Private Provision of a Public Good: Land Trust Membership

Sundberg, Jeffrey

doi:10.3368/le.82.3.353

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One common form of private provision of public goods is via land trusts, investigated by Sundberg (2006). His investigation of membership levels in land trusts finds, not surprisingly, that the trusts with member-only access have relatively high membership levels compared to those with open access.…”

Section: Jointness and Private Incentives To Produce Multifunctionalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Multifunctional Agriculture — What does the Economic Literature Tell Us?

Nilsson

Hasund

Gren

et al. 2008

IRERE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifunctionality is a multifaceted concept and the economic literature that treats the concept has mushroomed over the last couple of years. This paper surveys that literature. With respect to quantification of multifunctional production, it is concluded that jointness in production is at the core of the multifunctionality problem and that scale issues may be highly important. A large share of the paper considers the policy design literature. It is shown i.a. that the level of transaction costs has to be considered when developing policies, that even optimal policies may be controversial from a trade perspective and that the spatial variation both in production and values should be accounted for. One of the main problems from a policy perspective is the identification and valuation of the objects that are to be paid for.

show abstract

Section: Jointness and Private Incentives To Produce Multifunctionalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Multifunctional Agriculture — What does the Economic Literature Tell Us?

Nilsson

Hasund

Gren

et al. 2008

IRERE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These public goods include the provision of upland landscape features, habitats and wildlife that are valued by members of the general public but which are co‐produced with upland farming carried out in a certain manner–as none of these habitats are ‘natural’. As the market (and clubs) will under‐supply these non‐excludable public goods, the government has a clear role – although not by any means an exclusive one – in enhancing social welfare by setting up agri‐environment schemes, so long as the benefits exceed the costs (for a discussion of alternative provision mechanisms, see Hodge, 2001, and Sundberg, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reform of Support Mechanisms for Upland Farming: Paying for Public Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England

Hanley¹,

Colombo²,

Mason³

et al. 2007

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incomes of hill-farmers in 'Less Favoured Areas' of the UK have traditionally been supported by payments related to their production levels. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and changes in policy objectives within the UK imply a need to change this basis of support. We investigate the option of paying for public goods produced, focusing on landscape features and habitats. A choice experiment study is used to estimate willingness to pay for different landscape features in four Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England. We find significant differences in the value of landscape features, both within and across regions, and parallel differences in the aggregate value of different policy options for upland areas. We discuss briefly how this information could be included in a spatially differentiated payments scheme. Copyright 2007 The Agricultural Economics Society.

show abstract

“…We maintain, however, that important aspects of what land trusts produce are public by the same criteria (see Sundberg 2006). In order to focus on these aspects, the model adopts the extreme position that all outputs of trusts are public.…”

Section: A Theory Of Land Trust Crowding Out and Crowding Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Donors of easements receive tax relief (Anderson and King) and tangible benefits to cash donors may include access to landtrust properties (Sundberg 2006). Third, economies-of-scale in the production (or benefits) of amenities will militate against crowding out because land trusts will have incentives to conserve parcels near government conservation (see, e.g., Albers et al 2006, Wu andBoggess 1999).…”

Section: Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowding Out Open Space: The Effects of Federal Land Programs on Private Land Trust Conservation

Parker¹,

Thurman²

2011

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We contribute to the empirical understanding of how private individuals and institutions respond to government spending on public goods by examining the effects of U.S. federal land programs on private land trust conservation . Our econometric analysis evaluates the crowding out (or crowding in) of land trust acres at the county level using a panel regression framework . Using data from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and from Land Trust Alliance (LTA) censuses, we have identified or estimated the total acres of open space held by land trusts in each U.S. county during 1990 and 2000 . On the government side, we have constructed a county-level panel of Conservation Reserve (CRP) acres, Wetland Reserve (WRP) acres, and federal land holdings (e.g., national parks and forests) . With these data we estimate separate crowding out\crowding in effects for TNC and LTA trusts . We also provide the first analysis of other county-level determinants of growth in private land conservation including population and per capita income growth . With the LTA data, we find a small crowding-out effect from CRP that is largest in counties with significant endowments of natural amenities . With the TNC data, we find both crowding in and crowding out, depending on the government program in question . The effects of other factors such as population growth, per capita income growth, and a county's natural amenity endowment also differ between TNC and the LTA trusts due to institutional differences that we describe.The authors are grateful to John Shoaf and Keri Perez for able research assistance. 1 The conditions identified by Rose-Ackerman include the presence of increasing returns to scale in the production of public goods and the use of matching grants by governments. 2 The cited studies use field data. Other empirical studies use data from laboratory experiments to infer incomplete crowding out (see, e.g., Andreoni 1993, Bolton and Katok 1998, Eckel et al. 2005.

show abstract

Private Provision of a Public Good: Land Trust Membership

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Multifunctional Agriculture — What does the Economic Literature Tell Us?

Multifunctional Agriculture — What does the Economic Literature Tell Us?

The Reform of Support Mechanisms for Upland Farming: Paying for Public Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England

Crowding Out Open Space: The Effects of Federal Land Programs on Private Land Trust Conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About