Comment on Eaton et al.’s Reconceptualization of Economic Dependence in “Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes”

Abstract

This commentary expands upon Eaton et al.’s research note about the challenges of measuring sense of place (SOP). Our body of work includes qualitative and quantitative research that supports their finding that landowners have a strong SOP and conservation ethic about their working lands. However, we deliberate on the importance of considering a broader interpretation of “economic dependence” in the context of SOP, which may include financial and non-financial benefits to the landowner. Eaton et al. report mixed results in its predictive power for conservation decisions on working lands. Yet, several issues negatively impacting economic dependence may override conservation management decisions and explain the “mixed” results reported by the authors. We posit that the definition of economic dependence should include both income and wealth generation as well as landowner amenity rents (defined as the landowner’s internally derived benefits or satisfaction from the amenities on their working lands).

Keywords:

• Agricultural land conservation
• landowner amenity rents

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the contributions of two anonymous reviewers and the editor.

Notes

1 Stated choice experiments ask respondents to make choices between different policies or goods. They have been used extensively to elicit choices and attribute values in marketing research, food product research, and research about environmental goods or policies (see Louviere, Hensher, and Swait 2000; Hensher, Rose, and Greene 2005).

Additional information

Funding

This publication is a contribution to USDA-NRI grant # 2005-35401-16008.