Farmland preservation, development rights and the theory of the growth machine: the views of planners ∗

Pfeffer, Max J.; Lapping, Mark B.

doi:10.1016/0743-0167(94)90051-5

Cited by 69 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The administrators lack agreement on the importance of aesthetic and open space services. Balancing these competing goals was a challenge noted by Pfeffer and Lapping (1994) in their survey of planners.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Third, this research specifically examines attitudes toward new techniques, while three other studies focus on more traditional techniques (Pfeffer and Lapping 1994;Diaz and Green 2001;Beesley 1999). Fourth, the techniques chosen for evaluation satisfy many of the goals and attributes identified by the demand-side, stated-preference, and other studies of farmland preservation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three existing studies were identified that surveyed planners and/or other experts; Pfeffer and Lapping (1994) interviewed planners, Diaz and Green (2001) surveyed local officials, and Beesley (1999) surveyed, mainly, professors and planners. Zollinger and Krannich (2001) interviewed and surveyed landowners about their attitudes towards preservation techniques.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques

Duke

Lynch

2007

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 â€œrough 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 2007Rights of first refusal, Term easements, Land preservation tontine, Agricultural conservation pension, Agricultural land preservation,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques

Duke

Lynch

2007

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a large body of literature that examines land use policy at both the local scale (McMillen and McDonald 1993;Pfeffer and Lapping 1994;Kline and Alig 1999;Irwin and Bockstael 2002; and the national or regional levels (Stavins and Jaffe 1990;Plantinga et al 2002;Schatzki 2003). These studies, however, do not examine how land use changes induced by policies affect watershed health.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting Watershed Ecosystems through Targeted Local Land Use Policies

Langpap

Haščič

2008

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land-use change is arguably the most pervasive socioeconomic force driving the change and degradation of watershed ecosystems. This paper combines an econometric model of land use choice with three models of watershed health indicators (conventional water pollution, toxic water pollution, and the number of aquatic species at risk) to examine the effects of land use policies on watershed ecosystems through their effect on land use choice. The analysis is conducted using parcel-level data from four western states in the United States (California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). Our results suggest that incentive-based local land use policies, such as development impact fees and preferential property taxation, are most effective in improving water quality and decreasing the number of species at risk if targeted according to the current land use mix in the watersheds, while policies that attempt to change the returns to agricultural and forest land, such as reforestation payments or agricultural subsidies, are ineffective in any watershed.

show abstract

“…As a hegemonic political discourse, neoliberalism is seen as shaping the opportunities made available to reformulate agriculture. Models popular in Europe, and growingly so in the US, such as "multifunctionality," and locally based initiatives such as right-to-farm laws, agricultural zoning, farm-to-school programs, and purchase of development rights programs are explored for their potential to curtail the negative impacts of neoliberalism in agriculture [44][45][46][47]. US researchers such as Patricia Allen, Julie Guthman [48,49], and Jill Harrison [50] have illustrated how these models can become heavily constrained by the neoliberal doctrines of "free trade", individual responsibility, consumerism, and the utilization of market mechanisms to determine agricultural policy implementation.…”

Section: Protectionism In a Neoliberal World?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology in Global Environmental Governance? Neoliberalism, Protectionism and the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol

Gareau

2017

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociological studies of global agriculture need to pay close attention to the protectionist aspects of neoliberalism at the global scale of environmental governance. With agri-food studies in the social sciences broadening interrogations of the impact of neoliberalism on agri-food systems and their alternatives, investigating global environmental governance (GEG) will help reveal its impacts on the global environment, global science/knowledge, and the potential emergence of ecologically sensible alternatives. It is argued here that as agri-food studies of neoliberalism sharpen the focus on these dimensions the widespread consequences of protectionism of US agri-industry in GEG will become better understood, and the solutions more readily identifiable. This paper illustrates how the delayed phase out of the toxic substance methyl bromide in the Montreal Protocol exemplifies the degree to which the US agri-industry may be protected at the global scale of environmental governance, thus prolonging the transition to ozone-friendly alternatives. Additionally, it is clear that protectionism has had a significant impact on the dissemination and interpretation of science/knowledge of methyl bromide and its alternatives. Revealing the role that protectionism plays more broadly in the agriculture/environmental governance interface, and its oftentimes negative impacts on science and potential alternatives, can shed light on how protectionism can be made to serve ends that are at odds with environmental protection.

show abstract

Farmland preservation, development rights and the theory of the growth machine: the views of planners ∗

Cited by 69 publications

References 6 publications

Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques

Gauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques

Protecting Watershed Ecosystems through Targeted Local Land Use Policies

Sociology in Global Environmental Governance? Neoliberalism, Protectionism and the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About