Fill and Sign the High School Scholarship Application Form

Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 185–192 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Is Oregon’s land use planning program conserving forest and farm land? A review of the evidence Hannah Gosnell a,∗ , Jeffrey D. Kline b,1 , Garrett Chrostek c,2 , James Duncan a a Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Wilkinson 104, Corvallis, OR 97331-5506, USA Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA c Department of Political Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA b a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 7 July 2009 Received in revised form 22 March 2010 Accepted 27 May 2010 Keywords: Land use planning Oregon Farmland protection Forest land protection Evaluation methodology Land use change a b s t r a c t Planners have long been interested in understanding ways in which land use planning approaches play out on the ground and planning scholars have approached the task of evaluating such effects using a variety of methods. Oregon, in particular, has been the focus of numerous studies owing to its early-adopted and widely recognized statewide approach to farm and forest land protection and recent experiment with relaxation of that approach in 2004 with the passage of ballot Measure 37. In this paper we review research-based evidence regarding the forest and farm land conservation effects of Oregon land use planning. We document the evolution of methods used in evaluating state land use planning program performance, including trend analysis, indicator analysis, empirical models, and analysis of indirect effects on the economic viability of forestry and farming. We also draw on data documenting Measure 37 claims to consider the degree to which Measure 37 might have altered land use and development trends had its impacts not been tempered by a subsequent ballot measure – Measure 49. Finally, we provide a synthesis of the current state of knowledge and suggest opportunities for future research. Common to nearly all of the studies we reviewed was an acknowledgement of the difficulty in establishing causal relationships between land use planning and land use change given the many exogenous and endogenous factors involved. Despite these difficulties, we conclude that sufficient evidence does exist to suggest that Oregon’s land use planning program is contributing a measurable degree of protection to forest and farm land in the state. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction A variety of public policies and programs are advocated in the U.S. to protect forest and farm lands from development. These include zoning, use value assessment, purchasing or transferring development rights, and purchasing conservation easements or land in fee, to name a few. Among these, Oregon’s land use planning program often is cited in both professional and popular media as exemplary (e.g., Nelson, 1992; Egan, 1996). A central goal of the program is to protect productive farm and forest land sufficient to safeguard the industries those lands support, and, secondarily, because they are a widely recognized contributor to Oregon’s ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 541 737 1222; fax: +1 541 737 1200. E-mail addresses: gosnellh@geo.oregonstate.edu (H. Gosnell), jkline@fs.fed.us (J.D. Kline), chrosteg@onid.orst.edu (G. Chrostek), duncanj@geo.oregonstate.edu (J. Duncan). 1 Tel.: +1 541 750 7250; fax: +1 541 750 7329. 2 Tel.: +1 541 737 2811; fax: +1 541 737 2289. 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.05.012 overall quality of life. The extent to which Oregon’s land use planning program is effectively accomplishing its forest and farm land conservation goals, however, is a subject of debate among both citizens and scholars. Given that most of the debates have been about “how to plan, not whether to plan” (Abbot et al., 2003, p. 390), there have been numerous attempts to assess the effectiveness of Oregon’sparticular approach. Oregon’s land use planning program was launched in 1973. Between 1973 and 2001, privately owned “wildland” forest declined from 10.7 to 10.5 million acres, while intensive agriculture declined from 5.8 to 5.7 million acres (Lettman, 2002, 2004). Today, forest lands and intensive agriculture make up 37% and 20% of the nonfederal land base in Oregon, respectively. Additional acreage exists as mixed forest and agriculture as well as range. Would there have been greater loss and fragmentation of these resource lands over the past 35 years under a more lax or different land conservation program? In this paper we report on a review of research addressing the effects of Oregon’s land use planning program on rates and patterns of forest and farm land development and fragmentation (or parcelization). We document 186 H. Gosnell et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 185–192 the evolution of methods used in evaluating state land use planning program performance, including trend analysis, indicator analysis, and empirical models. We also consider the degree to which recent attempts to change Oregon’s land use planning program via ballot Measure 37 might have altered land use and development trends had the impacts not been tempered by a subsequent ballot measure – Measure 49. Finally, we provide a synthesis of key findings and outline our thoughts about how research might best be applied to advance knowledge and application of statewide planning to forest and farm land conservation. Relatively few studies have examined the performance and effects of land use planning and fewer still have provided confident conclusions. One of the biggest challenges confronting this type of research is separating the effects of land use planning on land cover change from other influential factors. These factors can include population and economic growth; new industries; regional comparative advantages of land in different uses; changes in household sizes, personal income, and tastes and preferences regarding housing; the availability of land for re-development; and physical land features, such as slope, that constrain certain uses, among others (Kline, 2000). In Oregon, evaluative research is further complicated by the evolving nature of the State’s program, which has experienced periodic changes in laws and policies to correct perceived problems. These structural changes add complexity to obtaining and analyzing longitudinal data as policy changes and sampling periods rarely align. Given these challenges, our review does not seek to quantify the success of Oregon land use planning or provide a definitive answer as to its overall effectiveness. Rather, it summarizes the research evidence, identifies knowledge gaps, and draws tentative conclusions based on the evidence at hand. Our hope is that this critical analysis of methods used to date and the limitations of conclusions drawn will help planners and policymakers consider and evaluate land use planning approaches to forest and farm land conservation and their effects in other states. Oregon’s land use planning program Oregon’s land use planning program has been cited as a pioneer in U.S. land use policy for its statewide scope (Gustafson et al., 1982), has won national acclaim by the American Planning Association (Department of Land Conservation and Development [DLCD] 1997), and has served as a model for statewide planning in other states (Abbott et al., 1994). The program was a response to rapid population growth in western Oregon during the 1950s and 1960s, which raised concerns in the state about the loss of forests and farm land to development. Legislation had already authorized local governments to manage urban growth, however, residential development of forests and farm lands outside of incorporated cities often remained unplanned and unregulated (Gustafson et al., 1982). In response, Oregon’s legislature enacted the Land Conservation and Development Act in 1973 requiring all cities and counties to prepare comprehensive land use plans consistent with several statewide goals and establishing the Land Conservation and Development Commission to oversee the program (Knapp and Nelson, 1992; Abbott et al., 1994). Among several goals of the program are the orderly and efficient transition of rural lands to urban uses, the protection of forests and agricultural lands, and the protection and conservation of natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces (DLCD, 2004c, p. 1). To pursue these goals, cities and counties are required to focus new development within urban growth boundaries, and restrict development outside of urban growth boundaries by zoning those lands for exclusive farm use, forest use, or as exception areas (Pease, 1994). Exception areas are unincorporated rural areas where low- density residential, commercial, and industrial uses prevail, and where development is allowed, pending approval by local authorities (Einsweiler and Howe, 1994). Exceptions are granted when strict adherence to a particular goal is not possible or not in the public interest, or when adherence to one goal may conflict with another. Land use planning does not prevent development, but rather restricts the rates, locations, and densities at which development can take place. Some development within forest and farm use zones can be approved by local authorities and must be reported to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Land Conservation and Development Commission [LCDC] 1996a,b). Criteria defining such development vary across counties, but generally include minimum parcel sizes and limits on the number of new dwelling permits issued. Construction of personal residences by commercial farmers and forest owners is allowed, subject to an income test designed to discourage recreational/hobby uses of farm and forest land. Though the land use planning system was initiated in 1973, it was not until 1986 that comprehensive plans for all 36 counties and 241 cities in the state were acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Knapp, 1994). This lag time complicates efforts to assess the performance of the system going back to 1973. Although Oregon’s planning program has enjoyed general legislative and citizen support, since its inception it has created tension between its advocates who see land use planning as necessary to the long-term conservation of forest and farm lands, and its detractors who argue that land use regulations unduly burden private landowners (Oppenheimer, 2004a,b). Among the biggest complaints are that it is too prescriptive and inflexible, that it unfairly impinges on private property rights, and it does not reflect a changed economic and social environment since its adoption 35 years ago (Abbot et al., 2003; Howe et al., 2004). Moreover, Howe (1994) suggests that the Oregon program, while innovative, does not have a mechanism for critically engaging new ideas. As a result, people become frustrated with what seems to be overwhelming program inertia (p. 281). Two fairly recent ballot measures seeking to provide private landowners compensation for property value losses resulting from the program exemplify the persistent tension surrounding the program. Measure 7 was approved by voters in 2000 and eventually was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court on a technicality (DLCD, 2004a). Measure 37 was approved in 2004 also seeking compensation, and would have allowed planning jurisdictions to remove, modify, or not apply the regulation in lieu of compensation (DLCD, 2004b). The potential implications of Measure 37 were of sufficient concern to state policymakers that the governor and state legislature appointed the bipartisan “Big Look” task force to examine the land use planning program and consider possible changes. Measure 37 also inspired yet another ballot measure – Measure 49 passed by voters in 2007 – which sought to both define and restrict compensation eligibility requirements mandated under Measure 37. These issues continue to evolve today. Also persistent is interest among land use planners and policymakers (in Oregon and elsewhere) in evaluating the effectiveness of planning for maintaining resource lands. Literature review method In our review we focused on published research evaluating the forest and farm land conservation effects of Oregon’s land use planning program. Although the program has several goals, we limited our review to research addressing either or both of the goals related to the conservation of farm and forest land – Goals 3 and 4, respec- H. Gosnell et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 185–192 tively. We refrained from including research that has examined planning-related secondary effects, such as the potential impacts of planning on property values. Although such secondary effects have garnered significant interest over the years among planners, policymakers, and landowners, they are not central to the primary goals defined at the program’s outset – specifically, the conservation of productive forest and farm lands. Potential research literature was identified using keyword searches of various databases and evaluated for its relevance to addressing the question of whether and how Oregon’s land use planning program has effected farm and forest land conservation in the state. We limited our review to studies published between 1973 and 2008; including peer-reviewed journal articles and reports by state and federal agencies. After meeting initial criteria pertaining to relevance; studies were subsequently evaluated for their robustness. Robustness depended on whether the analysis was structured in such a way as to enable assessing the degree to which land use planning effected forest and farm land conservation apart from other contributing factors influencing the loss of forest and farm land to development. For example, could an analysis distinguish changes in rates and patterns of forest and farm land development resulting from land use planning from changes resulting from other factors such as population and income growth; topography; and broader market forces affecting forestry and farming? Results Our review identified three broad classes of studies that represent an evolution in methods used to evaluate forest and farm land conservation effects of land use planning in Oregon. Initial pioneering efforts focused on examining general trends in land use – usually agricultural land – using readily available data sources such as the US Census of Agriculture. The majority of the studies we cite fall into this category. A subsequent group of studies attempted to develop indicators regarding the effect of land use planning on forest and farm land development. Common to both types of research, we suggest, is an inability to effectively control for other factors besides planning that influence land use change and development. A third class of more recent studies built upon these earlier efforts by using more intensively sampled data describing land use to construct empirical models of land use change. These studies more explicitly attempted to control for at least some of the other factors that influence land use change and development. Analyses of land use trends Several studies have examined historical trends in various land use categories or in specific development metrics, to assess farm and forest land loss (conversion to development), as well as fragmentation (parcelization). While the growing number of small farm and forest properties – at the expense of larger operations – may not signify an immediate net loss of resource land there has been concern that parcelization in the longer term lead to greater costs for farm and foresy operations and thus the decline of farming and forestry. This concern arises in part from studies suggesting that parcelization of lands adjacent to working farms and forests, often for hobby uses, will eventually lead to what some have called “shadow conversion,” where the growing financial (and psychological) costs of doing business in such a non-production-oriented atmosphere outweigh any economic benefits (e.g., Sorensen et al., 1997; Kline and Alig, 2005). Related to this is the concern that the growing “rent gap” – the difference between what landowners can earn from forestry or farming versus what they could earn by selling 187 land for development – eventually induces some farm and forest landowners to sell out. The earliest studies of Oregon land use planning effectiveness examined trends in farm land loss and fragmentation using data from the Census of Agriculture. Furuseth (1981) examined trends in agricultural land use reported through 1978 by the Census of Agriculture, concluding that a slowing in the rate of agricultural land loss – plus agricultural land expansion in some areas – provided empirical evidence of the early effects of Oregon’s land use planning program. However, given that actual development and implementation of county plans largely occurred after 1978 (after the period analyzed), these conclusions must be considered suspect. Moreover, drawing such conclusions by observing trends alone can be a difficult task confounded by other factors that also effect land use trends. In this case, for example, it would have been difficult to isolate the potential effects of Oregon land use planning on agricultural land use trends from other factors, such as the expansion of U.S. agriculture generally that occurred during the early 1970s. Later comparative analysis by Daniels and Nelson (1986) using the 1982 Census of Agriculture concluded that Oregon was retaining farm land better than national averages, having lost only 1.7% of its farm land between 1978 and 1982 versus 3% for the nation. The authors also found that Oregon had lost less farm land (1978–1982) than did Washington, a comparable state without statewide land use planning at that time. Daniels and Nelson (1986) were also among the first to examine the parcelization phenomenon on resource lands in Oregon and found that between 1978 and 1982 the state ranked fifth in the nation in the percentage increase in small farms (64 With land use planning Forest −99,756 Agriculture −322,403 Mixed −59,571 45,477 174,384 16,557 54,279 148,019 43,014 −481,730 236,418 245,312 314,672 780,368 76,544 121,027 314,514 95,597 Total Without land use planning Forest −435,699 Agriculture −1,094,882 Mixed −172,141 Total −1,702,722 1,171,584 531,138 Differenceb Forest Agriculture Mixed 335,943 772,479 112,570 −269,195 −605,984 −59,987 −66,748 −166,495 −52,583 Total 1,220,992 −935,166 −285,826 a b Estimated using the econometric model described in Kline (2005a,b). The “with” figure minus the “without” figure. not intended to stop development nor did it do so. Rather, urban growth boundaries have always been intended to accommodate 20 years worth of new development; and, since their inception, development within those bounds has continued. Some of that development likely would have taken place without planning, largely because of its proximity to existing urban areas. What proportion of those lands addressed by Measure 37 claims might also have been developed in the absence of planning remains unknown. Discussion and further research needs Despite the significant interest in Oregon’s land use planning program since its inception and the rather large body of research focused on weighing its effectiveness, little empirical analysis exists that has rigorously analyzed the forest and farm land conservation effects of the program. Many studies tend to be descriptive in nature, focusing on land use trends since land use planning was implemented, or comparing general land use indicators across various states or regions, for example. Although these descriptive analyses provide a story of shifting land use trends coinciding with the evolution of Oregon’s land use planning program, the failure to control for the numerous socioeconomic and topographic factors that influence land use change and development confound their ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the potential causal relationships between zoning and rates and patterns of forest and farm land loss. Analyses based on econometric models arguably have gone the farthest in attempting to control for at least some of these factors, however imperfectly. The overall impression that emerges from these analyses is that Oregon’s land use planning program has resulted in a measurable, if also incremental, degree of protection of forest and farm land since its full implementation in the mid-1980s. Whether Oregon land use planning has resulted in significant conservation of forest and farm land sufficient to declare the program a success is a question that will elicit different responses from different observers. Some observers will see relatively little forest and farm land protected, while others will be more satisfied with the current situation. Recent data from the Census of Agriculture indicate that farmland acres continue to decline in the state, from 17.7 million acres in 1997 to 16.4 million acres in 2007 (US Bureau of Census, 2009). The extent to which land use planning has translated into sustained or improved farming and forestry viability remains somewhat uncertain as well, since merely protecting farm and forest land does not guarantee the continuation of commercial farming and forestry on those lands. Much has been written, for example, about the ways in which the large minimum lot sizes associated with Oregon’s land use planning system may inadvertently encourage the growth of hobby farming, potentially at the expense of commercial farming. This body of literature may warrant a separate review. In weighing the evidence to date, we must remember that Oregon land use planning was not intended to stop development, but rather to facilitate the orderly and efficient development of rural lands while protecting forest and farm lands (Knapp and Nelson, 1992; Abbott et al., 1994). Realizing measurable conservation effects from land use planning is likely a slow process involving incremental changes in land use patterns over long periods of time. Land use planners, policymakers, and the public must gauge the effectiveness of planning programs over decades rather than years, and work towards a shared understanding of what might have happened in planning’s absence, and a shared vision of desired future conditions. Future research can assist in that process if existing data resources and analytical avenues are used effectively. The following are what we see as the most promising and needed next steps: • Greater spatial tracking and evaluation of forest and farm land lost to development to better differentiate between planned and unplanned loss, both within and outside of urban growth boundaries. Such analyses could take advantage of existing spatial data sets (e.g. Lettman, 2002, 2004) or initiate spatial analyses of lesser-used sources such as the Natural Resources Inventory. Such analyses should focus on isolating land use planning effects from socioeconomic, topographic, and other factors that also influence land use change and development. • Greater tracking and evaluation of the quality of forest and farm land lost to development, based on soils and other topographic information. An important aspect of Goals 3 and 4 is the maintenance of forestry and farming viability. In this respect the quality of land is important; however it has not received much attention in past research literature. Enright et al. (2002) initiated such an effort by tabulating acreage within different soil classes both outside and within urban growth boundaries, but they did not track changes over time. • Greater use of spatial land use data to examine both the effects of development on forestry and farming viability, and related mitigation effects resulting from land use planning. Existing forestry and farming viability studies are a first step in examining the influence of development on forestry and farming. However, future studies must try to link viability measures more directly to development and land use planning. One recent (unpublished) study by a University of Washington graduate student used a promising new method to test whether the approval and sitting of dwellings in Hood River County led to decreased resource land activity on adjacent lands (Veka, 2008). Using aerial photos to locate dwellings on resource lands, Veka classified the surrounding resource uses and documented how resource use had changed between 1994 and 2005. Results showed there were no significant differences in either resource use or land conversions between areas where higher numbers of dwellings were approved on resource lands and areas where fewer numbers of dwellings were approved. In fact, there were instances where dwellings approved for resource use led to more intensive (activities requiring more investment) resource use on surrounding lands. Although this study was not statistically robust according to our review criteria, land use planners are interested in H. Gosnell et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 185–192 the potential for applying this method in other parts of the state. • Analyses of the ways in which Oregon’s land use planning program has influenced quality-of-life factors through its forest and farm land conservation effects. Most research evaluating the effectiveness of Oregon’s approach has focused on maintenance of the commercial aspects of forestry and farming. The program, however, likely provides other significant benefits associated with the enhancement of water quality, scenic views, and other environmental amenities, which are also important to Oregonians and could even encourage continued in-migration to the state. The extent to which Oregon land use planning has met these more latent objectives or has led to greater in-migration largely remains unknown. Conclusion The existing body of research evaluating the forest and farm land conservation effects of Oregon’s land use planning program suggests that the Program has resulted in a measurable degree of forest and farm land protection since its inception in 1973. Land use planning, however, is a complex multifaceted approach to forest and farm land conservation which seeks to influence rates and patterns of land use change and development through zoning and permitting processes. Its effects are largely incremental, occur over long periods of time, and are therefore difficult to measure especially in light of the many confounding factors that also influence land use change and development. For these reasons, planners and policymakers are cautioned to carefully consider both stated and unstated caveats that might or might not accompany any analysis of planning conservation effects. The body of research evaluating the forest and farm land conservation effects of Oregon land use planning represents an evolution of approaches and methods ranging from analysis of land use trends and development indicators to the use of more complex empirical techniques that attempt to account for factors other than planning that also influence land use change and development. Even so, there is significant room for continued evolution and continued refinement. In many respects, existing research regarding the forest and farm land conservation effectiveness of planning has only scratched the surface in terms of data and techniques used, leaving a variety of opportunities available for future scholars interested in examining program effectiveness in Oregon and elsewhere and comparing that effectiveness to other forest and farm land conservation approaches. References Abbot, C., Adler, S., Howe, D., 2003. A quiet counterrevolution in land use regulation: the origins and impact of Oregon’s Measure 7. Housing Policy Debate 14 (3), 383–425. Abbott, C., Howe, D., Adler, S., 1994. Introduction. In: Abbott, C., Howe, D., Adler, S. (Eds.), Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, p. 328. Bernhardt, L.D., 1988. The growth of non-commercial farming in Oregon’s Willamette Valley: assessing impact on commercial agriculture. M.Sc. thesis, Oregon State University. Daniels, T.L., 1986. Hobby farming in America: rural development or threat to commercial agriculture? Journal of Rural Studies 2 (1), 31–40. Daniels, T.L., Nelson, A.C., 1986. Is Oregon’s farm land preservation program working? Journal of the American Planning Association 52 (1), 22–32. Department of Land Conservation and Development [DLCD], 1997. Shaping Oregon’s future: biennial report for 1995–97 from Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development to the Sixty-ninth Legislative Assembly. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, OR. Department of Land Conservation and Development [DLCD], 2004a. History of the program. Salem, OR. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/history.shtml (accessed 25.03.05). 191 Department of Land Conservation and Development [DLCD], 2004b. Measure 37 information, Salem, OR. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/measure37.shtml (accessed 25.03.05). Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), 2004c. Oregon’s statewide planning goals and guidelines. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, Oregon. http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/ goals.html (accessed 25.03.05). Egan, T., 1996. Drawing a hard line against urban sprawl. The New York Times, December 30, section A, p. 1, column 2. Einsweiler, R.C., Howe, D.A., 1994. Managing ‘the land between’: a rural development paradigm. In: Abbott, C., Howe, D., Adler, S. (Eds.), Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, p. 328p. Enright, C., Hulse, D., Richey, D., 2002. Soils. In: Hulse, D., Gregory, S., Baker, J. (Eds.), Willamette basin planning atlas, 2nd ed. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Furuseth, O.J., 1981. Update on Oregon’s agricultural protection program: a land use perspective. Natural Resources Journal 21, 57. Gustafson, G.C., Daniels, T.L., Shirack, R.P., 1982. The Oregon land use act: implications for farm land and open space protection. Journal of the American Planning Association 48 (3), 365–373. Howe, D., 1994. A research agenda for Oregon planning: problems and practice for the 1990s. In: Abbot, C., Howe, D., Adler, S. (Eds.), Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, p. p.328. Howe, D., Abbot, C., Adler, S., 2004. What’s on the horizon for Oregon planners? Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (4), 391–397. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, 2006. Mapping Measure 37. Portland State University, 9p. http://www.pdx.edu/ims/measure-37-database-maps (accessed 2.12.09). Kline, J.D., 2000. Comparing states with and without growth management analysis based on indicators with policy implications, comment. Land Use Policy 17, 349–355. Kline, J.D., 2005a. Forest and farm land conservation effects of Oregon’s (USA) landuse planning program. Environmental Management 35 (4), 368–380. Kline, J.D., 2005b. Predicted future forest- and farm land development in Western Oregon with and without land use zoning in effect. Res. Note PNW-RN-548. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Kline, J.D., Alig, R.J., 1999. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm lands? Growth and Change 30 (1), 3–22. Kline, J.D., Alig, R.J., 2005. Forestland development and private forestry with examples from Oregon (USA). Forest Policy and Economics 7, 709–720. Knapp, G., 1994. Land use politics in Oregon. In: Abbott, C., Howe, D., Adler, S. (Eds.), Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, p. 328. Knapp, G., Nelson, A.C., 1992. The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, 243 p. Land Conservation and Development Committee (LCDC), 1996a. Exclusive Farm Use Report, 1994–1995. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, OR, 87p. Land Conservation and Development Committee (LCDC), 1996b. Forest use report, 1994–1995. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem, OR. Lettman, G.J. (coordinator), 2002. Land use change on non-federal land in western Oregon 1973–2000. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR. Lettman, G.J. (coordinator), 2004. Land use change on non-federal land in eastern Oregon 1975–2001. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR. Moore, T., Nelson, A.C., 1994. Lessons for effective urban-containment and resourceland- preservation policy. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120 (4), 157–171. Nelson, A.C., 1992. Preserving prime farm land in the face of urbanization: lessons from Oregon. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 467–488. Nelson, A.C., 1999. Comparing states with and without growth management analysis based on indicators with policy implications. Land Use Policy 16 (2), 121–127. Nelson, A.C., Moore, T., 1996. Assessing growth management policy implementation: case study of the United States’ leading growth management state. Land Use Policy 13 (4), 241–259. Oppenheimer, L, 2004a. Initiative reprises land battle. Portland Oregonian, September 20, http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/ 1095681480156700.xml (accessed 25.03.05). Oppenheimer, L. 2004b. The people: landowners take sides on Measure 37. Portland Oregonian, October 7. http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/ base/news/109715027827560.xml (accessed 25.03.05). Pease, J.R., 1994. Oregon rural land use: policy and practices. In: Abbot, C., Howe, D., Adler, S. (Eds.), Planning the Oregon Way. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, p. 328. Sorensen, A.A., Greene, R.P., Russ, K., 1997. Farming on the Edge. American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture and the Environment, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 29p. US Bureau of Census, U.S., 2009. 2007 Cenus of Agriculture. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Veka, C.H., 2008. An Evaluation of the Impact of Dwellings on Land in Farm and Forest Zones in Hood River County, Oregon. MS Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Wu, J., Cho, S.H., 2007. The effect of local land use regulations on urban development in the western United States. Regional Science and Urban Economics 37 (1), 69–86. 192 H. Gosnell et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 185–192 Further reading Kline, J.D., Azuma, D.L., 2007. Evaluating forest land development effects on private forestry in eastern Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-572. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 18p. Kline, J.D., Azuma, D.L., Alig, R.J., 2004. Population growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in western Oregon. Forest Science 50 (1), 33–43. Nelson, A.C., 1988. An empirical note on how regional urban containment policy influences interaction between greenbelt and exurban land markets. Journal of the American Planning Association 54 (2), 178–184. Oregon Board of Agriculture, 2007. The State of Oregon Agriculture, 2007. Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislative Assembly. Salem, OR.