|
Originally published Vol.
1, Issue 1 (February 2003)
Rural Amenities: A Key Reason for Farmland Protection
Cynthia
J. Nickerson
Daniel Hellerstein

While conversions of farmland to
urban uses represent less than 0.1 percent of U.S.
farmland per year, local farmland losses continue
to cause concern and motivate growing public support
for farmland protection. The Federal Government,
all 50 States, many local jurisdictions, and over
1,200 land trusts and nonprofit conservation programs
seek to maintain more land in farming uses than
would otherwise be the case.
Measures used to protect farmland
include zoning, preferential tax assessments, agricultural
districts, right-to-farm laws, and purchase of development
rights (PDR) programs. Currently, 19 States and
41 local jurisdictions operate PDR programs, which
pay farmers to give up rights to develop their land.
To date, State PDR programs have spent over $1.8
billion to protect almost 1.4 million acres of farmland,
while local PDR programs have spent $762 million
to protect an additional 241,000 acres. At the Federal
level, the 2002 farm bill authorized more than a
tenfold increase in funding for the Federal Farm
and Ranch Lands Protection Program from about $53
million spent during 1996-2001 to $597 million authorized
for 2002-07. Through 2005, the Federal program had
helped protect about 430,000 acres.
 |
ERS analysts found various objectives
mentioned in the authorizing legislation for State
farmland protection programs, including protecting
“rural amenities,” local food supplies,
water and air quality, and natural resource jobs,
and reducing urban sprawl (36, 30, 29, 23 and 18
States, respectively). Rural amenities include open
space, scenic views, rural agrarian character, and
wildlife habitat that are enjoyed through viewing
or recreation, depending upon the degree of access
permitted. The presence of “natural amenities,”
such as varied topography, trees, bodies of water,
and temperate climate in rural areas, may contribute
to rural amenities. States and counties use several
criteria to select land parcels for preservation
in PDR programs. Of 13 programs examined by ERS,
10 assigned the most weight to lands with high-quality
soils often used for crop farming. Nine PDR programs
assigned the second-most weight to larger farms
or blocks of farms, a strategy that favors clustering
of farming-related amenities. Five programs favored
a “least cost” strategy, which can result
in a more scattered pattern of protected land, or
in protection of lands distant from urban centers.
These differences in strategies reflect different
objectives but also highlight the difficult decisions
faced by policymakers and program managers.
ERS also found that State farmland
protection measures are generally tied to State-specific
circumstances, such as the amount of land remaining
in agriculture, types of agricultural industries,
and lands in parks, forests, and other protected
areas. While parks and protected lands provide many
rural and open-space amenities, State legislators
and the people they represent believe farmland,
too, provides unique and valuable attributes worth
protecting.
This
finding is drawn from . . . |
| Farmland
Protection: The Role of Public Preferences
for Rural Amenities, by Daniel Hellerstein,
Cynthia Nickerson, Joseph Cooper, Peter Feather,
Dwight Gadsby, Daniel Mullarkey, Abebayehu
Tegene, and Charles Barnard, AER-815, November
2002.
See also the ERS
Briefing Room on Land Use, Value, and Management. |
|