Preserving Large Farming Landscapes: The Case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Abstract

Preserving large farming landscapes is one of the main goals of farmland preservation programs. Other goals include protecting highly productive soils, maintaining and enhancing the local farming economy, and promoting locally produced fresh food. Farmland preservation programs take time, however, because of the hefty funding requirements and the detailed process of preserving farmland through the acquisition of conservation easements by purchase or donation. The standard measures of dollars spent and farmland acres preserved do not give an accurate picture of the spatial outcomes of preservation and preservation effectiveness. Three other measures better reflect the spatial effectiveness of farmland preservation: acreage and percentage of preserved farm parcels located in agricultural zones, number and acreage of preserved farm parcels in large contiguous blocks, and number and acreage of preserved farm parcels along growth boundaries. Scattered preserved farms and preserved farms not located in agricultural zones are likely to face more nonfarm development nearby as well as problems with nonfarm neighbors. The farmland preservation effort in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, provides an important case study of the pattern of farmland preservation over time. Other counties and land trusts can employ geographic information systems (GIS) methods in this study to monitor and evaluate the progress of their farmland preservation efforts.

Community Socioemotional Wealth: Preservation, Succession, and Farming in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

“…Moreover, Lancaster County is unique in its role in preservation. While not the first U.S. county to pass preservation statutes (that recognition goes to Suffolk County, New York; Daniels & Bowers, 1997, p. 147), Lancaster County boasts the greatest amount of preserved farmland in the country, at more than 100,000 acres, with “preserved farm parcels along 11.1 percent of the growth boundaries” (Daniels & Payne-Riley, 2017, p. 76).…”

Food Production Systems, Policies and Rural Planning: Contributions to Sustainability and Environmental Impact

“…These observations, based in Ontario, are reflected in the results of research conducted in other geographic areas. In the United States, Daniels [24], Daniels and Payne-Riley [25], and Dillemuth [26] note the role of public support, political will, focus on relevant issues, culture, and staff and financial resources in determining capacity of planning departments to explore options, build public support, and engage local politicians. Similarly, Larson et al [27] evaluate municipal capacity to respond to environmental change in three different regions in New York State and look at factors including essential resources (economic and human), social networks and collaboration (the public, NGOs, and other industries), and political legitimacy (including public trust in the government).…”

What Does Zoning Have to Do with Local Food Systems?

“…Zoning is sometimes criticized for creating barriers to urban agriculture in terms of both vegetable and animal production, encouraging unhealthful food options, and harming farmland protection in rural areas and on the urban fringe (Caton- Campbell, 2004;Daniels & Payne-Riley, 2017;Horst, McClintock, & Hoey, 2017;Raja, Born, & Russell, 2008;Schindler, 2014;Soma & Wakefield, 2011;Zapp, 2016). In urban areas, small grocery stores and urban agriculture can be inhibited by zoning, including prohibitions on the sale of fruit and vegetables in outdoor stands or markets, gardening or farming in residential districts, and limitations on the type and number of farm animals (Caton- Campbell, 2004;Desjardins, Lubczynski, & Xuereb, 2011;Feldstein, 2013;Horst et al, 2017;Raja et al, 2008;Schindler, 2014).…”