Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:15:33.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Joshua M. Duke  and
Thomas W. Ilvento
Joshua M. Duke
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware
Thomas W. Ilvento
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware
Get access

Abstract

Public preferences for the nonmarket services of permanently preserved agricultural land are measured and compared using conjoint analysis. The results from a survey of 199 Delawareans suggest environmental and nonmarket-agricultural services are the most important preserved-land attributes. Results also suggest that open space associated with wetlands on farms is neither an amenity nor a disamenity. On the margin, preserved parcels with agricultural and environmental attributes provide net benefits, which may exceed $1,000,000 for a 1,000-acre parcel. Preserved forestland provides benefits per acre that are statistically equivalent to cropland, though forestland may be less expensive to preserve.

Keywords

agricultural land preservationnonmarket valuationPurchase of Agricultural Conservation EasementsPurchase of Development Rights
Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , October 2004 , pp. 209 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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

Beall, R., and Perttula, L. W. (1991, Fall). “Conjoint Analysis: A Pedagogical Model.” Journal of Marketing Education 3, 76–82.Google Scholar
Beasley, S. D., Workman, W. G., and Williams, N. A. (1986). “Estimating Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach: Note.” Growth and Change 17(4), 70–78.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J. C., Dillman, B. L., and Stoll, J. R. (1985). “Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 17, 139–149.Google Scholar
Bowker, J. M., and Didychuk, D. D. (1994). “Estimation of the Nonmarket Benefits of Agricultural Land Retention in Eastern Canada.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 23(2), 218–225.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J., Holmes, T. P., Teisl, M. F., and Roe, B. (2001). “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2), 441–454.Google Scholar
Bretton-Clark, Inc. (1996). Conjoint Designer [software package]. Morristown, NJ: Bretton-Clark, Inc. Google Scholar
Duke, J. M., and Aull-Hyde, R. (2002). “Identifying Public Preferences for Land Preservation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Ecological Economics 42(1-2), 131–145.Google Scholar
Furuseth, O. J. (1987). “Public Attitudes Toward Local Farmland Protection Programs.” Growth and Change 18(3), 49–61.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. D. (1977). “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(5), 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2002). LIMDEP Version 8.0: Econometric Modeling Guide. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Halstead, J. (1984). “Measuring the Non-Market Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 13, 12–19.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Opaluch, J. J., Grigalunas, T. A., and Mazzotta, M. J. (2001). “Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland.” Growth and Change 32, 305–325.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1994). “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Pubic Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland.” Land Economics 70(2), 223–233.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996). “Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs.” Land Economics 72(4), 538–549.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1998). “Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Preserving Farmland and Open Space.” Ecological Economics 26(2), 211–224.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. A., Shah, F. A., and Altobello, M. A. (1994, February). “Amenity Benefits and the Optimal Allocation of Land.” Land Economics 70(1), 53–62.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., and Tukey, J. W. (1960). “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. (1993). “A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 593–603.Google Scholar
McDermott, J., Bacon, J. R., Pesek, J., Gempesaw, C. M. II, and Tilmon, H. D. (1999). “A Conjoint Analysis of Paper Demand by Commercial Graphic Designers.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(2), 182–189.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C. J., and Hellerstein, D. (2003). “Protecting Rural Amenities Through Farmland Preservation Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1), 129–144.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, M. J., and Lapping, M. B. (1994). “Farmland Preservation, Development Rights, and the Theory of the Growth Machine: The Views of Planners.” Journal of Rural Studies 10(3), 233–248.Google Scholar
Ready, R. C., Berger, M. C., and Blomquist, G. C. (1997). “Measuring Amenity Benefits from Farmland: Hedonic Pricing vs. Contingent Valuation.” Growth and Change 28, 438–458.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, 145–159.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R. S. (1998). “Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs: Comment.” Land Economics 74(4), 557–565.Google Scholar
State of Delaware, Department of Agriculture. (2002). “Farmland Preservation in Delaware.” Online. Available at http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/aglands/lndpres.htm. [Last accessed October 10, 2002.]Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2001). 2000 U.S. Census of the Population. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar