property theory, property rights, landowner beliefs
TRANSCRIPT
PROPERTY THEORY, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND LANDOWNER BELIEFS:
VIEWS OF NEW YORK STATE WETLANDS OWNERS AND PERMIT
APPLICANTS ABOUT LAND OWNERSHIP AND WETLANDS REGULATION
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Cornell University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
by
Noel Paul Gurwick
August 1998
ABSTRACT
Land policy in the United States is often formulated and implemented with limited
understanding of landowner views about ownership and regulation. The private property
rights (PPR) movement claims to represent populist views about land ownership.
Critics, however, have questioned its credibility as a grassroots organization and its
representation of landowner attitudes.
This research provides empirical information about landowner views in the context of
wetlands regulation in New York State (NYS). My primary objectives were to:
1. Describe beliefs of New York State wetlands owners ("owners") and permit
applicants ("applicants") about land value, land use regulation, landowner rights,
landowner responsibility and authority, compensation, and property taxation;
2. Compare views of owners and applicants with perspectives from property theorists
and PPR movement leaders; and
3. Assess models describing conceptions of ownership, determinants of beliefs about land
use regulation and wetlands regulation in NYS; beliefs about financial compensation
for regulation; and beliefs and actions regarding the influence of wetlands regulations
on property taxation.
I based conceptual models on a literature review, scoping interviews, and document
analysis. I used self-administered mail questionnaires to characterize views of owners
(n=2,0 12) and applicants (n=594) in NYS.
My conceptual model of ownership contrasted opposing perspectives: a civic-oriented
view emphasizing responsibilities to others, and a self-oriented view emphasizing
autonomy. I hypothesized: (1) owners' views about ownership would influence their
views on land use regulation; (2) attitudes towards regulation would determine beliefs
about financial compensation; (3) beliefs about compensation would influence beliefs
about how regulation should influence property taxation; and (4) beliefs about
compensation and taxation would translate into inquiries and appeals for tax relief
I achieved response rates of 43% (owners) and 55% (applicants). Contrary to a
dichotomous model, owners' and applicants' views reflected elements of both libertarian
and cornmunitarian ideologies. Owners valued land most for privacy, freedom, and
control it provided, and less for financial worth. Beliefs about ownership did not
effectively predict beliefs about regulation and compensation, although most correlations
occurred in expected directions.
Attitudes towards wetlands regulation depended upon attitudes towards land use
regulation and wetlands protection (R* = 0.67 applicants, 0.54 owners). A linear
regression model explained 36% of variation in beliefs about financial compensation.
Independent variables included both financial and personal aspects of land value. Sixty-
three percent of applicants and owners believed they should receive compensation for
wetlands regulation. Widespread support for financial compensation contrasted the high
importance owners placed on land ownership for freedom and control rather than as a
commodity.
A majority of owners (57%) and applicants (67%) believed wetlands regulations
decreased their property resale values. Fewer (30%) respondents believed wetlands
regulations should decrease their property taxes, and 18% believed their property taxes
had decreased. Most (75%) had not discussed the influence of wetlands regulations on
their property assessments with an assessor.
In 77% of cases, logistic regression models predicted correctly whether owners inquired
about the influence of wetlands on their property assessments. Independent variables in
the logistic regression model were owners' beliefs about the influence of wetlands
regulations on property resale price, their beliefs about how wetlands regulations should
influence their property assessment, and their information about wetlands and property
assessment.
PPR rhetoric does not generally characterize those landowners most directly affected by
regulations PPR leaders describe as unjust. However, a minority of wetlands owners
appeared sympathetic to PPR positions.
These data begin to fill the gap in empirical understanding about how wetlands owners
conceive of land ownership, and how they use existing mechanisms (i.e., property
taxation) related to land policy. They should help inform deliberations about appropriate
land policy, particularly regarding issues of regulation and private property rights.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Noel Paul Gurwick was born on July 24, 1964 in New York City. He grew up on the
Upper West Side, a politically liberal and culturally diverse community with tree-lined
streets. Parks, school, groceries, museums, beaches, and friends were all within walking
distance or accessible via frequent buses and subways. His later interests in land use
planning and environmental policy were heavily influenced by what he experienced as a
friendly, workable urban community with large, interesting unpaved environments.
He was first introduced to academic research in summer, 198 1, as a participant in the
Juneau Icefield Research Program. In 1983, he began studying at Brown University,
which generously provided him financial aid to continue his studies following his father's
death in February, 1984. He spent the summer of 1984 as a student fellow at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, studying relationships between evolution and
development in Dr. Pat Lohman's paleoecology lab. His interests shifted from field
geology to the biological sciences, but he retained a strong appreciation for geologic time.
His first experience with wetlands research was in Dr. Mark Bertness' lab at Brown,
studying salt marsh community ecology. Seeking experience in applied ecology, he
conducted his undergraduate thesis research on behavior and management of the apple
maggot fly, under the guidance of Dr. Ronald Prokopy at the University of Massachusetts
and Dr. Jonathan Waage at Brown. In 1987, he graduated Magna Cum Laude, receiving a
Bachelors of Science with honors in biology.
After completing his BS, Noel taught high school and middle school science for two years,
and then traveled to Sub-Saharan Africa to find out what a "developing country" was and
what it meant to work in environment and development. Returning to the U.S. in 1990,
he was hired as "Research Translator" at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where he worked with ecosystem researchers and
local, regional, and state agencies on coastal zone policy. He came to Cornell in 1992
with a Liberty Hyde Bailey Assistantship to work with Dr. Barbara A. Knuth and Dr.
Barbara L. Bedford on science and policy of wetlands.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I first thank my committee members, Barbara Knuth (Barb) and Barbara Bedford
(Barbara) for their availability, support, feedback, and ideas. I thank them also for
treading the murky waters of co-chairing a committee during the middle of my program
and for their patience. They gave me the flexibility and freedom to explore ideas that truly
interested me, and were unswerving in their belief in my work and my abilities. Chuck
Geisler encouraged my interest in property rights and my ideas about property theory and
wetlands regulation. He gave me thorough critiques of drafts of my surveys, and made
time for invaluable discussions about the private property rights movement and ways to
focus my research. Early in my exploration of wetlands policy, Curtis Bohlen provided
ideas, the practical perspective of his "in the trenches" experience, and the motivation that
interest fiom an external reviewer often does.
The entire staff of the Human Dimensions Research Unit helped immensely with this
project. Annie Adams (a.k.a. "temfic") and Heidi Christoffel (a.k.a. "wondefil") assisted
me with the arduous and complex task of gathering the sample of wetlands owners.
Margie Peech entered data sheets into an electronic database. Nancy Connelly was always
available to help me in my struggles through the SPSS-X manual. Jody Enck, Bruce
Lauber, Tommy Brown, and Bill Siemer provided useful feedback on drafts of my surveys.
Cara Olsen, in the College of Human Ecology, gave me a crash course in statistics for the
social sciences, was never at a loss for resources, and always answered my questions at
exactly the right level. I thank the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell
University and Barb Knuth for supporting me with a Liberty Hyde Bailey Assistantship.
This work is a contribution of New York Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant WE-
1 73-G, Sub-Grant W- 146-R.
At the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Thom Engle
provided me with electronic files of information about permit applicants and helped me to
understand them. Nancy Heaslip, Eric Fried, Pat Riexinger, and Diane Goetke engaged in
lengthy discussions to ensure that this work would be usehl to the agency.
Todd Paul provided a constant and present source of support, as well as outrageous
humor; no one could ask for a better friend. Dorothy Swain showed me that there is life
after thesis. Laura Kramer accommodated my bouts with tension and generally erratic
work schedule, and taught me why chickens are a conundrum. Erik Lilleskov and Elise
Nelson gave me a second home when it was too late or too icy to drive twenty miles in the
wee hours of the morning. Last, I thank my parents, Dora Haddad Gurwick and Paul
Gurwick, for giving me the foundation that enabled me to get this far; and Gerald Anders,
for stepping in when they could not.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Rationale 4
1.3 Overview of the New York State Wetlands Regulation Program 7
1.4 Thesis Outline 9
CHAPTER 2 - VIEWS OF LAND AS PROPERTY
2.1 The importance of land use patterns - ecological and social effects 11
2.2 Theories and rhetoric about land ownership 12 2.2.1 Introduction 12 2.2.2 Definition of rights, and property as systems of rules 15 2.2.3 Autonomy, control, and personhood 21 2.2.4 Libertarian arguments 24 2.2.5 The private property rights movement 27 2.2.6 Analyses emphasizing the social nature of property 36 2.2.7 Views of property from environmental ethics, and the evolution of property rights 44 2.2.8 Perspectives on value: land as commodity, land as place 48
2,3 Previous research 54
2,4 Study objectives 58
, 2.5 Conceptual framework 59
2.6 Hypotheses 64
CHAPTER 3 - METHODS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Scoping interviews
vii
3.3 Conceptual models
3.4 Mail questionnaires 3.4.1 Questionnaire implementation and development 3.4.2 Questionnaire foci 3.4.3 Question types and questionnaire structure 3.4.4 Sampling
3.5 Telephone non-response follow-up interviews 3.5.1 Owners 3.5.2 Permit applicants
3.6 Analysis 3.6.1 Data organization 3.6.2 Data exploration 3.6.3 Rules for grouping data 3.6.4 Hypothesis testing
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS 4.1 Response rates
4.1.1 Wetlands owners 4.1.2 Permit applicants
4.2 Non-respondents 4.2.1 Wetlands owners 4.2.2 Permit applicants
4.3 Respondent characteristics 4.3.1 Demographics 4.3.2 Comparing owners and applicants
4.4 Beliefs about land ownership 4.4.1 Landowner rights and responsibilities 4.4.2 Dimensions of land value 4.4.3 Willingness to grant access to land 4.4.4 Land use intentions and preferences 4.4.5 Reasons for wetlands use 4.4.6 Cohesiveness of visions of ownership
4.5 Beliefs about wetlands and environmental regulation 4.5.1 Support for environmental protection and regulation 4.5.2 DEC Wetlands regulation and landowner rights 4.5.3 Determinants of support for land-based environmental regulation 4.5.4 Beliefs about effectiveness of DEC's wetlands regulation program 4.5.5 Determinants of support for wetlands regulation
4.6 Beliefs about compensation for regulation 4.6.1 Pattern of responses 4.6.2 Determinants of attitudes towards compensation
. . . Vlll