.jpg){kind=small}
KELSEY K JOHNSON
Post-Doctoral Researcher: Natural Resource and Environmental Economics
CURRENT RESEARCH
Effectiveness of Land Conservation Programs: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design
Working Paper
Abstract: Substantial public funds have been invested in farmland preservation in the United States, particularly to fund the purchase of agricultural conservation easements (PACE). In this study, we employ a regression discontinuity design (RDD) to evaluate the impact of Colorado's conservation investments on easement-level conservation outcomes. Colorado enacted two policies in the 1990s to incentivize conservation: the implementation of lottery dollars to fund conservation projects, and state tax incentives to encourage landowners to put easements on their undeveloped lands. We use a spatial dataset on conservation easements along with fine-scale spatial data on both land quality and land value to estimate the effects of these investments on four outcomes: agricultural quality of the land protected, the value of the land protected, easement size, and a measure of how close an easement is placed to other easements. Results indicate that Colorado´s conservation investments led to easements on higher quality, lower value land. We also find evidence that conservation decisions in Colorado account for both budgetary constraints and state priorities to protect high quality lands.
Picking Up the PACE: an empirical analysis of conservation outcomes in the presence of payments for agricultural conservation easements (PACE) programs
Working Paper
The United States has implemented a variety of policy mechanisms to protect agricultural lands, yet conversion of prime farmland to development continues. Is farmland protection policy effectively maintaining viable agricultural landscapes? In this study, we developed a suite of indicators to measure outcomes of farmland protection policy: a) land quality, b) cost, c) development risk, d) proportion of a state’s agricultural land protected, and e) contiguity of protected land. We then compared outcomes across 11 states in the United States and among four different easement program designs using OLS regression and landscape metrics. We found that government-funded easement programs do not necessarily have better outcomes than non-governmental programs, and that program design may influence outcomes. Government-funded decentralized programs protect lands of higher quality, development risk, and contiguity compared to centralized, collaborative, and non-governmental programs (put actual numbers). However, decentralized programs were also associated with the highest cost and the lowest proportion of the state’s agricultural land base under protection (actual numbers). Overall, our analysis revealed that irrespective of program design, there may be trade-offs between quantity (how much land we can protect), quality (the productivity of the land), and cost (how much it cost to protect land). Further research is needed to fully investigate how farmland protection policies in general, and program design specifically, influences society’s ability to maintain a viable agricultural land base.
​Estimating the economic value of climate uncertainty: An application to US forestry
Working Paper