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
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
Public Access
LandOwners
β<0
LandTrusts
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
$400.00
Beasley et al - Medium Intensity
Beasley et al - High Intensity
$350.00
Bergstrom et al
Bowker & Didychuk
$300.00
Bowker & Didychuk - With Public Use
Ready et al
Total WTP
$250.00
Rosenberger & Walsh - High Intensity
Rosenberger & Walsh - Medium Intensity
Others
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
$0.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Acres Valued
Source: J. Bergstrom and R. Ready (2003)
80000
90000
100000
Some Stated Preference Research
• Public Preferences for Land Preservation:
Bergstrom et al., 1985
McLeod et al., 1999
Duke & Lynch, 2006, 2007
Johnston & Duke, 2008
• Landowner Preferences for Land Preservation:
Phipps, 1983
Lynch & 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?