IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing the public benefits of agricultural conservation easements: an illustration with the Central Valley Farmland Trust in the San Joaquin Valley


  • Timothy Duane


Agricultural conservation easements (ACEs) involve the significant expenditure of public funds through either tax benefits and/or direct public expenditures. The selection of agricultural parcels for conservation should, therefore, maximise net public benefits to the extent possible within financial constraints and the need for agricultural viability to maintain working landscapes. Some programmes select agricultural parcels for conservation easements based only on agricultural viability and/or land cost, however, without explicit consideration of the many other public benefits often associated with ACEs. This paper illustrates application of a method for increasing the public benefits of agricultural conservation easements through a case study in the northern San Joaquin Valley of California. The method is a strategic planning process that incorporates both a GIS-based quantitative assessment and a more qualitative assessment. Such an approach is a supplement to - rather than a substitute for - the more science-based Landscape Evaluation and Site Evaluation (LESA) approach developed by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and cost-minimisation approaches that emphasise economic considerations. However, we show that public land use planning and regulatory policies are essential for agricultural conservation. Acquisition strategies in isolation will not be successful without complementary public regulatory policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Duane, 2010. "Increasing the public benefits of agricultural conservation easements: an illustration with the Central Valley Farmland Trust in the San Joaquin Valley," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(7), pages 925-945.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:7:p:925-945
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.495487

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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


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

    Cited by:

    1. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.


    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:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:7:p:925-945. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.