Ongoing farmland los has l shire planners to ask "is there a critical mass of farmland needed?" to retain a viable agricultural sector.

Ongoing farmland los has l shire planners to ask "is there a critical mass of farmland needed?" to retain a viable agricultural sector. This meditation examines whether counties lost farmland at a faster rate if the number of agricultural acres vandalic below a critical threshold. accrues from six Mid-Atlantic states throughout the period 1949 to 1997 indicate that counties with fewer agricultural acres misspent farmland at a faster rate. However, after splitting the application of mind period into two time portions (1949-1978 and 1978-1997) and modeling separately, this eventuate was not found for the later time period, suggesting a uniform critical mass of the same height may not exist. Population shooting in a county accelerated farmland los athwart all time periods.

Key Words: critical mass, disentanglement pressure, farmland loss, panel data, use-value taxation

As farmland has decreased athwart the last 50 years, a certain have questioned whether there is a critical mass of agricultural land privationed to sustain a viable agricultural sector.1 The total amount of land in farms decreased according to 20% in the United States between 1949 and 1997 In the Mid-Atlantic region, the rate of decrease was 50% Agricultural land has been interchangeed to alternative uses at an equable higher rate in metropolitan areas (Lockeretz 1989; Gardner, 1994) Metropolitan residents have uttered concern about the loss of the amenities the farmland provides. Rural economies that are highly sustained by on agricultural industries suffer negative ends when agricultural land is interchangeed Society may want to retain an agricultural sector to maximize its welfare. Many counties are trying to determine to what extent much agricultural land must be retained to make secure a viable agricultural economy and the preservation of these amenities. direction officials need to determine "how a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of agricultural land is enough" to make secure this retention. Therefore, knowing whether the rate of farmland los is affected on the level of agricultural activity within an area is important.

Most land use prototypes assume agricultural landowners will farm the land until the value in an alternative use outvies the agricultural value. These archetypes have focused on the efficiency of changes in the nonagricultural use values forward the decision to convert rather than the import of changes in the agricultural use value (eg Bockstael, 1996; Chicoine, 1981; Clont 1970; Dunford, Marti, and Mittelhammer, 1985; Hardie, Narayan, and Gardner, 2001; Bell and Bockstael, 2000; Muth 1961; Nickerson and Lynch 2001; Shi, Phipps, and Colyer 1997)

The gin market value in many bring outed uses is greater than in agricultural use. Thus, the market will allocate the land to this privately optimal unfolded use. However, the conversion of farmland to a unfolded use may not maximize society's welfare. First, the amenity benefits of farmland are misspent Second, the developed use may impact the surrounding farmland's use value. near researchers have considered the external benefits of nearby land uses-such as agriculture, parks, or forest landson residential use values (Kitchen and Hendon, 1967; Weicher and Zerbst 1973; Hammer, Coughlin, and Horn, 1974; McMillan, 1974; Peiser and Schwann, 1993; Irwin and Bockstael, 2001; Geoghegan, Wainger, and Bockstael, 1997; Geoghegan, 2002: Geoghegan, Lynch and Bucholtz 2003; Cheshire and Sheppard, 1995) However, scarcely any models have considered the external benefits or splendors of adjacent land use forward agricultural use value. If the landscape surrounding the existing farmland changes, the agricultural use value may also change. The agricultural use value could be affected according to both the new uses forward adjacent land and the resulting adjustment in the agricultural support sector to fewer farmland acres.

Adjacent land use can affect agricultural land use in several ways. Population expansion or suburbanization near farming areas can create question s for farmers. Nonfarm neighbors may butt; goal to nuisances related to traditional farming practices, so as insects, noise, odor, dust, and slow-moving equipment upon the roads, and may advocate limitations to these practices. plane in rural areas, incompatible activities in the surrounding landscape may affect the profitability of farms. Farmers may earn more profit operating within a thriving agricultural community than in an area dominated from other land uses-be they city, forest, or recreational. Alternatively, the proximity of nearby suburban cities may generate recently made known marketing opportunities.

The loss of support industries may also affect the agricultural use value. The exodus of the support industries in an area may indicate that a critical mass of agricultural land is important to long-term viability. A critical mass start implies economies of scale exist in the couple input and output businesses which are essential to agriculture. Support businesses will obstruct or relocate as farm production evens decrease below a certain threshold

For example, growers in a region may specialize in peas. They betray the peas to a local processing plant that turn to ices and packages their product. The plant will remain in business as protracted as local production is sufficient to sustain the firm's production at competitive operating expenses If local pea production decreases, the processing plant may not achieve economies of scale and might shut up at this location. Remaining pea farmers would face decreased returns, as the shipping outlays to more distant processing plants are higher. Consequently they might switch to producing another, les profitable clip As the agricultural use value decreases, the relative get back to converting the farmland increases. Thus the rate of farmland los could increase.