Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T19:56:09.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land Use Issues: The Last Settler's Syndrome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Peter A. Groothuis
Peter A. Groothuis*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last settler's syndrome, each new settler wants the area to remain as it was on their arrival. Newcomers' preferences often differ from long-term residents, and conflicts arise. To explore land use issues among various groups, a survey of opinions on mountain views was developed and administered to Watauga County residents in western North Carolina. Watauga County provides an interesting case study, because it is a growing area with an influx of newcomers along with long-time residents. The results suggest that agreements can be achieved on some land use issues, whereas disagreements will arise on others.

Keywords

billboardscontingent valuationland usescenic amenitieswind energyR14Q51

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 357 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bateman, I.J., Diamand, E., LH. Langford, and Jones, A. “Household Willingness to Pay and Farmers' Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39,1(1996):21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, R.D. “Making Sense of Billboard Law: Justifying Prohibitions and Exemptions.” Michigan Law Review 88,8(1990):2482–2525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, D. “Property Rights and Land Use Conflicts: Reconciling Myth and Reality.” Economics and Contemporary Land Use Policy: Development and Conservation at the Rural-Urban Fringe. Johnston, Robert J. and Swallow, Stephen, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2006.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A., and James, M. “Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed Ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 69(1987):269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., and Meade, N.F. “Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2001):173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caudill, S.B., and Groothuis, P.A. “Modeling Hidden Alternatives in random Utility Models: An Application to ‘Don’t Know’ Responses in Contingent Valuation.” Land Economics 81(2005):445–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P.A., and Bishop, R.C. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2001):383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S.-H., Yen, S.T., Bowker, J.M., and Newmark, D.H. “Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(2008):267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, P.E., and Waldman, D.M. “Multimarket Amenity Compensation and the Behavior of the Elderly.” The American Economic Review 81,5(1991):1374–81.Google Scholar
Groothuis, P.A., Groothuis, J.D., and Whitehead, J.C. “The Willingness to Pay to Remove Billboards and Improve Scenic Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Management 85,4(2007):1094–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groothuis, P.A., “Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation Required to Site Electrical Generation Windmills in a Viewshed.” Energy Policy 36,4(2008):1545–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groothuis, P.A., Van, G. Houtven, and Whitehead, J.C. “Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a LULU: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.” Public Finance Review 26(1998):231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groothuis, P.A., and Whitehead, J.C. “Does Don’t Know Mean No? Analysis of ‘Don’t Know’ Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions.” Applied Economics 34(2002):1935–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hite, J. “Land-use Change, Resource Competition, and Conflict: Discussion.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33,2(2001):307–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoag, D., Bastian, C., Keske-Handley, C., McLeod, D., and Marshall, A.Evolving Conservation Easement Markets in the West. Western Economics Forum, 2005.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J., and McConnell, K. “A review of WTA/WTP Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(2002):426–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman, K., and McLeod, D. “Property Rights and Public Interests: A Wyoming Agricultural Lands Study.” Growth and Change 31(2002):91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman, K., McLeod, D., and Menkenhaus, D. “Rural Land Use and Sale Preferences in Wyoming County.” Land Economics 78,1(2002):72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhaber, H. “Of LULU's, NIMBY's, and NIMTOO's.” The Public Interest 107(1992):52.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Kleindofer, P., and Knez, P.J. “A Compensation Mechanism for Siting Noxious Facilities: Theory and Experimental Design.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14(1987):371–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladenburg, J., and Dubgaard, A. “Willingness to Pay for Reduced Visual Disamenities from Offshore Wind Farms in Denmark.” Energy Policy 35(2007):4059–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, D., Woirhaye, J., and Menkhaus, D. “Factors Influencing Support for Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study.” Agricultural and Resource Economic Review 28(1999):44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, P.B. “Rural Restructuring in the American West: Land Use, Family and Class Discourses.” Journal of Rural Studies 17,4(2001):395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hare, M. ‘“Not on my Block You Don’t’: Facility Siting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation.” Public Policy 25,4(1977):407–58.Google Scholar
Riebsame, W.E., Gosnell, H., and Theobald, D.M. “Land Use and Landscape Change in the Colorado Mountains I: Theory, Scale, and Pattern.” Mountain Research and Development 16, 4(1996):395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J.E. “Land Use Changes and Competition in the South.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33,2(2001):271–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L., Cornells van Kooten, G., and Graham, M. “Voss, ‘What Accounts for the Divergence between Ranchers’ WTA and WTP for Public Forage?” Forest Policy and Economics 11,4(2009):271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, B., Bleichrodt, H., and Eeckhoudt, L. “The Economic Value of Informal Care: A Study of Informal Caregivers’ and Patients’ Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Informal Care.” Health Economics 14,4(2005):363–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vossler, C, and Kerkvliet, J. “A Criterion Validity Test of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Voting Behavior for a Public Referendum.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(2003):631–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, J.C. “Item Nonresponse Bias in Contingent Valuation: Should CV Researchers Impute Values for Missing Independent Variables?” Journal of Leisure Research 26(1994):296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar