Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 529–536 | Cite as

Farmland loss and concern in the Treasure Valley

Article

Abstract

Structural changes in the agriculture and food system have resulted in larger but fewer farms, while increasing populations in urban areas have pushed development into rural areas. Despite these changes, little research has examined the concern of individuals with regards to loss of farmland and how this may vary based on geography. Building on Bell’s argument that the rural–urban continuum still exists and remains an important part of rural residents’ identity, in this article we examine residents’ concern over loss of farmland as a result of urban growth. We pay particularly close attention to urban–rural differences over concern with loss of farmland. Utilizing survey data collected from over 400 households in the Treasure Valley, a region of the western United States, our results indicate that rural residents show greater levels of concern with farmland loss when compared to their urban counterparts.

Keywords

Farmland preservation Farmland use change Policy Rural–urban continuum Urbanization Western United States 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project is supported by the National Science Foundation, Award No. IIA-1301792.

References

  1. Altman, I., and S. Low. 1999. Place attachment. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Arriaza, M., J. F. Cañas-Ortega, J. A. Cañas-Madueño, and P. Ruiz-Aviles. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beggs, J. J., V. A. Haines, and J. S. Hurlbert. 1996. Revisiting the rural-urban contrast: Personal networks in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan settings. Rural Sociology 61 (2): 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, M. M. 1992. The fruit of difference: The rural-urban continuum as a system of identity. Rural Sociology 57 (1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengston, D. N., J. O. Fletcher, and K. C. Nelson. 2003. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengston, D. N., R. S. Potts, D. P. Fan, and E. G. Goetz. 2005. An analysis of the public discourse about urban sprawl in the United States: Monitoring concern about a major threat to forests. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (5): 745–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boehlje, M. 1999. Structural changes in the agricultural industries: How do we measure, analyze and understand them? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 (5): 1028–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, D. G., K. M. Johnson, T. R. Loveland, and D.A. Theobald. 2005. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15 (6): 1851–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen-Vogel, L., and M. McLendon. 2009. New approaches to understanding federal involvement in education. In Handbook of education policy research. A handbook for the american educational research association, eds. D. Plank, G. Sykes, and B. Schneider, 735–748. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Dahal, K. R., S. Benner, and E. Lindquist. 2016. Analyzing spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization in Treasure Valley, Idaho, USA. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 9 (32): 1–22.Google Scholar
  11. Daniels, T. 2000. Integrated working landscape protection: The case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Society and Natural Resources 13 (3): 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer, J. F., and G. M. Childs. 2004. Movement of people across the landscape: A blurring of distinctions between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckberg, D. L., and T. J. Blocker. 1996. Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35 (4): 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey, T., and M. A. Works. 2002. Urban sprawl and rural landscapes: Perceptions of landscpae as amenity in Portland, Oregon. Local Environment 7 (4), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, R. E., J. M. Fly, and H. K. Cordell. 1999. How green is my valley: Tracking rural and urban environmentalism in the southern Appalachian ecoregion. Rural Sociology 64 (3): 482–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, R. E., J. M. Fly, J. Talley, and H. K. Cordell. 2003. Green Migration into Rural America: The new frontier of environmentalism? Society and Natural Resources 16 (3): 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan, A., T. Taskin, and A. Onenc. 2006. Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban-fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosystems Engineering 95 (3): 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  19. Kittredge, D. B., A. G. S. Gianotti, L. R. Hutyra, D. R. Forster, and J. M. Getson. 2015. Landowner conservation awareness across rural-to-urban gradients in Massachusetts. Biological Conservation 184: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu, X., A. Vedlitz, and L. Shi. 2014. Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environmental Science and Policy 39: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyson, T. 2007. Civic agriculture and the North American food system. In Remaking the North American food system: Strategies for sustainability, eds. C. C. Hinrichs, and T. Lyson, 19–32. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  22. Masuda, J. R., and T. Garvin. 2008. Whose heartland? The politics of place in a rural-urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nixon, D. V., and L. Newman. 2016. The efficacy and politics of farmland preservation through land use regulation: Changes in Southwest British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve. Land Use Policy 59: 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orsini, S. 2013. Landscape polarisation, hobby farmers and a valuable hill in Tuscany: Understanding landscape dynamics in a peri-urban context. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 113 (1): 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qviström, M. 2007. Landscapes out of order: Studying the inner urban fringe beyond the rural-urban divide. Geografiska Annaler 89 (3): 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogge, E., F. Nevens, and H. Gulinck. 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sabatier, P. A. 1998. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Science 21: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sharp, J. S., and M. B. Smith. 2003. Social capital at the rural-urban interface: The importance of nonfarmer and farmer relations. Agricultural Systems 72: 913–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shumway, J. M., and S. M. Otterstrom. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the Mountain West: The dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. The Professional Geographer 53 (4): 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Soini, K., H. Vaarala, and E. Pouta. 2012. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning 104: 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stedman, R. C. 2002. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34 (5): 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stedman, R. C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources 16 (8): 671–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stedman, R. 2006. Understanding place attachment among second home owners. American Behavioral Scientists 50: 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Theodori, G. L., and A. E. Luloff. 2000. Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas. Society and Natural Resources 13 (5): 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unger, S., and E. Thompson. 2013. Saving farmland, growing cities: A framework for implementing effective farmland conservation policies in the San Joaquin Valley. ed. C. A. Davis American Farmland Trust. https://4aa2dc132bb150caf1aa-7bb737f4349b47aa42dce777a72d5264.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/FINALSJVREPORTPDF1-14-13.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2017.
  36. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2017. QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00. Accessed 8 February 2017.
  37. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2012. Census Publications State and County Profiles, Idaho. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Idaho/. Accessed 8 February 2017.
  38. Valentine, G. 1997. A safe place to grow up? Parenting, perceptions of children’s safety and the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies 13 (2): 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Viglizzo, E. F., J. M. Paruelo, P. Laterra, and E. G. Jobbagy. 2012. Ecosystem service evaluation to support land-use policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 154: 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zahariadis, N. 2007. Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the European Union Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, May 17–19. http://aei.pitt.edu/8031/1/zahariadis-n-10f.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public ServiceBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations