IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v88y2012ii1p201-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund M. Balsdon

Abstract

This paper first develops a theory of demand for land conservation in the presence of price effects due to both amenity-creation and housing supply-restriction. Three hypotheses designed to distinguish demand for amenities from homeowner rent-seeking are based upon (1) renters, (2) the quality of another locally provided good, schools, and (3) spatial autocorrelation of funding across municipalities. Econometric results suggest an observable degree of demand for open space measures is nonenvironmental in motivation. Efficiency and policy implications are discussed, along with a recommendation for benefit-cost analysis capable of separating nonrival amenities from other interests to certify open space measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund M. Balsdon, 2012. "Property Value Capitalization and Municipal Open Space Referenda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 201-232.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:88:y:2012:ii:1:p:201-232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/88/2/201
    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. Shultz, Steven D & King, David A, 2001. "The Use of Census Data for Hedonic Price Estimates of Open-Space Amenities and Land Use," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2-3), pages 239-252, March-May.
    2. Hilber, Christian A.L. & Mayer, Christopher, 2009. "Why do households without children support local public schools? Linking house price capitalization to school spending," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 74-90, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Kenneth Y. Chay & Michael Greenstone, 2005. "Does Air Quality Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(2), pages 376-424, April.
    5. Brueckner, Jan K. & Joo, Man-Soo, 1991. "Voting with capitalization," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 453-467, November.
    6. Mary Riddel, 2001. "A Dynamic Approach to Estimating Hedonic Prices for Environmental Goods: An Application to Open Space Purchase," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 494-512.
    7. Oates, Wallace E., 2005. "Property taxation and local public spending: the renter effect," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 419-431, May.
    8. Kahn, Matthew E & Matsusaka, John G, 1997. "Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-173, April.
    9. Sonstelie, Jon C. & Portney, Paul R., 1980. "Take the money and run: A theory of voting in local referenda," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 187-195, September.
    10. Jonathan R. King & Christopher M. Anderson, 2004. "Marginal Property Tax Effects of Conservation Easements: A Vermont Case Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 919-932.
    11. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    12. Elena G. Irwin & Nancy E. Bockstael, 2001. "The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 698-704.
    13. Deacon, Robert T & Shapiro, Perry, 1975. "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 943-955, December.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry & Poulos, Christine & Kim, Hyun, 2002. "Treating open space as an urban amenity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 107-129, February.
    15. William D. Solecki & Robert J. Mason & Shannon Martin, 2004. "The Geography of Support for Open‐Space Initiatives: A Case Study of New Jersey's 1998 Ballot Measure," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(3), pages 624-639, September.
    16. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates & James N. Sanchirico, 2010. "Success and design of local referenda for land conservation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 769-798.
    17. 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.
    18. Michael Howell‐Moroney, 2004. "What Are the Determinants of Open‐Space Ballot Measures? An Extension of the Research," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 169-179, March.
    19. Borcherding, Thomas E & Deacon, Robert T, 1972. "The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 891-901, December.
    20. Francine Romero & Adrian Liserio, 2002. "Saving Open Spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 “Antisprawl” Ballot Measures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 341-352, March.
    21. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    22. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    23. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Powers, Shawn M., 2006. "Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 373-390, July.
    24. 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.
    25. Rothstein, Paul, 1994. "Learning the preferences of governments and voters from proposed spending and aggregated votes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 361-389, July.
    26. Brueckner, Jan K., 1995. "Strategic control of growth in a system of cities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 393-416, July.
    27. Bates, Laurie J. & Santerre, Rexford E., 2001. "The Public Demand for Open Space: The Case of Connecticut Communities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 97-111, July.
    28. Epple, Dennis & Romer, Thomas & Filimon, Radu, 1988. "Community development with endogenous land use controls," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 133-162, March.
    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. Ando, Amy W. & Shah, Payal, 2016. "The Economics of Conservation and Finance: A Review of the Literature," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 321-357, June.
    2. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    3. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Altonji, Matthew & Lang, Corey & Puggioni, Gavino, 2016. "Can urban areas help sustain the preservation of open space? Evidence from statewide referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 82-91.
    5. Craig E. Landry & Dylan Turner & Tom Allen, 2022. "Hedonic property prices and coastal beach width," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1373-1392, September.

    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. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    2. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    3. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    4. Uwasu, Michinori & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2005. "Voting on Open Space: An Analysis of the Decision to Hold a Referendum and of Referendum Results," Staff Papers 13837, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    5. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.
    6. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Powers, Shawn M., 2006. "Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 373-390, July.
    7. Heintzelman, Martin D. & Walsh, Patrick J. & Grzeskowiak, Dustin J., 2013. "Explaining the appearance and success of open space referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 108-117.
    8. Lang, Corey, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 12-24.
    9. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Anderson, Soren T. & West, Sarah E., 2006. "Open space, residential property values, and spatial context," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 773-789, November.
    11. Chad Chriestenson & Dawn Thilmany, 2020. "Do factors contributing to appearance and success of conservation referenda in the West differ from those found in other regions of the United States?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    12. Kalinin, Alexey V. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Meyer, Spencer R. & Thompson, Jonathan R., 2023. "Does land conservation raise property taxes? Evidence from New England cities and towns," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2009. "Economics at the Fringe: Non-Market Valuation Studies and their Role in Land Use Plans in the United States," MPRA Paper 101193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates, 2012. "On Fiscal Illusion and Ricardian Equivalence in Local Public Finance," NBER Working Papers 18040, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Robert Deacon & Felix Schläpfer, 2010. "The Spatial Range of Public Goods Revealed Through Referendum Voting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 305-328, November.
    16. Altonji, Matthew & Lang, Corey & Puggioni, Gavino, 2016. "Can urban areas help sustain the preservation of open space? Evidence from statewide referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 82-91.
    17. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Fabian Waltert & Felix Schlaepfer, 2007. "The role of landscape amenities in regional development: a survey of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," SOI - Working Papers 0710, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    19. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates, 2013. "On Fiscal Illusion in Local Public Finance: Re-Examining Ricardian Equivalence and the Renter Effect," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 511-540, September.
    20. Yu‐Bong Lai, 2018. "The Feasibility of the Double‐Dividend Hypothesis in a Democratic Economy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(1), pages 211-241, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • 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:88:y:2012:ii:1:p:201-232. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.