2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Property rights and landscape planning in the intermountain west: The Teton Valley case

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(48 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When residents are concerned about loss of rural character associated with future development, politicians can gamble with new regulations favoring conservation development (Carter, 2009;Ryan, 2002). Once external development pressures reach high levels, however, new regulations must be proposed in a high stakes environment where politicians face potentially unacceptable risk (Peterson & Liu, 2008). Our case study findings suggest successful communities reacted to impending development before development pressures overwhelmed local infrastructure and political capital.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When residents are concerned about loss of rural character associated with future development, politicians can gamble with new regulations favoring conservation development (Carter, 2009;Ryan, 2002). Once external development pressures reach high levels, however, new regulations must be proposed in a high stakes environment where politicians face potentially unacceptable risk (Peterson & Liu, 2008). Our case study findings suggest successful communities reacted to impending development before development pressures overwhelmed local infrastructure and political capital.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Although developers and residents concerned about property rights often resist conservation planning efforts (Peterson & Liu, 2008), community workshops and charrettes were able to address these concerns in three of our case study communities. Highlighting the economic and environmental benefits of conservation subdivisions and dispelling myths about higher construction costs helped address concerns in Randolph County while bitter conflict erupted in the Town of Davidson over the issue of "takings" and the perceived loss of property value associated with smaller lots in conservation subdivisions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Attitudes towards wildlife ownership may relate to sociocultural history of environmental entitlements (Leach et al 1999;Wilson and Mitchell 2003) and private property ownership (Hann 2007;Peterson and Liu 2008). Because most respondents in this transboundary region were of Mexican descent, their attitudes toward wildlife being public property or not being property may relate to the ejido system in Mexico (Valdez et al 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The need to share resources in urban areas may translate into negative attitudes toward private wildlife ownership among exurbanites living in rural areas. Exurban migrants to rural communities have proven more tolerant to incursions on property rights than migrants from rural areas (Peterson and Liu 2008).…”
Section: Conceptual Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Liberty and property are the most common objects to which conceptions of inviolable rights apply (Peterson and Liu 2008). These two attributes, broadly defined, have attracted attention from both sides of the debates.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%