Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:44:25.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Jacqueline Geoghegan ,
Lori Lynch  and
Shawn Bucholtz
Jacqueline Geoghegan
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Lori Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland
Shawn Bucholtz
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Using a unique spatial database, a hedonic model is developed to estimate the value to nearby residents of open space purchased through agricultural preservation programs in three Maryland counties. After correcting for endogeneity and spatial autocorrelation, the estimated coefficients are used to calculate the potential changes in housing values for a given change in neighborhood open space following an agricultural easement purchase. Then, using the current residential property tax for each parcel, the expected increase in county tax revenue is computed and this revenue is compared to the cost of preserving the lands.

Keywords

agricultural preservationhedonic modelsopen spacespatial econometrics
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2003 , pp. 33 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

References

Acharya, G., and Bennett, L. L. (2001). “Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3), 221–238.Google Scholar
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bell, K. P., and Bockstael, N. E. (2000). “Applying the Generalized Method of Moments Estimation Approach to Spatial Problems Involving Micro-Level Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics 82(1), 72–82.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N. E. (1996). “Modeling Economics and Ecology: The Importance of a Spatial Perspective.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(5), 1168–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, D. (2000). “6th Annual Survey.” Farmland Preservation Report 10(9), 1–7.Google Scholar
Breffle, W. S., Morey, E. R., and Lodder, T. S. (1998). “Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate a Neighborhood's Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land.” Urban Studies 35(4), 715–727.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. W., and Hodge, I. (1990). “Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 17(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Commission and The Trust for Public Land. (2001). Keeping Our Commitment: Preserving Land in the Chesapeake Watershed. Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (2002). “Future Growth in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area.” Annapolis, MD. Online. Available at http://www.savethebay.org/land/landuse/maps/future_growth.html Google Scholar
Cheshire, P., and Sheppard, S. (1995, May). “On the Prices of Land and the Value of Amenities.” Economica 62, 247–267.Google Scholar
Correll, M. R., Lillydahl, J. H., and Singell, L. D. (1978, May). “The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space.” Land Economics 54, 207–217.Google Scholar
Cropper, M. L., Deck, L. B., and McConnell, K. E. (1988). “On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions.” Review of Economics and Statistics 70(4), 668–675.Google Scholar
Do, A. Q., and Grudnitski, G. (1995). “Golf Courses and Residential House Prices: An Empirical Examination.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 10(3), 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischel, W. M. (1985). The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. D. (1977, December). “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59, 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Garrod, G., and Willis, K. (1992a). “The Amenity Value of Woodland in Great Britain: A Comparison of Economic Estimates.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 415–434.Google Scholar
Garrod, G., and Willis, K. (1992b). “The Environmental Economic Impact of Woodland: A Two-Stage Hedonic Price Model of the Amenity Value of Forestry in Britain.” Applied Economics 24(7), 715–728.Google Scholar
Garrod, G., and Willis, K. (1992c). “Valuing Goods’ Characteristics: An Application of the Hedonic Price Method to Environmental Attributes.” Journal of Environmental Management 34, 59–76.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J. (2002). “The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use.” Land Use Policy 19(1), 91–98.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L., and Bockstael, N. E. (1997). “Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS.” Ecological Economics 23(3), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halstead, J. M. (1984, April). “Measuring the Non-market Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 14, 12–19.Google Scholar
Hammer, T. R., Coughlin, R. E., and Horn, E. T. IV. (1974, July). “The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Values.” American Institute of Planners Journal 40(4), 274–277.Google Scholar
Irwin, E. G. (2002, November). “The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values.” Land Economics 78(4), 465–480.Google Scholar
Irwin, E. G., and Bockstael, N. E. (2001). “The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(3), 698–704.Google Scholar
Kitchen, J. W., and Hendon, W. S. (1967, August). “Land Values Adjacent to an Urban Neighborhood Park.” Land Economics 43, 357–361.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1994). “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland Programs.” Land Economics 70(2), 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996a). “Measuring Public Preferences for the Environmental Amenities Provided by Farmland.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 23, 421–436.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. (1996b). “Public Preferences and 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, 211–224.Google Scholar
Land Trust Alliance. (1999-2001). “Voters Invest in Parks and Open Space: Referenda Results.” Annual referenda results for 1998, 1999, and 2000. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, DC. Online. Available at: www.lta.org.Google Scholar
Leggett, C. G., and Bockstael, N. E. (2000). “Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2), 121–144.Google Scholar
Lynch, L., and Lovell, S. J. (2002). “Hedonic Price Analysis of Easement Payments in Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Programs.” Working Paper No. 02-13, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E. (1989, October). “The Optimal Quantity of Land in Agriculture.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18, 63–72.Google Scholar
McMillan, M. (1974, November). “Open Space Preservation in Developing Areas: An Alternative Policy.” Land Economics 50, 410–417.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C., and Lynch, L. (2001). “The Effect of Farmland Preservation Programs on Farmland Prices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, G. R., and Noailly, J. (2001). “A Value Capture Property Tax for Financing Beach Nourishment Projects: An Application to Delaware's Ocean Beaches.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
Peiser, R. B., and Schwann, G. M. (1993, Summer). “The Private Value of Public Open Space Within Subdivisions.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 10, 91–104.Google Scholar
Ready, R. C., Berger, M. C., and Blomquist, G. (1997, Fall). “Measuring Benefits from Farmland: Hedonic Pricing vs. Contingent Valuation.” Growth and Change 28, 438–458.Google Scholar
Shultz, S. D., and King, D. A. (2001). “The Use of Census Data for Hedonic Price Estimates of Open Space Amenities and Land Use.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22(2/3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State of Maryland, Department of Planning. MdProperty View. Statewide property map and parcel database. Baltimore, MD. Online. Available at http://www.mdp.state.md.us/data.mdview.htm.Google Scholar
Tyrvainen, L., and Meittinen, A. (2000). “Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2), 205–223.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (1993-1997). Agricultural Statistics. USDA/NASS, Washington, DC. Various annual issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of the Population: General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1993.Google Scholar
Vesterby, M., Daugherty, A., Heimlich, R., and Claassen, R. (1997, June). “Major Land Use Changes in the Contiguous 48 States.” AREI Update No. 3. USDA/ERS/NRED, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weicher, J. C., and Zerbst, R. H. (1973, February). “The Externalities of Neighborhood Parks: An Empirical Investigation.” Land Economics 49, 99–105.Google Scholar
Wolfram, G. (1981). “The Sale of Development Rights and Zoning in the Preservation of Open Space: Lindahl Equilibrium and a Case Study.” Land Economics 57(3), 398–413.Google Scholar