 2003. "The Multifunctional Attributes of Northeastern Agriculture: A Research Agenda," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), April.
    5. Scott Malcolm & Joshua Duke & John Mackenzie, 2005. "Valuing rights of first refusal for farmland preservation policy," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 285-288.
    6. Duke, Joshua M. & Malcolm, Scott A., 2003. "Legal risk in agriculture: right-to-farm laws and institutional change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 295-303.
    7. 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.
    8. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    9. Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
    10. Phipps, Tim, 1983. "Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application To Maryland," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 12(1:).
    11. Vitaliano, Donald F & Hill, Constance, 1994. "Agricultural Districts and Farmland Prices," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 213-223, May.
    12. Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2004. "Using Tontines to Finance Public Goods: Back to the Future?," NBER Working Papers 10958, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. David L. Chicoine & Steven T. Sonka & Robert D. Doty, 1982. "The Effects of Farm Property Tax Relief Programs on Farm Financial Conditions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(4), pages 516-523.
    14. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economics Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Edmund M. Balsdon, 2012. "Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 201-232.
    2. Jing Qian & Yunfei Peng & Cheng Luo & Chao Wu & Qingyun Du, 2015. "Urban Land Expansion and Sustainable Land Use Policy in Shenzhen: A Case Study of China’s Rapid Urbanization," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Bills, Nelson L., 2007. "Fifty Years of Farmland Protection Legislation in the Northeast: Persistent Issues and Emergent Research Opportunities," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), October.
    4. repec:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:16:d:61206 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Schilling, Brian J. & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Duke, Joshua M., 2013. "Do Residual Development Options Increase Preserved Farmland Values?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), December.
    6. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke, 2015. "Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 57-75.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land

    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:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:2:p:189-213. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.