Public Attitudes Toward Local Farmland Protection Programs

Abstract

Using telephone survey data, this study analyzes citizen attitudes toward a locally based farmland protection program for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The study findings indicate widespread public support for farmland protection, in general, and strong support for zoning and purchase of development rights approaches. Testing of the anti-elitist and sociospatial explanations for public support of land use regulations is carried out. A statistical analysis of survey results finds moderate support for the sociospatial explanation.S THE U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH AGRICULTURAL land protec-

Estimating Willingness to Pay to Protect Acequia Irrigation and Culture: Lessons from San Miguel County, NM

“…This is not surprising, though it contradicts Gardner's (1977) assertion that benefits of farmland preservation principally accrue to urban residents. Furuseth (1987) finds support for a "sociospatial" hypothesis, which suggests that support for protection programs is widely distributed in communities, and reflects a growing concern about rapid development in rural areas.…”

What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods

“…1/7 as opposed to 7 which would be assigned if A were strongly more important than B). As it is assumed that a respondent is consistent Halstead (1984) Hampden County, MA There are strong preferences for protecting remnant farmlands that increase with size of program, and seem to be positively influenced by the proximity to farms Furuseth (1987) Mecklenberg County, NC There is broad support for farmland protection; farmland heritage, environmental reasons, and protection of future food supply were important reasons Variyam et al (1990) National Support for a variety of agricultural programs suggests that preservation of family farms is important, but respondent self-interest also influences support for agricultural policies Dillman and Bergstrom (1991) Greenville County, SC Positive, though small, benefits to protection of farmland, with the benefits of such protection stated as being limited to changes in rural amenities. The low values are attributed to the large amount of agriculture in the study region Wichelns (1994, 1996) Rhode Island, PA Environmental reasons are most important, followed by local food concerns, preservation of rural communities, and slowing development Bowker and Didychuk (1994) New Brunswick, Canada Willingness to pay for farmland protection is correlated with membership in environmental organizations and ''visiting the land'' and is negatively correlated with distance to farmland Ready et al (1997) Kentucky Positive difference between survey-derived compensating variation measures and house-price/wage-rate hedonic measures of the value of protecting horse farms suggests that these farms have an existence value Rosenberger and Walsh (1997) Routt County, CO Protection of ranchland yields small overall per acre values.…”

Exurban Farmers' Perceptions of Land Use Policy Effectiveness: Implications for the Next Generation of Policy Development

“…Indeed, support for these policies was often pushed more by antidevelopment urbanites than by farmers (Furuseth, 1987).…”