Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T19:05:12.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Robert J. Johnston ,
Stephen K. Swallow ,
Dana Marie Bauer  and
Christopher M. Anderson
Robert J. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and associate director, Connecticut Sea Grant, University of Connecticut
Stephen K. Swallow
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Dana Marie Bauer
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Christopher M. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Get access

Abstract

The rural public may not only be concerned with the consequences of land management; residents may also have systematic preferences for policy instruments applied to management goals. Preferences for outcomes do not necessarily imply matching support for the underlying policy process. This study assesses relationships among support for elements of the policy process and preferences for management outcomes. Preferences are examined within the context of alternative proposals to manage growth and conserve landscape attributes in southern New England. Results are based on (a) stated preferences estimated from a multi-attribute contingent choice survey of rural residents, and (b) Likert-scale assessment of strength of support for land use policy tools. Findings indicate general but not universal correlation among policy support indicators and preferences for associated land use outcomes, but also confirm the suspicion that policy support and land use preference may not always coincide.

Keywords

choice experimentconservationland use controlpolicy supportrural developmentstated preference
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2003 , pp. 65 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdalla, C. W. (2001). “Protecting Farmland at the Fringe: Do Regulations Work? Strengthening the Research Agenda.” Paper No. 7, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J. (1998). “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1), 64–75.Google Scholar
Alberini, A., Kanninen, B., and Carson, R. T. (1997). “Modeling Response Incentive Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data.” Land Economics 73(3), 309–324.Google Scholar
Blarney, R. K., Bennett, J. W., Louviere, J. J., Morrison, M. D., and Rolfe, J. (2000). “A Test of Policy Labels in Environmental Choice Modeling Studies.” Ecological Economics 32(2), 269–286.Google Scholar
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., and Morrison, M. D. (1999). “Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 75(1), 126–141.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J., MacDonald, H. F., Cheng, H., and McCollum, D. W. (1998). “Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous Choice Questions.” Land Economics 74(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1984). “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, C. (1986). Analysis of Panel Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J. (2002). “Conserving Farm and Forest in a Changing Rural Landscape: Current and Potential Contributions of Economics.” Regional Rural Development Paper No. 11, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Swallow, S. K., and Bauer, D. M. (2002). “Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Development.” Land Economics 78(4), 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Swallow, S. K., and Weaver, T. F. (1999). “Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Trade-offs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Weaver, T. F., Smith, L. A., and Swallow, S. K. (1995). “Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1998). “Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Preserving Farmland and Open Space.” Ecological Economics 26(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layton, D. F. (2000). “Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
Liang, K. Y., and Zeger, S. L. (1986). “Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models.” Biometrika 73(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E. (1990). “Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D., and Train, K. (2000). “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5), 447–470.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, D. M., Woirhaye, J., and Menkhaus, D. J. (1999). “Factors Influencing Support for Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(1), 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. (2002). “Land Use Problems and Conflicts in the U.S.: A Comprehensive Research Agenda for the 21st Century.” Regional Rural Development Paper No. 10, NERCRD, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Opaluch, J. J., Swallow, S. K., Weaver, T., Wessells, C., and Wichelns, D. (1993). “Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
Pendergast, J. F., Gange, S. J., Newton, M. A., Lindstrom, M. J., Palta, M., and Fisher, M. R. (1996). “A Survey of Methods for Analyzing Clustered Binary Response Data.” International Statistical Review 64(1), 89–118.Google Scholar
Poe, G. L., Welsh, M. P., and Champ, P. A. (1997). “Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent.” Land Economics 73(2), 255–267.Google Scholar
Reyment, R., and Joreskog, K. (1996). Applied Factor Analysis in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rhode Island Department of Administration. (2001). “Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program 2001: Inventory of Local Zoning Ordinances and Land Development Regulations.” Technical Paper No. 148, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
Roe, B., Boyle, K. J., and Teisl, M. F. (1996). “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2), 145–159.Google Scholar
Train, K. (1998). “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People.” Land Economics 74(2), 230–239.Google Scholar
Train, K. (2002). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). “Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for Burrilleville and Exeter, Rhode Island Geographic Areas.” Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Variyam, J. N., Jorday, J. L., and Epperson, J. E. (1990). “Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(2), 257–267.Google Scholar