IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Targeting a Designated Area Crowd out the other Preservation Programs’ Efforts?


  • Liu, Xiangping
  • Lynch, Lori


Maryland has introduced a number of land preservation programs over the past 40 years to permanently preserve resource lands. Although new programs can increase the number of acres being preserved, they might have unintended impact on land preservation due to interaction with existing land preservation programs. The Maryland Rural Legacy program began in 1997 by designating large contiguous blocks of land and focusing its preservation efforts only in those areas. The program’s could attract existing programs to shift their preservation effort into this designated rural legacy areas if there exist economy of scale or they subsidized existing programs’ effort through matching funds. Alternatively, it could crowd out the others’ preservation efforts in these areas if the RL program raises the cost of preserving there. Using parcel level data and a property score matching method, we find: 1) parcels in designated RL areas are more attractive to preservation programs, 2) the RL program crowds in the preservation effort of the other programs, and 3) RL program preserves more parcels and acres of land in these areas due to increased funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Xiangping & Lynch, Lori, 2009. "Does Targeting a Designated Area Crowd out the other Preservation Programs’ Efforts?," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49339, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49339
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.49339

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Lawley, Chad & Yang, Wanhong, 2015. "Spatial interactions in habitat conservation: Evidence from prairie pothole easements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-89.

    More about this item


    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:aaea09:49339. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.