GeoJournal

, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp 501–511 | Cite as

North American farmland protection strategies in retrospect

  • Bryant C. R. 
  • Russwurm L. H. 
Article

Abstract

The arenas in which farmland protection strategies have developed in North America vary in terms of perceptions of the farmland resource and the role of planning, and in terms of administrative structures. Administratively, farmland protection strategies have developed in a variety of structures, ranging from the very decentralized ones of many US states to the more centralized, though still mixed, ones found in some Canadian provinces. Farmland protection strategies can thus be investigated in terms of how they address a variety of fundamental issues. Difficult questions are raised by policy evaluation, e.g. are objectives coherent, how do objectives relate to goals and objectives for other land uses and what would have happened in the absence of the program? It is argued that, while it is essential to encourage more analyses of how results, e.g. farmland removal rates, relate to stated objectives, it is equally important to study the decision-making process of implementation to establish both stated and implied objectives and therefore how farmland protection strategies relate to the broader land use planning and management context for other land uses.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Land Forum: Land and food: the preservation of US farmland. Report No. 1. Washington, American Land Forum 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, R.: Saving rural Ontario: planning for the preservation of Ontario's countryside landscape. Occasional Paper 6. Toronto, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H.: The impact of non-agricultural development on agriculture: a synthesis. Plan Canada 19, 2, 122–39 (1979)Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H., McLellan, A.G.: The city's countryside: land and its management in the rural-urban fringe. London, Longman's 1982.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, C.R., Conklin, H.E.: New farmland preservation programs in New York. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 41, 6, 390–396 (1975)Google Scholar
  6. Caldwell, L.K.: Law and the land: the ecology and sociology of land use planning. In: Andrews, R.N.L. (ed.), Land in America, pp. 187–212. Lexington, Mass., D.C. Health 1979.Google Scholar
  7. California Office of Planning and Research: Saving the good earth: what California communities are doing to conserve agricultural land. Sacramento, California Office of Planning and Research 1981.Google Scholar
  8. Canada, Government of: Federal policy on land use. Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services, Canada 1981.Google Scholar
  9. Carman, H.F.: California landowners' adoption of a use-value assessment program. Land Economics 53, 3, 275–87 (1977)Google Scholar
  10. Clawson, M.: Land as a factor of agricultural production. In: Schnepf, M. (ed.), Farmland, food and the future, pp. 113–121. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1979.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, R.C.: States' role in farmland retention. In: Schnepf, M. (ed.), Farmland, food and the future, pp. 165–188. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Coughlin, R.E. et al.: Saving the garden: the preservation of farmland and other environmentally sensitive land. Report prepared by the Regional Science Research Institute for National Science Foundation. Springfield, Va., National Technical Information System 1977.Google Scholar
  13. Creighton, T.H.: The lands of Hawaii, their use and misuse. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, J., Wibberley, G.P.: Planning and the rural environment. Oxford, England, Pergamon 1977.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, R.D.: Preserving agricultural and open-space lands: legislature policy making in California. Environmental quality series 10. Davis, Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of Califonia 1972.Google Scholar
  16. Day, J.C. et al.: A strategy for hindsight evaluation of environmental impacts. In: Environmental impact assessment in Canada: prospects and problems. Publication E55. Toronto, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto 1977.Google Scholar
  17. Detwiler, P.M.: Rejecting centralism: an argument for improving California's existing planning. Mimeo. Sacramento, California Office of Planning and Research 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Frankena, M.W., Scheffman, D.T.: Economic analysis of provincial land use policies in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario Economic Council and University of Toronto Press 1980.Google Scholar
  19. Furuseth, O.J.: The Oregon agricultural protection program: a review and assessment. Natural Resources Journal 20, 603–614 (1980)Google Scholar
  20. Furuseth, O.J.: Update on Oregon's agricultural protection program: a land use perspective. Natural Resources Journal 21, 57–70 (1981)Google Scholar
  21. Gaylor, H.: Political attitudes and urban expansion in the Niagara Region. Contact, Journal of Urban and Regional Affairs 11, 43–60 (1979)Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, B.D.: The economics of agricultural land preservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59, 5, 1027–36 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. Gierman, D.M.: Rural to urban land conversion. Occasional paper 16. Ottawa, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1977.Google Scholar
  24. Gramm, W.P., Ekelund, R.B.: Land use planning: the market alternative. In: No land is an Island, pp. 127–40. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Hawaii Department of Agriculture: State agriculture plan and technical reference document. Honolulu, Hawaii Department of Agriculture 1980.Google Scholar
  26. Hawaii State Land Use Commission: Rules of practice and procedure and district regulations. Honolulu, Hawaii State Land Use Commission 1975.Google Scholar
  27. Hawaii, State of: The Hawaii state plan. Honolulu, Department of Planning and Economic Development 1978.Google Scholar
  28. Hawkins, R.R., Jr.: Land use planning and its critics. In: No Land is an island, pp. 101–12. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies 1975.Google Scholar
  29. Heeter, D.G.: Almost getting it together in Vermont. In: Mandelker, D.R. (ed.), Environmental and land controls legislation, Chap. 8. New York, Bobbs-Merrill 1976.Google Scholar
  30. Keene, J., Berry, G., Coughlin, R., Farnon, J., Kelly, G., Plant, T., Strong, A.: Untaxing open space, an evaluation of the effectiveness of differetial assessment of farm and open space. Washington, US Government Printing Office, Council of Environmental Quality 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Klingebiel, A.A., Montgomery, P.H.: Land capability classification. Agriculture Handbook 210. Washington, US Department of Agriculture 1961.Google Scholar
  32. Lands Directorate, Canada: Soil capability classification for agriculture. Canada land inventory report 2. Ottawa, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1965.Google Scholar
  33. Lesher, W.G., Eiler, D.A.: An assessment of Suffolk County's farmland preservation program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 140–3 (1978)Google Scholar
  34. Little, C.E.: The new Oregon trail. Washington, The Conservation Foundation 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Lowry, G.K., Jr.: Evaluating state land use control: perspectives and Hawaii case study. Urban Land Annual 18, 85–127 (1980)Google Scholar
  36. Macpherson, H.: A farmer/rancher view of agricultural land retention issues. In: Schnepf, M. (ed.), Farmland, food and the future. pp. 128–32. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1979.Google Scholar
  37. Mandelker, D.C.: Environmental and land control legislation. New York, Bokks-Merrill 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Manning, E.W., Eddy, S.S.: The agricultural land reserves of British Columbia: an impact analysis. Land use in Canada series 13. Ottawa, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1978.Google Scholar
  39. Myers, P.: Zoning Hawaii. Washington, The Conservation Foundation 1976.Google Scholar
  40. NALS (National Agricultural Lands Study): The protection of farmland, executive summary. Washington, US Government Printing Office 1980.Google Scholar
  41. NALS (National Agricultural Lands Study): Final report. Washington, US Government Printing Office 1981.Google Scholar
  42. 1000 Friends of Oregon: Four year report 1975–1979. Portland, Ore., 1000 Friends of Oregon 1980.Google Scholar
  43. Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Agricultural land use policy of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Toronto, Policy statement adopted at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Annual Convention, November 27th, 1974.Google Scholar
  44. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Foodland guidelines. Toronto, Queen's Printer 1977.Google Scholar
  45. Ontario Ministry of Housing and County of Huron: Countryside planning, a pilot study of Huron County. Toronto, Local Policy Branch, Ontario Ministry of Housing 1976.Google Scholar
  46. Pease, J.R., Jackson, P.L.: Farmland preservation in Oregon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 34, 6, 256–9 (1979)Google Scholar
  47. Pierce, J.T.: The BC Agricultural Land Commission: review and evaluation. Plan Canada 21, 2, 48–56 (1981)Google Scholar
  48. Pierce, J.T., Furuseth, O.J.: A comparative analysis of farmland preservation programs in North America. Mimeo. Vancouver, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University 1981.Google Scholar
  49. Piianaia, I.A.: The traditional Hawaiian land system and contemporary planning. Mimeo. Honolulu, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii 1980.Google Scholar
  50. Quebec, Government of: Loi sur la protection du territoire agricole: renseignements généraux. Québec, Commission de Protection du Territoire Agricole du Québec 1979.Google Scholar
  51. Raup, P.: What is prime land? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31, 180–1 (1976)Google Scholar
  52. Rawson, M.: III fares the land. Urban prospects study. Ottawa, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs 1976.Google Scholar
  53. Reilly, W. (ed.): The use of land: a citizen's guide to urban growth. New York, Crowell 1973.Google Scholar
  54. Roberts, N.A., Brown, H.J.: Property tax preference for agricultural land. Montclair, NJ, Allanheld, Osmun and Co. and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 1980.Google Scholar
  55. Runka, G.G.: British Columbia's agricultural land preservation program. In: Land use: tough choices in today's world, pp. 135–143. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1977.Google Scholar
  56. Sampson, R.N.: The ethical dimension of farmland protection. In: Schnepf, M. (ed.), Farmland, food and the future, pp. 89–98. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1979.Google Scholar
  57. Sullivan, J.P.: Agricultural districts: the New York experience in farmland preservation. In: Land use: tough choices in today's world, pp. 122–30. Ankeny, Iowa, Soil Conservation Society of America 1977.Google Scholar
  58. Troughton, M.J.: The policy and legislative response to loss of agricultural land in Canada. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian Association of Geographers. Cornerbrook, Newfoundland 1981.Google Scholar
  59. Troughton, M.J.: Agriculture and the countryside. In: Troughton, M.J., Nelson, J.G., Brown, S. (eds.), The countryside in Ontario, pp. 45–77. London, Ontario, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario 1976.Google Scholar
  60. Warren, C.L., Rump, C.L.: The urbanization of rural land in Canada: 1966–1971 and 1971–1976. Land use in Canada series 20. Ottawa, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1981.Google Scholar
  61. White, G.: Environmental impact statements. Professional Geographer 24, 302–9 (1972)Google Scholar
  62. Whitney, J., Plewes, M. (eds.): Environmental impact assessment in Canada: prospects and problems. Publication E55. Toronto, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto 1977.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, G.D.V., Pocock, N.J., Russwurm, L.H.: The spatial association of agroclimatic resources and urban population in Canada. In: Irving, R.M. (ed.), Readings in Canadian geography, 3. edn. Toronto, Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryant C. R. 
    • 1
  • Russwurm L. H. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations