 |
| A
perpetual investment in Oregon's economy and
environment |
|
Oregon Department of
Agriculture, 2012
Brent Searle, Policy Analyst/Economist
Between 15 million and 17 million acres of land in
the state of Oregon is under farm or ranch
operation. Roughly 38,000 operators manage these
lands—planting and cultivating crops on
approximately 5 million acres; raising livestock on
pasturelands and rangelands of approximately 10
million acres; and managing forest and woodlands,
wetlands, and other conservation resources on the
remaining 2 million acres.
This farmland, like other natural
resources, does not exist as an unlimited supply as
it was considered at the time of westward expansion.
|
|
|
|
| Oregon agriculture is
adaptive, renewable, sustainable, efficient |
|
Oregon Agriculture
Lands are:
- Adaptive,
- Renewable,
- Sustainable,
- Efficient,
- Locally owned,
- Perpetual,
- Interconnected with the larger economy,
- Provide Numberous Amenities, and are
- Growing more important.
Adaptability: The crops and
commodities produced at any land location may change
over time in response to market signals, technology,
climate, and consumer demand. Witness the rise in
production of nursery products, wine grapes,
blueberries, grains, and specialty vegetable and
seed crops in the past decade even as there has been
a decline in acreage devoted to grass seed, some
commercial vegetable crops, strawberries, hops, and
garlic.
To sharpen the point on this topic a bit, consider
that wine grapes in the Willamette Valley are
primarily grown on hillsides that were previously
considered profitable only for sheep grazing. The
comparative value of grapes to sheep demonstrates
that a snapshot portrait of agriculture can
short-sell the adaptability and value of the land
for agricultural purposes, even when still used for
agriculture production.
Renewable: Agriculture lands
are THE source of renewable food, fiber, fuel, and
many medicinal products — and if the land is
protected and properly managed it will continue
producing into perpetuity. Soils require proper
management, and can be enhanced or depleted
depending on cropping or grazing techniques used.
Properly managed, they are “regenerative,” that is
to say, soils are a composit of organic and
inorganic stuff -- minerals, rock, clay, decayed
organic material, microbes, worms, etc. – which
interact in a symbiotic relationship which can be
enhanced and maintained far into the future.
Further, agriculture lands can be the intersection
or nexus for many associated economic activities,
such as renewable energy. We see this most clearly
demonstrated with wind turbines spread across north
central and eastern Oregon. The “footprint” of wind
turbines are relatively small, but provide farmers
or ranchers with an additional source of income,
while still being able to grow wheat or raise
livestock in conjunction with this new use that has
minimal disruption to the agriculture operation.
Sustainability: Agriculture
is one of the most constant and stable economic
engines our economy has, while also producing many
ecological and community benefits:
- More than 1,100 farms in Oregon have been
operated by the same families for over 100
years; 22 for more than 150 years. There is
no other industry in the state with that type of
sustainable, long-term record of operation.
- Properly managed, agricultural soils can
continue producing crops, livestock, fiber and
other materials, and providing carbon
sequestration, wildlife habitat, open spaces,
and other amenities critical to human
subsistence and enjoyment for generations to
come.
- On-going research with seed genetics,
management practices, and a conservation mindset
enable growers to utilize fewer inputs, such as
fertilizers and pesticides, on their operations.
Agriculture efficiency is
another factor that has increased dramatically over
time and will undoubtedly continue in the future,
making any measure of future productivity based on a
single point in time a simplistic approach. Today
the average American farmer can feed as many as 155
people, compared to 27 in 1950. Developments in
technology, mechanization, agronomy, water
conservation, hybrid seeds, and other applications
make agriculture a continually evolving and
effective means of generating more output (economic
activity) on existing farmlands in increasingly
environmentally friendly ways.
A recent study demonstrates that productivity growth
over the 1947-85 periods accounted for 82 percent of
the economic growth in agriculture, compared with
only 13 percent in the private non-farm economy
Moreover, the rate of productivity growth over this
period in agriculture (1.58 percent) was nearly four
times the corresponding rate in the private non-farm
economy (0.44 percent).
(“U.S. Agriculture, 1960-96: A Multilateral
Comparison of Total Factor Productivity,” V. Eldon
Ball, Jean-Pierre Butault, and Richard Nehring:
Technical Bulletin 1895, May 2001, USDA/ERS)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity
Oregon had the highest average annual
productivity change between 1960 and 2004 of any
state in the entire U.S., demonstrating the
inginuity, creativity, specialized knowledge, and
dedication of Oregon’s agriculture and associated
support sectors.
The productivity increases in agriculture are not an
argument in favor of farmland conversion due to the
ability to generate more output on less land. Quite
the opposite. Increased productivity means that
agriculture lands are increasingly valuable, and
provide an ever-diversified array of products which
humans require to sustain and improve quality of
life.
Efficiency also means the consumer
in the USA spends less time earning enough money to
buy food than in any other country in the world at
any point in history — on average, less than 9% of
disposable income goes for food in the United
States. Consumers in Japan will pay nearly 21%;
Germans pay out over 18% of disposable income; the
French, nearly 16%; and in developing countries,
roughly 50% of income goes for food. Countries that
have small production bases relative to population,
and which import large portions of their food supply
pay significantly higher prices.
Here is clear relationship demonstrating that loss
of farmland is not without a price to the larger
population. While developers of farmland may benefit
in the short-term, the cumulative cost to society
grows. Retaining a viable agriculture base
through appropriate land use planning and protection
is a long-term investment strategy in food security
and economic sustainability of a community and a
nation.
Locally owned: In Oregon over 60%
of agriculture land is owned and operated by local
farm families. A large portion of the remaining
acreage is owned by retired farmers or widowed
landlords who rely on rental income from other
farmily farmers as a significant source of their
retirement proceeds. Local ownership means dollars
are retained and circulated more in the local
economy.
- More than 98% of Oregon farms are operated
by families, with 88% being sole proprietor
single-family operators, 5% being family
partnerships, and about 5% operated as
family-held corporations. Very few non-family
corporations own or operate farms in Oregon.
A rising interest in locally grown food and fiber
are also creating new markets and additional social
linkages as well.
Interconected with the Larger Economy:
Oregon State University, Department of Agriculture
and Resource Economics, conducted a comprehensive
analysis of the agriculture industry cluster in 2011
(based on 2009 data).
This report highlights the fact that the production
sector of agriculture – crops, livestock, and other
outputs – serves as the nexus of many industries.
Linked together, these associated sectors make up
the agriculture “cluster,” consisting of seven
categories:
- Production
- Processing
- Agriculture Support Services
- Wholesale Trade
- Transportation & Warehousing
- Food Services & Drinking Places
- Retail Trade
The aggregate direct economic output, employment,
and value added of the agriculture cluster comprises
over 10% of Oregon’s entire economic output, and 1
of every 8 jobs (12%).
Table 8.—Oregon agricultural output,
employment, and value added (2009).
| Aggregated sector |
Output—Sales
($000) |
Employment
(full- & part-time jobs) |
Value added
($000) |
|
Production |
4,321,666 |
54,120 |
1,607,990 |
|
Processing |
12,355,613 |
31,308 |
2,232,797 |
|
Ag. support services |
238,105 |
7,762 |
182,820 |
|
Wholesale trade |
2,568,297 |
12,958 |
1,689,559 |
|
Transportation & warehousing |
743,518 |
4,859 |
356,620 |
|
Retail trade |
980,933 |
16,369 |
828,492 |
|
Food services & drinking places |
7,696,380 |
133,365 |
4,026,638 |
|
Total agriculture |
28,904,512 |
260,742 |
10,924,917 |
|
Total all Oregon sectors |
278,803,857 |
2,177,594 |
153,024,613 |
|
Portion agriculture (%) |
10.4 |
12.0 |
7.1 |
Source:
Oregon Agriculture and the Economy: An Update,
(Table 8) Oregon State University Extension Service,
Rural Studies Program February 2011, Bruce Sorte,
Community Economist; Paul Lewin, Doctoral Candidate;
Pamela Opfer Analyst.
Provides Numerous Amenities:
Environmental Amenities
- open space
- soil conservation
- biodiversity
- wildlife habitat
- recreational opportunities
- scenic vistas
- isolation from congestion
- watershed protection
- flood control
- groundwater recharge
Rural Development Amenities
- rural income and employment
- viable rural communities
- diversified local economy
Social Amenities
- maintaining traditional country life
- maintaining a [family] farm structure
- maintaining local cultural heritage and link
to history.
“These rural amenities are often a byproduct of the
agricultural production process. Ensuring the
continued availability of these rural amenities may
be the most important reason for farmland
protection, especially for farmland protection near
urban areas. Consequently, information on the
relative importance of these rural amenities can be
useful when considering the current state and future
direction of farmland protection programs.”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/landuse/urbanchapter.htm
Perpetual and Growing;
History has shown that agriculture lands can be
productive year after year — and increasingly so at
an accelerated pace. It would be a mistake to
minimize agriculture’s future contributions to
society as being of little or no value due to
analysis based on a constant time value of money
with a constant income stream i.e. the same amount
of income year after year. Oregon agriculture is not
stagnate. Land in agriculture production is
renewable, perpetual and adaptive. These
characteristics of farm management, coupled with
scientific and technological advances, increased
demands and increased yields have led to annual
increases in gross revenue per acre that has enabled
agriculture production not only to be sustainable in
perpetuity but also to continue to grow.
Oregon’s agriculture industry has a history of
growth. Annual increases in productivity spurred
Oregon’s agriculture total output to grow (in
nominal dollars) from $428 million in 1964 to $4.4
billion in 2010 – a 10 fold increase! That equates
to an annual increase of 4.93% compounded annually,
accounting only for value of production increase and
no other amenities or external benefits.
It is prudent to expect agriculture to continue to
grow and contribute more to the country’s economy in
the future. Even while the world’s consumers
(population) is continuing to grow, the amount of
high value farmland is decreasing; yet, new
technologies are creating increased production per
acre and all of this on top of a steady general
inflation rate. Again, it would be a mistake,
however, to use productivity increases to argue that
less farmland is needed.
Even though the projection of a continued annual
increase in gross production and revenue per acre is
evident, such an analysis is based only on the
productive value of the asset, and misses many other
significant contributions that are necessary to
consider in any valuation of farmland.
|
|
|
|
| Economic multiplier |
|
Agriculture’s economic
contribution does not begin or end at the farm gate.
Oregon agriculture supports many local and regional
businesses with millions of dollars spent on seed
($158 million); fertilizer and soil conditioners
($245 million); feed ($455 million); hired labor
(over $900 million); fuels ($191 million); chemical
products ($166 million); supplies, repairs and
maintenance ($312 million); construction and repair
for farm buildings, animal housing, and equipment
(~$50 million); machine hire and custom work ($75
million); veterinary services; transportation
services, warehousing/storage and wholesale
marketing ($225 million); business services, such as
accounting, legal services, payroll services,
banking and financial services; crop consultants;
farm equipment repairs and parts ($206 million);
product inspection and certification services,
licensing and other services ($50 million) … and
much more. Processing adds about $2 billion to the
value of the farm products (packaging, labor,
shipping, etc.).
Much of Oregon’s agricultural and processed food
products (over 80%) are shipped out of state,
thereby generating export dollars. The high
percentage of agriculture products that are exported
make the concept of Traded Sector Economics very
important in evaluating the relative contribution
agriculture provides to our economy. “New” dollars
generated into the economy by exporting add real
growth in Oregon’s economy. After considering these
factors, most agricultural economists use a
multiplier between 2 and 8, depending on the breadth
of the cluster reach used in the analysis. The
following analysis uses a conservative multiplier of
6. Referencing the farmgate sales to total
agriculture impact by the OSU analysis generates
multipliers between 7 and 9.
When combined, the direct, indirect, and induced
expenditures associated with the agriculture cluster
are even more significant – nearly 18% of the total
economic sales, 20% of employment and 15% of value
added. And this is not accounting for any of the
amenities discussed elsewhere.
Table 9.—Oregon agriculture’s economic
footprint (2009).
| Aggregated sector |
Output—Sales
($000) |
Employment (full-
& part-time jobs) |
Value added ($000) |
|
Production |
5,745,810 |
62,885 |
2,622,376 |
|
Processing |
20,541,299 |
98,815 |
6,991,892 |
|
Ag. support services |
501,025 |
9,847 |
325,967 |
|
Food services & drinking places |
14,610,626 |
188,036 |
7,944,652 |
|
Subtotal—Production, processing, ag. support
services, and food services & drinking
places |
41,398,759 |
359,583 |
17,884,887 |
|
Wholesale trade |
4,636,806 |
30,368 |
2,928,210 |
|
Transportation & warehousing |
1,418,687 |
10,873 |
759,378 |
|
Retail trade—Food and beverage |
1,641,518 |
22,067 |
1,223,297 |
|
Total agriculture |
49,095,771 |
422,891 |
22,795,773 |
|
Total all Oregon sectors
|
278,803,857 |
2,177,594 |
153,024,613 |
|
Portion agriculture (%) |
17.6% |
19.4% |
14.9% |
Source:
Oregon Agriculture and the Economy: An Update,
(Table 9) Oregon State University Extension
Service, Rural Studies Program February 2011, Bruce
Sorte, Community Economist; Paul Lewin, Doctoral
Candidate; Pamela Opfer, Analyst.
|
|
|
|
| Case study: Washington
County agriculture metrics |
|
Since Washington County is
often at the heart of the debate about land use and
additional agricultural lands being brought into the
urban growth boundary, this analysis will examine
the benefit stream from agricultural lands and
production in Washington County, and the costs
associated with converting the land to non-farm use.
A similar analysis could be conducted for any
country, or the state as a whole.
|
Number of Farms
(Washington County)
|
1,900
(2002 Census of Agriculture) |
1,761
(2007 Census of Agriculture) |
|
Land in Farms |
130,683 acres, or 28.3%
of the land in the County |
127,984 acres, or 27.7%
of the land in the County |
|
Land Loss Rate |
Washington County has
lost 58,000 acres of farmland in the past 28
years –1.3% per year conversion rate and
increasing. |
2,700 acres lost from
agriculture between 2002 and 2007, 2% of the
ag land base. |
|
Financial Investment |
Each farm represents an
average investment value of $538,000, a
total of over $1 billion countywide in land
and building assets. Another $90 million is
invested in machinery |
$740,000/farm avg.
investment in land and buildings = $1.3
billion countywide assets. Additional $80
million in machinery & equipment. |
|
Gross farm sales
(market value) |
$223 million (2003) |
$311.4 million (2007) |
|
Economic Multiplier |
6 |
6 |
|
Economic Impact |
$1.3 billion |
$1.9 billion |
Approximately $1.3 billion in land and attached
assets (farm land) are generating nearly $2 billion
dollars per year in local and regional economic
activity. Every year this land asset is generating a
perpetual, renewable economic value throughout the
community that is greater than the value of the land
itself. This output is in the form of real products
derived from the input (demand) of real products and
services, not simply appreciation or changes in
valuations. The land is the genesis of our food and
fiber – things people need to survive and thrive.
Farms in Oregon are largely single owner,
proprietary, entrepreneurial operations.
Individually, depending on size, they may not affect
Oregon’s economy much. Collectively, farm production
value, food processing, warehousing, transportation,
marketing, and all other aspects of services and
related functions in the industry equates to nearly
$50 billion in economic value – a significant part
of Oregon’s overall economy, and second only to the
high tech industry.
It is critical to note that the loss of productive
capacity from individual farms and associated land
converted to other uses translates into loss of
demand for inputs, services, equipment, processing,
and related activities. The impacts ripple through
the economy and affect other farming operations.
There is a tipping point where processing can no
longer be supplied, or demand for services and
equipment is not sufficient for support businesses
to be justified.
In Washington County, each of the 1,761 farms, on
average, represent an annual stimulus of $1.87
million to the County’s economy (using average farm
sales of $311,000 and the multiplier of 6).
Employing an annual productivity growth factor
increase of 2.5% (Oregon’s average agriculture
annual growth factor from 1948 to 2004), projected
over the next 50 years (anticipating increased
productivity, efficiencies, new technological
developments, and adoption of renewable energy), the
projected economic stream amounts to a minimum of
$64 million for each farm over this period just from
productivity growth.
One must realize that some soils are more productive
than others and therefore the contribution from the
best soils will be higher than this average and the
poorer soils may be lower — but this is not a static
measure, as wine grapes are now grown on what was
previously considered less productive soils on
hillsides and nursery crops are grown in containers
on land that may not otherwise be productive for row
crops. Several factors influence the productivity of
agricultural output, including the managerial
adeptness of the farmer and the adoption of new
technologies and practices. The availability
of the land resource to adjust to these influences
is the critical issue.
|
|
|
|
| Cost of a shrinking
infrastructure: |
|
In addition to the obvious
direct cost to the economy, the loss of farmland can
create a hidden cost or drag to the remaining farm
community. The efficiencies of the remaining farms
may be adversely affected by the shrinking land
base. “Cluster” development is well understood to
have a cumulative benefit to productivity; so it is
that a large enough land base for viable commercial
agriculture production enables the volume of
products in sufficient quantities to attract
processing companies, distributors, equipment
dealers, service providers, suppliers, and other
businesses. In addition, farmers depend on
surrounding operators for custom work, machine
rentals, markets for hay, plants, seed, land trades,
and land rentals. As the volume of agricultural
lands is reduced, the cumulative and symbiotic
reliance of this cluster structure is undermined and
precipitates the decline of general agriculture
viability in an area. It goes beyond the individual
farmland that is lost.
|
|
|
|
| Societal cost of farmland
development |
|
In addition to the loss of
economic activity associated with agriculture use,
there are also increased societal costs in
converting land to non-farm purposes.
One way of calculating the net economic impact
resulting from conversion of farmland to residential
development is to compare the costs of providing
community services for residential versus farmland
on a per acre demand for public (tax) services. For
example, new uses will likely increase demands for
social programs, public health and safety, highway
construction and maintenance, public works, schools,
etc. Some of these already were provided to
agricultural land, but with conversion to urban uses
there will be an increase in support levels which
denser development brings.
Cost-of-community-service studies have recently been
developed to measure the costs of providing public
services to various land uses. Costs of public
services are apportioned according to demands
generated by land use category. These costs are then
compared to the revenues from each land use
category. Residential costs typically exceed
revenues while commercial/industrial and farm/open
land categories generate more than they use. (The
Economics of Maintaining Land in Agriculture in
Fresno County, Dennis L. Nef, CATI Publication
#960802, August 1996,)
This study reports: “Assuming land values represent
the capitalized value of income from the land, an
acre of development in the [study] area results in
losses of $3,840-$7,900. Using a multiplier of 3.5
yields additional losses of $13,445-$27,670 to the
county from lost agricultural sales. Thus, total
costs in terms of lost agricultural production are
in the range of $17,250 to $35,500 per acre.”
In evaluating fiscal impacts to government and
associated costs (taxes and fees), this report
concludes: “The costs and returns to government
agencies of developing a particular site can be
quantified (Burchell and Listoken). The costs of
streets, sewer, water and solid wastes systems,
parks and recreation, police, fire and government
must be considered. Revenues from developers’ fees,
increased property taxes, other taxes and charges
are also calculated. Based on community plans for
adjacent areas, expected growth patterns were
determined for each study site. These growth
patterns were then used to estimate the needed
infrastructure. Costs and revenues from developer
fees were then calculated based on current fee
structures… development costs exceed fees in all 3
[study] locations…”
Based on information developed by the American
Farmland Trust (Cosgrove 1994), for every dollar
spent in taxes for community services in New York
State (schools, infrastructure, etc.), residential
lands cost $1.32, while agricultural lands cost
$0.21. This assessment is based on farm use
valuation, which makes it even more impressive.
Developed lands require 6.3 times more in public tax
dollars to support and maintain in public services
than the same land in agricultural use.
In other words, residential development
requires more public expenditures than land in
agricultural use, and places a greater burden on
taxpayers.
One might argue that increased residential
development brings in more tax payers to support the
higher costs. The costs, however, continue upward as
urbanization brings the need for additional police,
higher crime rates, social service needs, and so
forth.
According to a 1997 study in Onondaga County, in New
York State, the net economic impact from the sale of
100 acres of farmland for the development of twenty,
5-acre home plots was a loss of $32,800. Maintaining
the land in agriculture equaled a net gain of $2,383
(Onondaga County Farmland Protection Board 1997).
Nef explains the unmeasured costs and benefits in
this manner: “The benefits from converting
agricultural land to other uses obviously outweigh
the costs to developers or they would not continue
to develop farmland. The losses in terms of
productivity must be fully covered or the farmer
would not have sold the land for development. If
society finds development of farmland to be a
significant loss, it must value the losses more
highly than the market, which means that the market
is missing something. In such a situation,
developers are not paying the full costs of
development. In economic terms, an externality is
involved. An externality can exist if there is some
unpriced aspect of the land such as amenity value.
Society may value the open space (or other benefits)
associated with agricultural land, but this is not
fully taken into consideration in private market
transactions between buyers and sellers when the
property is developed. Government can overcome this
problem by "internalizing" the externality. That is,
the full costs of development must be apparent to
those making the decisions.”
http://www.cati.csufresno.edu/Cab/rese/96/960802/
Studies have been conducted to document the value
that the public places on farmland preservation,
giving some indication of the non-market price for
the entire “package of amenities and benefits” that
occur with operating farms and ranches. Many states,
and recently the federal government, have directed
public resources at farmland preservation,
purchasing easement or development rights that will
enable agriculture land to operate without
development pressures.
|
|
|
|
| Environmental costs of
farmland development |
|
Conversion of farmland to
developed uses may also present new environmental
costs.
Land that generated oxygen and sequestered carbon
(CO2 ) through plant/crop production, farm forest,
pasture, or other agricultural use becomes
impervious when paved over or covered with
buildings. This creates more runoff into waterways,
carrying pollutants from cars, trucks, and
industrial wastes over these surfaces that
previously absorbed rainfall. Development also
generates more traffic, resulting in more air
degradation, less open space, and reduction in
wildlife habitat.
Of course all human activity impacts the environment
in some manner — this is a matter of course in order
to survive as humans to obtain materials used to
house, feed, and clothe ourselves, and to develop
products that we use every day for business, home
life, and entertainment.
But the bigger the footprint of development (urban,
residential, commercial, etc.), the more impacts and
costs to the environment. As much as 75% of Oregon
wildlife spends part of its life on a farm or ranch.
With habitat loss due to urban encroachment, these
harbors of open spaces for wildlife are reduced.
Wildlife is crowded on to the remaining farms and
forests, which can result in damage to crops and
natural environments, even in urban settings.
Based on a $20-per-ton “price” ($3 to 4 dollars per
acre) for storing carbon to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the farmland acreage in Washington County
(128,000) represents approximately $450,000 in
annual value of sequestered carbon that is
benefiting the region.
Farmland also provides a sense of local
heritage and history, open space, and scenic beauty
— all non-market or “unpriced” amenities derived
from this resource.
|
|
|
|
| Alternative to
agricultural land conversion |
|
Most land uses competing for
farmland have viable alternatives. When the farmland
is gone, agriculture will be gone. Planners and
policy makers would be assisted greatly by
conducting a needs analysis that calculates the
costs to society that will result from the
additional conversion of farmland and compare this
costs to the marginal cost of alternative locations
for other land uses. Careful analysis of alternative
sites likely will show there is only a small
additional cost associated with avoiding farmland
conversion. Because competing land uses have
alternatives, only the additional cost of moving to
another site should be balanced against the total
loss resulting from farmland conversion.
Planners can assist in protecting the high-value
farm soils by locating competing uses first within
commercial or urban zones that are underutilized.
The result of this option will be that both the
farms and the competing use can contribute to
society into perpetuity. Society gets the benefits
of both uses in exchange for only the additional
cost of locating the competing use elsewhere. Only
when underutilized locations are exhausted should
planners look outside urban boundaries, and then to
less productive soils.
Planners and policy makers should make every effort
to evaluate alternatives to farmland conversion.
Such alternatives might include;
- Increasing urban densities by expanding
vertically instead of horizontally.
- Directing new developments onto in-fill and
non-productive soils.
- Using quarry rock instead of gravel derived
by stripping high value farmland soils.
- Constructing compact sewage treatment
facilities that can capture methane and produce
natural gas for productive use, instead of large
man-made, natural treatment wetlands on
high-value farmland soils.
- Routing utilities and conveyance
infrastructure to avoid high-value farmland
soils.
- Locating parks and golf courses away from
high-value farmland soils.
In some cases it might be advantageous for policy
makers and society to provide economic incentives
for business and industry to locate off high-value
farmland soils, or to create a system development
charge to compensate for the “externalities” which
are lost as a result of the conversion of farmland.
In other cases it will be important to make
investments in transportation systems and networks
that facilitate movement of agriculture and other
goods while minimizing impacts on farmland.
Society must carefully weigh the short-term
development cost savings that attract developers to
high-value farmland soils against the value to
society of the economic, ecologic, and cultural
benefits that agriculture offers.
|
|
|
|
| Conclusion |
|
This analysis is not an
argument against development. Rather, it attempts to
outline the breadth of benefits to society that
acrue due to agricultural lands, and to itemize the
total costs to society resulting from the conversion
of farm lands. The costs can be categorized
into the loss from agricultural production and
surrounding support businesses, the weakening of the
infrastructure and potential loss of processors, the
“extra” cost sink of urban or commercial
development, the increased impacts to the
environment, and loss of scenic beauty and tourism
value. All these impacts should be fully calculated
and evaluated by public officials, business
interests, and communities when considering where to
focus development. All other options must be
considered prior to identifying productive farmland
as a site for development.
Public officials, city and county leaders,
economists, home builders, aggregate miners,
business leaders, farmers, and others involved in
economic development and decisions related to land
use need to recognize the broad benefits to society
through farmland preservation and efforts to
minimize development impacts on agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands – even in urban areas – are
critical drivers that contribute substantially to
the region and the State’s economic engine and
identity. These assets represent perpetual,
renewable, adaptable, and sustainable economic,
cultural, and ecological values.
|
|
