Farm‐Value Assessment as a Means for Reducing Premature and Excessive Agricultural Disinvestment in Urban Fringes

Conklin, Howard E.; Lesher, William G.

doi:10.2307/1239408

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This marked a significant difference with Moffat, which marked this factor as seventh. Land use conversion influencing ranchers to sell supports the large body of literature indicating that urbanization causes ranchers to sell because of a lessening expectation of the persistence of agriculture as a viable use in an area, and the loss of "critical mass" (Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996, Hart 1991, Heimlich and Anderson 1987, Berry and Plaut 1978, Conklin and Lesher 1977. Also worthy of note were the reactions to easements and land trusts in the 2 counties.…”

Section: Hypothesis 2: Routt County Versus Moffat Countymentioning

confidence: 73%

“…This results in declining investment in agriculture and reduction in intensity of management and practices because ranchers become convinced that their land will be sold for non-agricultural uses (Heimlich and Anderson 1987). Speculation leads to idling farmlands or a conversion to other types of agriculture that are less intensive in time and capital (Berry andPlaut 1978, Conklin andLesher 1977). Hart (1991) found that as urbanization increased around a ranch, succeeding generations were more likely to sell.…”

Section: Motivations To Sell a Ranchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ranching motivations in 2 Colorado counties

Rowe¹,

Bartlett²,

Swanson³

2001

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this Colorado study were to assess primary reasons ranchers choose to stay or sell the ranch, compare the motivations for ranching between a traditional agriculturally based county and a rapidly developing county, and assess whether factors such as length of tenure, fiscal dependency on ranching, and dependency on public lands play roles in decisions to sell. Personal interviews were conducted with 37 ranchers. While land use conversion occurs for a wide variety of reasons, lack of heirs and detrimental public policy were important reasons given for selling ranches. Responses showed Routt County (a rapidly developing county) ranchers were more likely to sell due to land use conversion related issues than Moffat County ranchers (p = 0.056). Ranchers with a longer legacy on their land reported that profitability, having likely heirs, and continuing tradition enhanced their reasons to stay. Groups more "at risk" of selling were non-homesteading ranchers close to retirement, larger ranches, and ranchers dependent on ranching for income with declining profits. Large ranch owners experiencing land use conflicts with non-ranchers and ranchers modestly dependent on public forage experiencing changes in public policy regulations and land use conflicts also indicated a higher proclivity to sell. Noting how groups of ranchers are impacted by different changes can help refine community efforts related to land use conversion and create more thoughtful policy measures.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis 2: Routt County Versus Moffat Countymentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Motivations To Sell a Ranchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranching motivations in 2 Colorado counties

Rowe¹,

Bartlett²,

Swanson³

2001

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The goal of preferential land taxes is to make agricultural use of the land relatively more attractive in the hopes of preventing or delaying development. But research indicates that taxation alone is not an effective method of preserving agricultural land (Conklin and Lesher 1977; Anderson 1993). Taxation distorts property values and subsidizes speculation on farmland (Blewett and Lane 1988; Nelson 1992), allowing farmers to hold out for the highest price (Blewett and Lane 1988; Nelson 1992).…”

Section: Farmland Protection and The Alrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmland Preservation Verdicts-Rezoning Agricultural Land in British Columbia

Stobbe¹,

Eagle²,

Cotteleer³

et al. 2011

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d'Agroeconomie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in British Columbia (BC), Canada, is a provincial zoning scheme designed to protect agricultural land from development. Since 1973, landowners have not been permitted to use ALR land for nonagricultural purposes, prompting some to seek recovery of development option value by applying for exclusion from the ALR. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and a binary choice (logit) model, this study examines factors that impact the acceptance of ALR exclusion applications. With data from two regions in southwestern BC, we find that applications are more likely to be approved when the land is closer to the major highway, has a smaller parcel size, consists of a smaller portion of the total parcel area, or has poorer quality soils. Therefore, as intended by public policy, agricultural capability is a key determinant in exclusion decisions, retaining properties of greater agricultural value in the ALR. Even though public opinion has suggested otherwise, the political party in power at the time of the decision was only a weak factor, mostly moderated by the number of applications in a given year. A spatial‐effects model found no evidence of spatial autocorrelation, supporting the conclusions drawn from the nonspatial model estimations. La réserve de terres agricoles de la Colombie‐Britannique (ALR), au Canada, est un plan de zonage provincial destinéà protéger les terres agricoles contre le développement urbain. Depuis 1973, les propriétaires fonciers ne peuvent utiliser les terres de la réserve à des fins non agricoles, ce qui incite certains à tenter de récupérer une certaine valeur d’option en faisant une demande d’exclusion. À l’aide de la technologie des systèmes d’information géographique (SIG) et d’un modèle de choix binaire (type logit), nous avons examiné les facteurs qui influencent l’acceptation des demandes d’exclusion. À l’aide de données sur deux régions du sud‐ouest de la Colombie‐Britannique, nous avons observé que les demandes d’exclusion sont plus susceptibles d’être acceptées lorsque les terres sont situées en bordure d’une route importante, sont de petite taille, ne représentent qu’une portion d’une superficie plus grande ou présentent des sols de mauvaise qualité. En conséquence, comme le prévoit la politique du gouvernement, la capacité agricole est un facteur clé dans les décisions d’exclusion qui permet de conserver les propriétés de grande valeur agricole dans la réserve. Bien que l’opinion publique indique le contraire, le parti politique au pouvoir au moment de la décision ne constituait qu’un faible facteur, principalement réduit par le nombre de demandes au cours d’une année donnée. Un modèle d’effets spatiaux n’a pas réussi à montrer l’existence d’une autocorrélation spatiale appuyant les conclusions tirées des estimations du modèle non spatial.

show abstract

“…Conflicts over odors, noise, stray livestock, human trespass, vandalism, and pet predation may result in formal litigation or restriction of agricultural activities through ordinances or zoning (Lisansky andClark 1987, Conklin andLesher 1977). Ranchers, used to resolving disputes through peer relations (Ellickson 1991), face an influx of newcomers with different, often litigious, ideas about recourse, multiplying misunderstanding and cementing conflict.…”

Section: Rancher Decisionmakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range?

Liffmann¹,

Huntsinger²,

Forero³

2000

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

California ranchers in urban Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and in rural Tehama County, were surveyed to examine effects of increasing development, land use change, and attrition of the ranching community on their commitment to ranching, and to assess land conservation program acceptability. Questions were about practices, reasons for ranching, and what influences ranching's future. Ranchers share much in common. Most enjoy ranching, "feeling close to the earth," living in a "good place for family life," and the camaraderie in the ranching community. They regularly carry out range improvements. Most believe that society is becoming "hostile to ranching." A dislike for outsider intervention and land use control prevails. Urban ranchers cared significantly less about the fate of their ranch if sold, and feared local land use planning much more. Rural ranchers overwhelmingly wanted their ranch to remain a productive ranch even if sold. No new ranchers appeared in the urban sample for the last 10 years. As urbanization proceeds, we suggest that a point is reached where ranchers recognize the social, ecological, and economic landscape as urban and see it as no longer suitable for ranching. Expecting to sell for development, and/or expecting zoning to change to allow it, becomes the rational view. Land conservation efforts, including relatively acceptable though as yet not widespread conservation easement programs, should begin before that happens.

show abstract

Farm‐Value Assessment as a Means for Reducing Premature and Excessive Agricultural Disinvestment in Urban Fringes

Cited by 22 publications

References 3 publications

Ranching motivations in 2 Colorado counties

Ranching motivations in 2 Colorado counties

Farmland Preservation Verdicts-Rezoning Agricultural Land in British Columbia

To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About