No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Land Use Planning and Policy in the South*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Extract
It has become abundantly clear this nation is confronted with a set of issues regarding allocation and use of land resources which present profound challenges to agricultural economists as well as all citizens. The ability of existing institutions to adequately deal with land use policy questions is being increasingly questioned. The theoretical causes of market failure in land policy and alternatives to the market have been dealt with extensively in the literature and will not be repeated here. The purpose of this paper is to comment on research and educational programs and needs in land policy and planning with particular reference to the South.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977
Footnotes
*
This paper is an attenuated version of an invited paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association meetings in Atlanta, Georgia, February 9, 1977. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of anonymous reviewers and the Journal editor. The work reported herein was carried out with funding provided by the Southern Rural Development Center under its Functional Network Programs
References
[1]Barlowe, Raleigh. “Options in Land-Use Policy: A Summary View,” Presented to the Conference on Options in Land-Use Policy, Michigan State University, April 9, 1974, p. 2.Google Scholar
[2]Barlowe, Raleigh and Alter, Theodore R.. “Use-Value Assessment of Farm and Open Space Lands,” Research Report 308, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, September 1976.Google Scholar
[3]Barron, James C. and Thomson, James W.. Impacts of Open Space Taxation in Washington, Bulletin 772, Washington State University, March 1973.Google Scholar
[4]Batie, S. S., Long, B. F. and DeJong, D. S.. Southern United States Land Use Legislation: A Legal Inventory, Research Division Bulletin 103, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, July 1975.Google Scholar
[5]Bergin, Thomas F. “Price-Exclusionary Zoning: A Social Analysis,” St. Johns Law Review, Volume 47, No. 1, October 1972, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
[6]Carman, Hoy F. and Poison, Jim G.. “Tax Shifts Occuring as a Result of Differential Assessment of Farmland: California, 1968-69,” National Tax Journal, Volume 24, No. 4, December 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Conklin, Howard E. and Bryant, W. R.. “Agricultural Districts: A Compromise Approach to Agricultural Preservation,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56.Google Scholar
[8]Costonio, J. J. “Development Rights Transfer: An Exploratory Essay,” The Yale Law Journal, Volume 38, No. 1, November 1973, pp. 75–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Cotner, Melvin L.Land Use Policy and Agriculture: A State and Local Perspective, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., ERS-650, February 1977.Google Scholar
[10]Field, B. C. and Conrad, J. M.. “Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights,” Land Economics, Volume 51, No. 4, November 1975, pp. 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Gloudemans, Robert J.Use-Value Farmland Assessments: Theory, Practice and Impact, International Association of Assessing Officers, Chicago, Illinois, 1974.Google Scholar
[12]Hady, Thomas F. and Sibold, Ann G.. State Programs for the Differential Assessment of Farm and Open Space Land, Agricultural Economic Report No. 256, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., April 1974.Google Scholar
[13]Hansen, D. E. and Schwartz, S. I.. “Income Distributional Effects of the California Land Conservation Act,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 59, No. 2, May 1977, pp. 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]House, Verne W. “On Criteria for Preservation of Agricultural Land,” Staff Paper 76-20, Department of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, July 6, 1976.Google Scholar
[15]Infanger, Craig L. and Bordeaux, A. Frank Jr. “A Brief Assessment of Extension Land Use Educational Publications,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 58, No. 2, May 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Johnson, Jerome E., Beck, R. E. and Sillers, C. D.. “The North Dakota Farmer/Rancher Looks at Severed Mineral Rights,” North Dakota Agricultural Economics Miscellaneous Report No. 18, August 1975.Google Scholar
[17]Kolesar, John and Scholl, Jaye. Misplaced Hopes, Misspent Millions: A Report on Farmland Assessments in New Jersey, The Center for Analysis of Public Issues, Princeton, New Jersey, 1972.Google Scholar
[18]Libby, Lawrence W. “Land Use Policy: Implications for Commercial Agriculture,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 56, No. 5, December 1974, pp. 1143–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Long, B. F. “Some Thoughts on Non-Market Allocation of Land,” in Land Use Needs and Policy Alternatives, Southern Land Economics Research Committee, Reprinted by Southern Rural Development Center, SRDC Pub. No. 11, Mississippi State University, August 1976, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
[20]National Task Force on Research Related to Land Use Planning and Policy. Land Use: Issues and Research Needs for Planning, Policy and Allocation, Pullman: Washington State University, 1976.Google Scholar
[21]Pasour, E. C Jr. “Land Use Planning: The Market Approach,” in Proceeding Issue of a Conference on Land Use Planning in Rural Areas: Issues, Problems and Alternatives, November 16-17, 1976, North Carolina State University (to be published in June 1977), Center for Rural Resource Development, Publication #5, Extension Service, N. C. State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
[22]Pasour, E. C, Danielson, Leon E. and Neuman, D. F.. Agricultural Use-Value Taxation in North Carolina, 1975 and 1976, Economics Information Report No. 48, Department of Economics and Business, N. C. State University at Raleigh, November 1976.Google Scholar
[23]Pearson, G. C. “Preservation of Agricultural Land: Rationale and Legislation — The B.C. Experience,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Workshop Proceedings, 1975, pp. 64–73.Google Scholar
[24]Regional Science Research Institute.Untaxing Open Land: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open Space, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
[25]Schmid, A. A.Converting Land From Rural to Urban Uses, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.Google Scholar
[26]U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Research and Data Needs for Land Use Planning,” A Report prepared by the Basic Data and Research Subgroup to the Committee on Planning and Policy for Land Use and Land Conservation, Washington, D.C., February 1974.Google Scholar
[27]U.S. Department of Agriculture. Perspective on Prime Lands, Background papers for Seminar on the Retention of Prime Lands, July 16-17, 1975. Sponsored by the USDA Committee on Land Use.Google Scholar
[28]Van Vuuren, W.Distribution of Gains and Losses Resulting from Planning Legislation: The Compensation-Betterment Problem, School of Agricultural Economics and Extension Education, University of Guelph, Canada, Publication AE/76/8, August 1976.Google Scholar
[29]Waldrop, John E. “The Market: An Efficient, Effective Policy Instrument for Accomplishing Land Resources Allocation,” in Land Use Needs and Policy Alternatives, Southern Land Economics Research Committee, Reprinted by Southern Rural Development Center, SRDC Pub. #11, Mississippi State University, August 1976, pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
[30]Wunderlich, Gene.Who Owns America's Land: Problems in Preserving the Rural Landscape, ERS, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1974.Google Scholar
[31]Wunderlich, Gene. Summary of the Report: Foreign Investment in U.S. Real Estate, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 400, Washington, D.C., December 1976.Google Scholar