Livestock grazing on public lands continues to be a source of intense conflict and debate. We analyze this problem using a dynamic game. Low grazing fees let ranchers capture

This paper examines whether permanent farmland preservation programs are capitalized into farmland prices. We consider the landowner's decision to voluntarily participate and correct for sample selection bias in our estimation of sales prices. Initial results suggest development restrictions resulting from participation in these programs are fully capitalized into farmland prices.

The development of the land markets for selected European Countries (B, DK, D-W, F, NL) and the effects of agricultural policy reforms on land prices are analysed in "Part I - Land Markets at the Country Level" of this article. The variables describing the agricultural land markets are land prices, prices for rental land and the share of rented land. Over a longer period of about two decades, the prices for agricultural land have been decreasing in real terms in general (exception NL) while rental prices have been more stable.

In Ethiopia deforestation is a major problem and many peasants have switched from fuelwood to dung for cooking and heating purposes, thereby damaging the agricultural productivity of cropland. The Ethiopian government has embarked on a two-pronged policy in an effort to stem deforestation and the degradation of agricultural lands: (i) tree planting or afforestation; (ii) dissemination of more efficient stove technologies. The motivation in here is, therefore, to examine the potential of the strategy of disseminating improved stoves in the rehabilitation of agricultural and forests lands.

The quasi-option value (QOV) literature originated by Arrow and Fisher (1974) and by Henry (1974) is largely concerned with the analysis of two-period models of land development. Our paper extends this literature by analyzing two scenarios in which the decision to develop land is made in a multi-period and stochastic framework. In the first scenario, the development decision is indivisible. In contrast, in the second scenario, the development decision is divisible.