Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:17:23.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amenity Benefits and Public Policy: An Application to the Connecticut Dairy Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Rigoberto A. Lopez ,
Marilyn A. Altobello  and
Farhed A. Shah
Rigoberto A. Lopez
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Starrs, CT. 06269-4021
Marilyn A. Altobello
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Starrs, CT. 06269-4021
Farhed A. Shah
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Starrs, CT. 06269-4021
Get access

Abstract

This article develops a conceptual framework for analyzing the role of state-level policies towards the dairy sector in the presence of farmland amenity benefits, and applies it to Connecticut. Milk supply, demand and amenity benefit functions are estimated, and three exogenously determined milk prices are considered. The empirical findings show, under each price scenario, the extent to which land is underallocated to the dairy sector if amenity benefits are ignored. Analysis of policy options reveals that a partial production cost subsidy represents the least-cost alternative for attaining the socially optimal solution for the region.

Keywords

amenity benefitspolicydairyland useopen space
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 485 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

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

Andersen, Kenneth B. and Malia, George T.. Connecticut Farmland Preservation. Connecticut Department of Agriculture, January 1991.Google Scholar
Beasley, Steven, Workman, William G., and Williams, Nancy A.. “Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach.” Growth and Change 17(1986):70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, J., Dillman, B., and Stoll, J.. “Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land.” SJ. Agr. Econ. 17( 1985): 139–149.Google Scholar
Brookshire, David S., Randall, Alan, and Stoll, John R.. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1980):478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocchi, Horacio, Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., and Cooke, Stephen. “A Growth Accounting Analysis of Cost Efficiency in Milk Production for Six Northern States in the U.S.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 1994.Google Scholar
Connecticut State Data Center. Connecticut Summary of Socioeconomic Characteristics: 1990 Census Sample Count Extract Report. Hartford, Connecticut: Office of Policy Management, 1992.Google Scholar
Fallen, Richard F., Blayney, Don P., and Miller, James J.. Dairy: Background for 1990 Farm Legislation. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Staff Report No. AGES9020, 1990.Google Scholar
Fishel, W.A. “Urbanization of Agricultural Lands: A Review of the National Land Study.” Land Econ. 58(1982): 236–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J., Halstead, J., and Stevens, T.. “Measuring the Non-Market Value of Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” Amherst, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin No. 672, 1982.Google Scholar
Gardner, Bruce L. “Commercial Agriculture in Metropolitan Areas: Economic and Regulatory Issues.” Agr. and Res. Econ. Rev. 23(1994): 100–109.Google Scholar
Gardner B., Delworth. “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 59(1977): 1027–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisley, W. and Gitu, K.W.. “The Production Structure of Pennsylvania Dairy Farms.” N. J. Agr. Res. Econ. 13(1984):245–253.Google Scholar
Gujarati, Damodar N.Basic Econometrics, Second Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill. 1988.Google Scholar
Haidacher, Richard C, Blaylock, James R., and Myers, Lester H.. Consumer Demand for Dairy Products. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report No. 586, March 1988.Google Scholar
Halstead, John M. “Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land.” J. of the N. Agr. Econ. Council 13(1984): 12–19.Google Scholar
Huang, Kuo S.U.S. Demand for Food: A Complete System of Price and Income Effects. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1714, 1985.Google Scholar
Hubbard, L. J. “Two-tier Pricing for Milk: A Re-examination.” J. Agr. Econ. 43(1992):343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Richard E., Hueth, Darreil, and Schmitz, Andrew. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1992.Google Scholar
Lapping, Mark B. and Dale Forster, V.. “Farmland and Agricultural Policy in Sweden: An Integrated Approach.” Intl. Reg. Sci. Rev. 7(1982):293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Tsoung-Chao, Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., and Charles, K. Ling. Technical Efficiency of Dairy Production in New England: Co-op versus Nonmembers. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative Service, Research Report No. 57, 1986.Google Scholar
Lopez, Rigoberto A., Shah, Farhed A., and Altobello, Marilyn A.. “Amenity Benefits and the Optimal Allocation of Land.” Land Econ. 70(1994):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, Howard, Fleming, Ann M., and Spinelli, Felix. U.S. Milk Markets Under Alternative Federal Order Pricing Policies. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Staff Report No. AGES 9068, 1990.Google Scholar
Moore, Richard. Japanese Agriculture: Patterns of Rural Development. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. 1990.Google Scholar
Plaut, T. R. “Urban Expansion and Loss of Farmland in the United States: Implications for the Future.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 62(1980): 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiroga, Ricardo E. and Bravo-Ureta, Boris E.. “Short- and Long-Run Adjustments in Dairy Production: A Profit Function Analysis.” Appi. Econ. 24(1992):607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, Various years.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Basic Mechanisms of U.S. Farm Policy. Washington, D.C: Economic Research Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1479, January 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prices Received by Minnesota-Wisconsin Manufacturing Grade Milk, 1992 Summary. Washington, D.C: Agricultural Statistics Board, Report Pr l-4(a3), June 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. World Dairy Situation. Washington, D.C: Foreign Agricultural Service, Circular No. FD-2-91, November 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. City and County Data Book. Washington, D.C: Bureau of the Census, 1988.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987 Census of Agriculture. Washington, D.C: Bureau of the Census, 1991.Google Scholar
Waggoner, Paul E.The Distribution of People and Crops Across the Land o/Connecticut. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Bulletin No. 8383, July 1986.Google Scholar
Young, Trevor and Geoffrey Allen, P.. “Methods for Valuing Countryside Amenity Benefits.” J. Agr. Econ. 37(1986):349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar