Agricultural Districts: A Compromise Approach to Agricultural Preservation

Conklin, Howard E.; Bryant, William R.

doi:10.2307/1238615

Cited by 24 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…New York's Agricultural Districting Program Conklin, 1975, Conklin andBryant, 1974) is the best example of this multiple incentive type of approach although features of the districting idea can be found in Oregon and Maryland. In New York, farmers may voluntarily work collectively to form a district.…”

Section: (B) Agricultural Districtingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retaining agricultural activities under urban pressures: A review of land use conflicts and policies

Berry

Plaut

1978

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a national perspective it is unclear whether the continued expansion of urban development seriously affects America's potential food production over the long run. Yet there are clearly regional biases toward conversion of farmland to urban uses and locally important changes in the appearance of the landscape at the rural-urban fringe. Urbanization also generates spillover effects causing the idling of farmland and the shifting from one type of agriculture to another.Land use controls aimed at directly addressing the use of the land may be effective in preventing some conversion of farmland to urban uses but the methods are costly and possibly very complex. Incentives to farmers to keep land in agriculture are generally too weak to be effective in retaining agricultural land in the face of strong urban pressures.

show abstract

Section: (B) Agricultural Districtingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retaining agricultural activities under urban pressures: A review of land use conflicts and policies

Berry

Plaut

1978

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, giving owners of agricultural acreage in the fringe a pro~perty tax 6reak of t0t 2 per acre is insufficient to ensure the realization of the preservation standa~rd, again by tlt 0 = MEB(L1). Finally, trying to achieve the preservation standard by voluntary participation in agricultural districts [5] or transferable development rights programs [2] will require larger financial inducements to owners of agricultural land than those indicated by a competitive land market equilibrium at point B.…”

Section: Single-period Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Defining the top 33 percent of the 373 cells in terms of converison activity as "high" conversion areas and the remaining cells as "low" conversion areas, the regression results for the three periods are presented in Table 1. 5 In each of the three periods, the probability of a cell being a "high" conversion area is directly related to the percentage of residential use w~thin the cell and directly surrounding the cell at the beginning of the period. U Translating the regression estimates into probability relationships, conversion activity followed a similar pattern throughout the 1967-76 period.…”

Section: Some Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Contagion externalities and the conversion of low-intensity land uses on the urban fringe

Cory

Willis

1985

Ann Reg Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last decade has been characterized by a growing concern over the conversion of important farmlands and unique natural environments to developed uses. Preservation of agricultural, recreation, and/or open space uses of land around expanding urban areas faces unique problems. This paper examines the impact of spatial considerations on preservation policy. In particular, the allocative significance of contagion externalities is explored for both short-run and long-run policy formation, and empirical evidence for two U.S. cities is presented. It is concluded that failure to account for the external effects generated from urban development will lead to inefficient preservation strategies based on fiscal incentives and misspecified preservation goals.

show abstract

“…(2) Another reason for linking planning and zoning to differential taxation (or vice versa) is that this may be a way to control or reduce the problem of "leapfrog-ging." They prefer contracts to be signed between landowners and the county government as in the California Agricultural Preserves, or landowner commitments to land preservation as in the Agricultural Districts of New York State.…”

Section: Planning Zoning and Contractingmentioning

confidence: 99%