Suchergebnisse

This thesis evaluated the eminent domain laws of the top-ranking nations in property rights based on the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey: Singapore, New Zealand, and Switzerland. The United States is not top-ranking in property rights and serves as the base comparator given its history and jurisprudence on property. The thesis results prove the imprecision in measuring property rights without evaluating the substantive legal protections and the perceptions of the Survey participants. Switzerland appears to have the strongest quality and quantity of property safeguards. Switzerland is a federation with a long-standing history of subnational governments protecting landowner rights, similar to the United States. Switzerland may serve as the model eminent domain jurisdiction for civil code countries with parliamentary supremacy, and the U.S. may serve as the model jurisdiction for common law countries with constitutional supremacy. Although lacking in unamendable substantive protections, New Zealand and Singapore demonstrate that general property rights are not a prerequisite to legislating a stable, equitable eminent domain process that would mitigate the displacement of landowners. They introduce the baseline protections for common law or civil law countries, given how many judges enforce the eminent domain legislation without a challenge. The numerical value given to the top-ranking countries in the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey insufficiently reflects the substantive legal protections between other higher-performing countries. The specific numerical value awarded to each country should be given less persuasive authority in making nuanced comparisons on property rights between countries when the Survey is the primary data source of the comparison.

Landowner perceptions of damage caused by beavers (Castor canadensis) and of beaver control programs in Arkansas were determined by mail survey. Beavers were present on lands owned by 36% of the 1,716 respondents. Girdled timber, blocked culverts and flooded timber were the first, second and third most common damages reported, respectively. Thirty-two percent of all respondents and 90% of those with beavers reported at least one form of damage. Four percent of land owned by respondents was flooded by beavers. Of landowners with beavers, 50% described damage as substantial or severe, and 46% perceived damage as unreasonable. At least one benefit was reported by 27% of landowners with beavers; aesthetic enjoyment was the benefit most often cited (14%). Of those with beavers, 64% felt beavers were a nuisance, 17% said they could enjoy a few beavers but worried about potential damage and 10% said they enjoyed beavers. Decreased beaver populations were desired by 74% of landowners with beavers, but only 47% had tried beaver removal and only 25% said they would pay for removal. Of all respondents, 26% were aware that government agencies offered beaver control programs but only 15% knew that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission offered the control program in Arkansas. Ninety percent of respondents felt government agencies should provide assistance. Landowners most often requested information on controlling beavers (44%) and demonstration of control techniques (40%). Coordinating assistance programs among several agencies, emphasizing education and demonstration, and loaning traps might improve landowner assistance programs in Arkansas.

Rangelands have significant potential to sequester carbon and contribute to the mitigation of climate change. This research aimed at better understanding the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of Utah rangeland owners concerning carbon sequestration and climate change, examining their current grazing management practices in relation to soil carbon sequestration, and exploring factors influencing their likelihood of participating in future programs. Data were collected through interviews of Utah rangeland owners and range management professionals and a statewide rangeland owner survey. About two-thirds of respondents thought the climate had been changing over the last 30 years, were aware of carbon sequestration, and viewed it positively. Forty-one percent considered it an important management objective. Having positive attitudes was associated with having "biocentric" environmental value and believing climate change and its anthropogenic nature. Respondents valued the potential ecological benefits of carbon sequestration, indicated a preference for educational programs over financial incentives, and preferred working with private agricultural organizations over non-profit or government entities on carbon management. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported likely to participate in a carbon sequestration program. Higher likelihood was associated with dependence on livestock production, considering carbon sequestration an important management objective, being interested in learning more about it, and placing high importance on the economic and climate benefits of participating in relevant programs. These results suggest potential challenges for developing technically sound and socially acceptable policies and programs for promoting carbon sequestration on private rangelands. Rangeland owners' attitudes towards carbon sequestration may play a strong role in their participation in future programs. Although education and outreach are considered important, innovative strategies are needed to communicate the concept and processes of carbon sequestration with rangeland owners without politicizing the issue. One approach is to tailor education and outreach messages to focus on the ecological benefits of carbon sequestration. Efforts are also needed to enhance the cooperation between private agricultural organizations and government agencies to promote carbon management on private rangelands. Instead of developing new programs, funneling resources to improve the carbon sequestration potential of existing conservation programs and attract wider participation among rangeland owners may be another cost effective policy strategy.