IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Gauging Support for Innovative Farmland Preservation Techniques

  • Duke, Joshua M.
  • Lynch, Lori

This paper describes four innovative farmland preservation techniques and gauges support through interviews of key stakeholders: program administrators, lawmakers, and landowners. Four techniques were selected for assessment from approximately 30 novel techniques: rights of first refusal; term conservation easements; land preservation tontines; and agricultural conservation pension. Rights of first refusal was the most favored, although respondents thought effective implementation would need targeting of land and a dedicated funding source. Agricultural conservation pension was also viewed favorably, although considered administratively difficult to implement. Tontines were perceived to be an interesting concept, but confusing, difficult to implement, and ill-defined. Term easements were viewed unfavorably because they did not preserve land permanently.

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.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/28586
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 28586.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28586
Contact details of provider: Phone: 301-405-1290
Fax: 301-314-9032
Web page: http://www.arec.umd.edu/

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Jon M. Conrad & David LeBlanc, 1979. "The Supply of Development Rights: Results from a Survey in Hadley, Massachusetts," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(2), pages 269-276.
  2. 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:).
  3. 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.
  4. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1989. "The Optimal Quantity Of Land In Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), October.
  5. Lynch, Lori & Carpenter, Janet, 2003. "Is There Evidence of a Critical Mass in the Mid-Atlantic Agriculture Sector Between 1949 and 1997?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), April.
  6. Lynch, Lori & Musser, Wesley N., 1999. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis Of Farmland Preservation Programs," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21639, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  7. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
  8. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
  9. Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(1:), April.
  10. Gary Wolfram, 1981. "The Sale of Development Rights and Zoning in the Preservation of Open Space: Lindahl Equilibrium and a Case Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(3), pages 398-413.
  11. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
  12. Robert J. Johnston, 2001. "Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 305-325.
  13. Carolyn Hendriks, 2005. "Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, March.
  14. Parks, Peter J. & Schorr, James P., 1997. "Sustaining Open Space Benefits in the Northeast: An Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 85-94, January.
  15. 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.
  16. McLeod, Donald M. & Woirhaye, Jody & Menkhaus, Dale J., 1999. "Factors Influencing Support For Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(1), April.
  17. Bowker, James Michael & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation Of The Nonmarket Benefits Of Agricultural Land Retention In Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), October.
  18. 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.
  19. Gardner, Bruce L., 1994. "Commercial Agriculture In Metropolitan Areas: Economics And Regulatory Issues," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(1), April.
  20. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
  21. John I. Carruthers, 2002. "Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 312-340.
  22. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October.
  23. Parks, Peter J. & Quimio, Wilma Rose H., 1996. "Preserving Agricultural Land With Farmland Assessment: New Jersey As A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), April.
  24. Katherine Inman, 2002. "Property Rights and Public Interests: A Wyoming Agricultural Lands Study," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 91-114.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Anderson, Christopher M., 2003. "Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28586. 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)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.