IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v30y2001i01p32-43_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Adaptation to Urbanization in Southeastern Pennsylvania

Author

Listed:
  • Larson, Janelle M.
  • Findeis, Jill L.
  • Smith, Stephen M.

Abstract

Most agricultural output in the northeastern United States comes from counties that have experienced significant development. A mail survey, with 300 responses, was conducted in southeastern Pennsylvania to determine farmer adaptation to urbanization in this region. Despite development, traditional agriculture still predominates. Changes in land use were examined using multinomial logit models. Results show that changes in population density and farm preservation policies have an influence, as increased population density reduced total land operated and having land in an agricultural security area increased it. Both differential assessment and agricultural security areas increased the cultivation of traditional, land extensive crops.

Suggested Citation

  • Larson, Janelle M. & Findeis, Jill L. & Smith, Stephen M., 2001. "Agricultural Adaptation to Urbanization in Southeastern Pennsylvania," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 32-43, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:01:p:32-43_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500000526/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Balasubramanian, R. & Choi, Seung-churl, 2010. "Urbanization, Population Pressure And Agricultural Intensification: Evidences From Tamil Nadu In India," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 33(2), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Abler, David, 2004. "Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 8-17, April.
    3. Unknown, 2003. "California Agriculture Dimensions and Issues," Information Series 11917, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    4. Walid Oueslati & Julien Salanié & JunJie Wu, 2014. "Urbanization and Agricultural Structural Adjustments: Some Lessons from European Cities," Working Papers 1442, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    5. Deriaz Jennifer & Ciglič Rok & Ferk Mateja & Loczy Dénes, 2019. "The Influence of Different Levels of Data Detail on Land use Change Analyses: A Case Study of Franciscan Cadastre for a Part of the Pannonian Hills, Slovenia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 11(3), pages 298-316, September.
    6. Batie, Cicely M. & Dennis, Elliott J. & Lubben, Bradley D., 2020. "Do state-level agricultural promotion programs increase agricultural output? The case of the Livestock Friendly County designation program in Nebraska," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304399, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Cheng, Mei-luan & Gomez, Miguel I. & Bills, Nelson L., 2011. "Urban Agglomeration Economies in the U.S. Greenhouse and Nursery Production," Working Papers 126611, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. Lynch, Lori & Carpenter, Janet, 2002. "Does The Farm Sector Have A Critical Mass?," Working Papers 28552, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Kent Kovacs, 2013. "An empirical examination of the location and timing of non-renewals in a farmland differential assessment program," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(1), pages 245-263, February.
    10. Marc F. Bellemare & Vaneesha Dusoruth, 2021. "Who Participates in Urban Agriculture? An Empirical Analysis†," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 430-442, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:01:p:32-43_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.