open space: rural amenities, values and policy issues
DESCRIPTION
Open Space: Rural Amenities, Values and Policy Issues. Don McLeod Agricultural & Applied Economics University of Wyoming And the help of many Colleagues. LAYOUT. So What? Who Cares? Examples/Typologies of Amenities Valuation Policy Issues. Relevance of Rural Open Space. Biodiversity - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Open Space: Rural Amenities, Values and Policy Issues
Don McLeodAgricultural & Applied Economics
University of Wyoming
And the help of many Colleagues
LAYOUT
• So What? Who Cares?
• Examples/Typologies of Amenities
• Valuation
• Policy Issues
Relevance of Rural Open Space
• Biodiversity
• Groundwater
• Arable Lands
• Recreation
• Scenic Views
• Economic Importance to Rural Communities
• Stock of Developable Lands
• Private Property
Nonmetropolitan population change, 2000 to 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010
Wyoming Population Change
Open Space Conversion
• Energy
• Residential
• Fragmentation/Parcelization
• Adversely Impacting Open Space Attributes
INTERESTED PARTIES IN AMENITY DEBATE
• Landowners• Development Agents• NGOs/LTAs• Grass Root Community Groups• Public Use/Management Agencies• Tax Entities (IRS, Dept of Revenue)
• Extremely Varied Interests in Definition/Valuation
Conceptual Underpinnings
• Land = Input for Agriculture
• Land = Input for Development
• Land = Final Consumer Good
• Land = Source of Public Goods
AMENITY TYPES
• Faushold & Lilieholm (EM, 1999, p.308): Open space “…undeveloped land that retains most of its natural characteristics (such as) forest, grazing, agricultural lands and recreation areas .”
• Bergstrom (Pres, 2002): Typology of Values: “Amenity Values are derived directly from the land (landscape) and have large non-consumptive or passive use values.”
Rocky Mountain Landscape:Arid River framed by Distant Alpine View
AMENITY TYPES (CONT.)
• Randall (ERAE, 2002): Multifunctionality of Agricultural Lands: Valuation of Amenities via
Type, Quality and Accessibility
• Surveys of 4 Rocky Mtn Counties (1997-2001): Wildlife Habitat, Water Quantity & Quality, Working Landscapes, Scenic Views; Approval of CEs & Zoning
WHAT AMENITIES ARE DEMANDED…by whom and how?
• LO Focus Groups (Miller et al 2010): Wildlife & Open Space Provision; Links to Rural Communities; No Access; Management Control
• LTA Focus Groups (Keske et al 2011): Water Quality Protection; Biodiversity; Cultural Importance; Large Block; Landowner Interest; Monitoring & Enforcement;
Factors Affecting CE Contract Choice
ATTRIBUTE Land-Owners
Land-Trusts
Public Access β < 0 β = 0
Managerial Control β < 0 β > 0
Payment as % of FMV β > 0 β = 0
Wildlife Habitat β = 0 β > 0
Community Attachment
β > 0 β = 0
CE Contract Length β < 0 β < 0
Ecosystem Services β > 0 β > 0
Level of Education β > 0 β > 0
Stated Payments for Farmland Protection (Bergstrom & Ready, 2003)
• Generic “any” Agricultural Lands by State
• Prime “productivity” Agricultural Lands by State
Total Willingness to Pay for Farmland Amenity Protection Graphed Against Total Farmland Acres (2003 $)
CV Studies
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Acres Valued
To
tal W
TP
Beasley et al - Medium Intensity
Beasley et al - High Intensity
Bergstrom et al
Bowker & Didychuk
Bowker & Didychuk - With Public Use
Ready et al
Rosenberger & Walsh - High Intensity
Rosenberger & Walsh - Medium Intensity
Others
Source: J. Bergstrom and R. Ready (2003)
Some Stated Preference Research
• Public Preferences for Land Preservation:Bergstrom et al., 1985McLeod et al., 1999Duke & Lynch, 2006, 2007Johnston & Duke, 2008
• Landowner Preferences for Land Preservation: Phipps, 1983Lynch & Lovell, 2003
Duke, 2004
Stated Preferences
• CVM: WTP for Land Attributes (each)
• Which Good(s)? Service(s)?
-----------------------------------------------------
• Stated Choice: WTP for Bundle Choices
• Data Requirements for # of Attributes?
• Which Attributes? Levels/Quality? Specification?
• EG McGaffin et al 2010; Cropper et al 2013
Revealed Preferences
• Wyoming Agricultural Land Values
• Finding Attribute Values based on Land Prices
• GIS to Quantify Attributes
• Bastian et al (2002); Wasson et al (in press):
*Elk Habitat; Trout Habitat*Remoteness
*Access to Blue Ribbon Public Lands*Index of Variety of Scenery & Specific Scenery
Components
Opportunity Cost of Development
• Cost of Community/Public Services
• AG v. Subdivision Use (Coupal et al 2003)
• Density of Rural Development (Lieske et al 2012; and Lieske et al forthcoming)
• Impacts on Rural Public Service Provision and Budgets
More Opportunity Costs: Wildland Urban Interface
• Wild Fire Management
• Wildlife Damages
• Access to Public Lands
• Watersheds/Headwaters Protection
• Other Trans-jurisdictional Issues?
• Heterogeneity of Ownership?
Distribution of Benefits ??
NATIONAL• T&E Species• Intact Ecosystems
(Y2Y)• Trans-boundary
Watersheds• Prime Agricultural Land
for Nat. Food Security
LOCAL• Wildlife Habitat• Scenic/Pastoral Views• Groundwater• Recreation• Prime Agricultural Land
for Local Economy and Well Being
Summary
• Rural/Agricultural Lands: What (Where?) are the Valued Attributes?
• Who pays? Who gets Paid? WTP/WTA?• How Might Fiscal Efficiency be Addressed
(Minimizing the Opportunity Cost of Development)?
• Tradeoffs: Optimal Development v. Optimal Amenities
Policy Implications
• How are Amenities Incorporated into Private/Public Land Use Planning/Protection Efforts? VALUES
• How Can Public/Private Sectors Partner To Avoid Duplication Effort/Funding? EFFICIENCY
• Avoid Conflicts In Management? MINIMIZE TRANSACTIONS COSTS
• Markets? Regulation? ALLOCATION• “True” Cost of Development/Land Conversion?
(AG to Other Uses)
QUESTIONS?