Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-4nnqn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-30T00:55:40.868Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Estimating the Cost of Preserving Private Lands in Florida: An Hedonic Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2005

Sherry L. Larkin
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Janaki R. Alavalapati
School of Forest Resources and Conservation at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Ram K. Shrestha
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Get access


Florida's open-space land-acquisition program is one of most aggressive in the country, with $3.7 billion paid for 3.8 million acres since 1972. Using data from the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) program, hedonic analyses found that acquiring private lands with valuable natural resources, habitat for rare species, and important historical sites for public preservation is more costly. Development potential and pressure also increased acquisition costs. The presence of additional endangered natural elements and needing to contract with additional landowners, however, were found to decrease the cost. Results provide a basis for landowners and land-acquisition agencies to negotiate.

Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

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.)


Espey, M., and Owusu-Edusei, K.Neighborhood Parks and Residential Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33(December 2001): 487–92.10.1017/S1074070800020952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faux, J., and Perry, G.M.. “Estimating Irrigation Water Value Using Hedonic Price Analysis: A Case Study in Malheur County, Oregon.Land Economics 75(August 1999):440–52.10.2307/3147189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. DEP State Lands: Florida Forever & P2000 Home Page, (Accessed September 6, 2002).Google Scholar
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Eva Armstrong Sizes up Florida Forever.” State of Our Lands. Fall 2001. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Environmental Services, 2001a.Google Scholar
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The 2000 CARL Annual Report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Environmental Services, 2001b.Google Scholar
Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. “FNAI–Florida Natural Areas Inventory.” Tallahassee, FL: Institute of Science and Public Affairs. Internet site: Scholar
Irwin, E.G.The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values.Land Economics 78(November 2002):465–80.10.2307/3146847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Lansford, N.H. Jr., and Jones, L.L.. “Marginal Price of Lake Recreation and Aesthetics: An Hedonic Approach.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(July 1995):212–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, T., and Evans, A.W.. “The Relationship Between the Price of Land and Size of Plot when Plots are Small.Land Economics 76(August 2000):386–94.10.2307/314703610.2307/3147036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B., Rameker, V., and Seidl, A.. “A Hedonic Model of Public Market Transactions for Open Space Protection.Environmental Planning and Management 47(January 2004):8396.10.1080/0964056042000189817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahan, B.L., Polasky, S., and Adams, R.M.. “Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach.Land Economics 76(February 2000): 100–13.10.2307/3147260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelsohn, J.F., Nordhaus, W.D., and Shaw, D.. “The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis.American Economic Review 84(September 1994):753–71.Google Scholar
Milon, J.W., Gressel, J., and Mulkey, D.. “Hedonic Amenity Valuation and Functional Form Specification.Land Economics 60(November 1984):378–87.10.2307/3145714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, C.J., and Lynch, L.. “The Effect of Farmland Preservation Programs on Farmland Prices.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(May 2001):341–51.10.1111/0002-9092.0016010.1111/0002-9092.00160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A.J., and Miller, D.J.. “Agricultural Land Values and the Value of Rights to Future Development.Land Economics 77(February 2001):5667.10.2307/3146980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poor, P.J., Boyle, K.J., Taylor, L.O., and Bouchard, R.. “Objective Versus Subjective Measures of Water Clarity in Hedonic Property Value Models.Land Economics 77(November 2001):482–93.10.2307/314693510.2307/3146935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J.E., and Deas, A.. “Florida Agricultural Land Values Increases: 2000 Survey Results.” Florida Food and Resource Economics, July-August 2002, No. 145. Gainesville, Fl: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J.E., and Regalado, A.. “The Effects of Wetlands and Other Factors on Rural Land Values.Appraisal Journal 70(April 2000): 182–91.Google Scholar
Shultz, S.D., and King, K.A.. “The Use of Census Data for Hedonic Price Estimates of Open Space Amenities and Land Use.Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(March/May 2001):239–52.10.1023/A:1007895631071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrväinen, L., and Miettinen, A.. “Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(March 2000):205–23.10.1006/jeem.1999.1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC. Internet site: (Accessed September 20, 2003).Google Scholar
van Garderen, K.J., and Shah, C.. “Exact Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations.Econometrics Journal 5(2002): 149–59.10.1111/1368-423X.00078CrossRefGoogle Scholar