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?