IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v40y2007i2p123-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Duke

    ()

  • Lori Lynch

    ()

Abstract

Given growing concerns about the loss of farmland in the US, governmental and nonprofit groups are seeking innovative, cost-effective methods to preserve lands that will elicit additional landowner participation. This article describes four innovative farmland preservation techniques and derives implications for the policy process through interviews of key stakeholders: program administrators, lawmakers, and landowners. Experts on farmland preservation were also interviewed to ensure stakeholder perceptions substantively inform the policy process. Four techniques were selected for assessment from approximately 30 novel techniques. Reactions to these policy options reflect stakeholder perceptions of a baseline condition; the perceptions help evaluate which options are likely to survive the policy process and what attributes will lead to their acceptability because few of these techniques have yet become policy. Although the stakeholders may have more limited experience with the policy process, land preservation experts validated many of the results and the possibility of success in the “rough and tumbleâ€\x9D of the policy process. Of the four investigated techniques rights of first refusal was the most favored, although respondents thought effective implementation would require careful targeting and a dedicated funding source. Experts agreed this technique was most likely to survive in the political arena. Agricultural conservation pension was also viewed favorably, though it was considered administratively difficult to implement. Several experts thought that, though inchoate, the pension plan could potentially be more cost effective than rights of first refusal. Land preservation tontines were perceived to be an interesting concept, but confusing, difficult to implement, and ill-defined. Term conservation easements were viewed unfavorably because they did not preserve land permanently. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Duke & Lori Lynch, 2007. "Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(2), pages 123-155, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:40:y:2007:i:2:p:123-155
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-007-9039-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-007-9039-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(01), pages 139-149, July.
    3. Parks, Peter J. & Schorr, James P., 1997. "Sustaining Open Space Benefits in the Northeast: An Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 85-94, January.
    4. Carolyn Hendriks, 2005. "Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    6. McLeod, Donald M. & Woirhaye, Jody & Menkhaus, Dale J., 1999. "Factors Influencing Support For Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(1), April.
    7. B. Delworth Gardner, 1977. "The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(5), pages 1027-1036.
    8. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    9. Halstead, John M., 1984. "Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 13(1:), April.
    10. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    11. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
    12. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    13. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Anderson, Christopher M., 2003. "Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 65-82, April.
    14. John I. Carruthers, 2002. "Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 312-340.
    15. Duke, Joshua M. & Ilvento, Thomas W., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October.
    16. Jon M. Conrad & David LeBlanc, 1979. "The Supply of Development Rights: Results from a Survey in Hadley, Massachusetts," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(2), pages 269-276.
    17. Katherine Inman, 2002. "Property Rights and Public Interests: A Wyoming Agricultural Lands Study," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 91-114.
    18. Phipps, Tim, 1983. "Landowner Incentives to Participate in a Purchase of Development Rights Program with Application To Maryland," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 12(1:).
    19. Scott Malcolm & Joshua Duke & John Mackenzie, 2005. "Valuing rights of first refusal for farmland preservation policy," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 285-288.
    20. Robert J. Johnston, 2001. "Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 305-325.
    21. Bowker, James Michael & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation Of The Nonmarket Benefits Of Agricultural Land Retention In Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 23(2), October.
    22. Lynch, Lori & Carpenter, Janet, 2003. "Is There Evidence of a Critical Mass in the Mid-Atlantic Agriculture Sector Between 1949 and 1997?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 116-128, April.
    23. McLeod, Donald M. & Woirhaye, Jody & Menkhaus, Dale J., 1999. "Factors Influencing Support for Rural Land Use Control: A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(01), pages 44-56, April.
    24. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1989. "The Optimal Quantity Of Land In Agriculture," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), October.
    25. Parks, Peter J. & Quimio, Wilma Rose H., 1996. "Preserving Agricultural Land with Farmland Assessment: New Jersey as a Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(01), pages 22-27, April.
    26. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    27. Bowker, J.M. & Didychuk, D.D., 1994. "Estimation of the Nonmarket Benefits of Agricultural Land Retention in Eastern Canada," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(02), pages 218-225, October.
    28. Parks, Peter J. & Quimio, Wilma Rose H., 1996. "Preserving Agricultural Land With Farmland Assessment: New Jersey As A Case Study," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), April.
    29. Gardner, Bruce L., 1994. "Commercial Agriculture in Metropolitan Areas: Economics and Regulatory Issues," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(01), pages 100-109, April.
    30. Gary Wolfram, 1981. "The Sale of Development Rights and Zoning in the Preservation of Open Space: Lindahl Equilibrium and a Case Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(3), pages 398-413.
    31. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economics Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Galen Newman & Jesse Saginor, 2016. "Priorities for Advancing the Concept of New Ruralism," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Jianhua He & Xiaodong Guan & Yan Yu, 2016. "A Modeling Approach for Farmland Protection Zoning Considering Spatial Heterogeneity: A Case Study of E-Zhou City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. repec:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:3:p:269:d:65721 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:kap:policy:v:40:y:2007:i:2:p:123-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.