Welcome to the literature area of the FIC Web site. Here you will find a collection of articles, books, fact sheets and technical memos, reports and studies related to saving farm and ranch land and supporting agriculture. You can filter by state, topic and/or type of document ("category"). Use the Search feature to conduct a more refined search.
If housing markets exhibit slow adjustment to system shocks, then hedonic estimates of the price impact from environmental amenity trends may be time variant. This paper suggests an alternative to the cross-sectional model for estimating hedonic prices using an error correction approach that allows for endogenous environmental quality. The model is applied to data concerning an open space purchase program in Boulder, Colorado, and shows that the economic impact of an open space purchase takes several years to be fully realized. This observation questions using cross-sectional, hedonic models for evaluating willingness to pay for time-trended environmental amenities.
This baseline analysis is therefore intended to initiate discussion among City policymakers, staff, and community members to consider the impact that the City’s food system might have on different areas of public concern. It also begins to assess the potential for increasing the consumption of local foods among Oakland residents. This includes exploring how systems of production, distribution, processing, consumption, and waste, as well as city planning and policymaking could support the objective of having at least 30 percent of the City's food needs sourced from within the City and immediate region.
Healthy food access is not just about increasing food retail, though that is a critical component. It is also about creating and supporting the food production, processing and distribution infrastructure necessary to get healthy food to the places where it can’t currently be found. Within the food system, there is a great variety of enterprises with a wide spectrum of capital and technical assistance needs. Enterprises all along this continuum need access to the right match of capital and related technical assistance.
Just as healthy food system enterprises are wondering how to understand and access capital and related technical assistance, CDFIs are wondering what healthy food systems are and how to go about financing them.
This is a chapter from Financing Healthy Food Options: Implementation Handbook.
From the Pacific Northwest to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, producers and producer-owned cooperatives are creating ways to use the Internet to make direct connections with consumers. In late March 2005, the National Farmers Union (NFU) unveiled its new e-cooperatives.com Web site to provide an online, retail marketplace through which farmers, ranchers and their co-ops can market and sell niche goods and services directly to consumers. The new Web site reflects growing farmer interest in learning how to effectively use the Internet as a marketing and sales tool.
Speech given by Norm Berg at the South Central Area meeting of the National Association of Conservation Districts in Houston, Texas.
The Indiana State Department of Agriculture and Indiana Land Resources Council believe the model agricultural zoning ordinances in this guide are valuable to counties across the state as they make proactive decisions about land use. There are many different strategies to accommodate the land use needs of a community, and the best approach for each county is to tailor solutions to its unique characteristics. These models are intended to address land use issues that arise because of the variety of residential and agricultural uses found in rural Indiana today.
A Healthy Community Food System Plan is just one of several reports prepared by Region of Waterloo Public Health as part of the implementation of the Regional Growth Management Strategy. This report contains a key informant consultation process, presents the community food system plan that consultation process developed, and informs further Public Health action related to food systems themes and the Growth Management Strategy.
Many would agree that whenever they hear the phrase, “local food system” they think of the local farmer; and the vegetables they may sell at the farmers’ market. If you asked a farmer what the definition of the local food system is, he or she would tell you that they are not the only players in the chain of activities your food passes through from field to fork. The local food system also includes butchers, millers, truck drivers, local grocers, and the community that supports them in all their efforts (Larsen).
A food system is defined as the chain of activities connecting food production, processing, distribution, marketing, access, consumption, and waste management. It includes the diverse agriculture system that produces our food, our natural resource base and our people who live and work in the region. The food system is a diverse and complex system that everyone of us participates in. As a eater do you consider every other piece of the food system: the farmer in the production sector, the person who slaughters the pig for your ham sandwich or the garbage collector who collects your trash each week? Our food system is deeply integrated into our daily lives and the activities of the communities where we live.
This local food system plan is a result of multiple organizations and partners in Linn and Johnson counties who created a Task Force to identify issues in the local food system and develop a strategic food system plan to address them. The Linn-Johnson Local Food Task Force’s mission was to develop strategic partnerships to revitalize a local food system within the Corridor. Their vision describes the Corridor as a place that embraces local foods in a diversified and environmentally conscious agricultural community; serving as a hub for a revitalized regional food system.
This handbook is intended to assist landowners in making land available for farming by others. It examines leasing procedures, zoning, environmental and stewardship considerations, agricultural easements, insurance and liability, finding a tenant, working with beginning farmers, and legal issues.
The Florida panther has been virtually eliminated from most of its range in the southeastern United States. Forty-seven percent of the habitat in which the 30 to 50 remaining adults live is publicly owned; the other 53 percent is privately held. Through a unique partnership, the result of a town meeting where landowners expressed disapproval over current proposals to protect panthers on their land, the Florida Advisory Council for Environmental Education (FACEE), Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission), and American Farmland Trust, utilized a new approach: asking landowners what they thought would be effective ways to protect the panther’s habitat. Too much land is at stake to allow for the option of land acquisition. Without any mechanism in place to help the vast majority of Florida farmers pass on the costs of environmental protection to the public, providing landowner’s with economic incentives to protect land will help increase the panther’s habitat. The plan’s intention is to turn panthers and natural resource protection into an asset for landowners. Part of the Conceptual Plan seeks to compensate landowners for giving up non-agricultural development rights – those rights not related to or required for agricultural production – for a minimum of 25 years – long enough to determine if the Florida panther can be saved and to work out long-term protection and management strategies. The Conceptual Plan proposed by the landowner working groups offers three levels of possible compensation, with economic analysis and plan review done by a diverse 44 member review committee. The landowners’ conceptual plan includes: planning and implementation; compensation, with a variety of calculation samples; the advantages of the conceptual plan; methods of monitoring and plan evaluation; and, comments from the review committee.
This factsheet provides some basic information about creating an effective farmland lease.
Cost of community service (COCS) studies, which compare the ratio of expenditures-to-revenues for different land uses, are increasingly popular and influential in debates about municipal landuse planning. In this paper, we conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of COCS studies that focus on three land-use categories: residential, commercial/industrial, and agricultural/open-space. The dataset consists of 125 studies that take place across the United States. Using data from the studies themselves and the U.S. Census, we estimate models to investigate underlying patterns regarding the effect of different methodological assumptions and the geographic and financial characteristics of communities. Many of the results have implications for the conduct and interpretation of COCS studies in particular and the fiscal impacts of land use in general.
In the late 1990s, leadership in the Virginia agriculture and forestry sector took note of two trends which will shape the future of agriculture in Virginia, namely, the loss of farm and forest businesses and the loss of Virginia’s working farm and forestlands to development. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the challenge posed by these two trends, describe the strategies adopted by the 2000 and 2001 General Assemblies to deal with these challenges and to provide details of a model purchase of development rights (PDR) plan developed at the direction of the General Assembly.
The 1985 Farm Bill provides for a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which offers owners or eligible operators of “highly erodible cropland” to keep such land in vegetative cover for ten years in exchange for annual rents paid by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and for the Department’s financial and technical assistance in establishing the cover. Samples were drawn of CRP bidders and nonparticipants; individuals from both groups owned cropland in the same sets of counties that was generally eligible for the program, and land bid for the program had to be either clearly eligible for the program according to available information or possibly eligible. Forty-six point nine percent of nonbidders claimed they did not bid their land into the CRP because they thought it was not eligible for the program. Twenty-four point seven percent thought the annual rent payments expected from USDA were too low. Farm operators who bid land in March and May but not in the August signup failed to do so because of the perceived low level in CRP rent. Farmers who bid in March and May and intended to bid in August cited concern for conserving the land as their primary reason for joining CRP. Reactions to proposed modifications in the CRP show that permitting grazing and/or haying of CRP land, as well as announced levels of acceptable bid ahead of time, by class of land, and base levels on three year average of cash rents per class would make both bidders and nonbidders more willing to bid land.
Private land trusts play an increasingly important role in farm and ranch land protection. However, it can be difficult for landowners to identify land trusts interested in protecting agricultural land for agriculture, especially in states not served by public farmland protection programs. With support from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), American Farmland Trust conducted a nationwide survey of private land trusts to identify organizations that actively protect farm and ranch land for agriculture, and to quantify the amount of agricultural land they have protected.
Attachments are included.
This study shows that urban land uses generate an average of 58 times more greenhouse gases per acre than the production of California's leading crops. This means that conserving farmland by preventing its development is an effective strategy for alleviating climate change. The study found that emissions from seven crops grown on four million acres of the state’s farmland – including rice, tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, wine grapes, corn and alfalfa – averaged 0.89 tons of CO2 equivalent per acre, while those from residential, commercial and industrial land uses in 13 California cities averaged 51 tons per acre.