000			02555naa a2200193uu 4500
001			7113017171510
003			OSt
005			20190211163310.0
008			071130s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aDUKE, Joshua M. _933189
245	1	0	_aGauging support for innovative farmland preservation techniques
260			_aDordrecht, Netherlands : _bSpringer, _cJune 2007
520	3		_aGiven growing concerns about the loss of farmland in the US, governmental and nonprofit groups are seeking innovative, cost-effective methods to preserve lands that will elicit additional landowner participation. This article describes four innovative farmland preservation techniques and derives implications for the policy process through interviews of key stakeholders: program administrators, lawmakers, and landowners. Experts on farmland preservation were also interviewed to ensure stakeholder perceptions substantively inform the policy process. Four techniques were selected for assessment from approximately 30 novel techniques. Reactions to these policy options reflect stakeholder perceptions of a baseline condition; the perceptions help evaluate which options are likely to survive the policy process and what attributes will lead to their acceptability because few of these techniques have yet become policy. Although the stakeholders may have more limited experience with the policy process, land preservation experts validated many of the results and the possibility of success in the “rough and tumble” of the policy process. Of the four investigated techniques rights of first refusal was the most favored, although respondents thought effective implementation would require careful targeting and a dedicated funding source. Experts agreed this technique was most likely to survive in the political arena. Agricultural conservation pension was also viewed favorably, though it was considered administratively difficult to implement. Several experts thought that, though inchoate, the pension plan could potentially be more cost effective than rights of first refusal. Land preservation tontines were perceived to be an interesting concept, but confusing, difficult to implement, and ill-defined. Term conservation easements were viewed unfavorably because they did not preserve land permanently
700	1		_aLYNCH, Lori _933190
773	0	8	_tPolicy Sciences _g40, 2, p. 123-155 _dDordrecht, Netherlands : Springer, June 2007 _xISSN 00322687 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20071130 _b1717^b _cTiago
998			_a20071130 _b1722^b _cTiago
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c25153 _d25153
041			_aeng