Targeting Spending for Land Conservation

Problem: In 1997, Maryland burst into the national spotlight with a package of legislation collectively referred to as smart growth. At its core, the innovative Maryland approach relied on directing state investments in urban infrastructure to Priority Funding Areas while directing state investments in land preservation to rural legacy areas. This article examines the performance of Rural Legacy Areas. Although smart growth in Maryland and the performance of Priority Funding Areas have received considerable attention at the national level, there have been few analyses of the performance of the Rural Legacy Program. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the process, implementation, and outcomes of rural legacy areas in Maryland to provide insights about the efficacy of targeted preservation as a means to stop or slow sprawl development in rural areas. Methods: Using documents and data obtained from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and other state agencies, we examine the implementation and outcomes of Rural Legacy Areas. First, we review the process through which Rural Legacy Areas were approved and the pattern of state spending in these areas. Then we evaluate three performance measures over time: preservation, parcelization, and development. Finally, using difference in means t tests, we examine the impacts of Rural Legacy Areas on development patterns over time. Results and conclusions: The performance of Rural Legacy Areas has been mixed. The level of state funding has varied tremendously, and few areas have received consistent funding over time. However, in areas where the state has targeted high levels of funding for several years, development in Rural Legacy Areas has been tempered. Overall the share of development in Rural Legacy Areas measured in parcels has increased slightly, but the share of development measured in acres has decreased slightly. Takeaway for practice: Targeting spending on land conservation to protect large, contiguous spatial areas makes sense, but the Rural Legacy approach as used in Maryland has significant limitations. Allowing Rural Legacy Areas to be designated by local governments and nonprofit organizations can result in poor coordination between land conservation and urban containment strategies. Spending limitations and lack of commitment over political cycles can limit the extent of conservation within designated areas. Designating conservation areas that lack supportive zoning can stimulate development precisely where it is not desired.

[1]  Lori Lynch,et al.  Impact of Designated Preservation Areas on Rate of Preservation and Rate of Conversion: Preliminary Evidence , 2007 .

[2]  Jungyul Sohn.  The Impact of the Smart Growth Incentive Policies on the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Investment in and outside the Priority Funding Area in Maryland , 2008 .

[3]  G. Knaap,et al.  Does the Job Creation Tax Credit Program in Maryland Help Concentrate Employment Growth? , 2005 .

[4]  T. Daniels,et al.  Land Preservation: An Essential Ingredient in Smart Growth , 2005 .

[5]  Jeffrey D. Kline,et al.  Does Land Use Planning Slow the Conversion of Forest and FarmLands , 1999 .

[6]  Jungyul Sohn,et al.  Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come , 2009 .

[7]  Gregory J. DeAngelo,et al.  Strategic targeting of agricultural conservation easements as a growth management tool , 2009 .

[8]  J. Gustanski,et al.  Protecting the land : conservation easements past, present, and future , 2000 .

[9]  B. Roe,et al.  The Effects of Farmland, Farmland Preservation, and Other Neighborhood Amenities on Housing Values and Residential Growth , 2004, Land Economics.

[10]  Rebecca Lewis,et al.  Do smart growth instruments in Maryland make a difference , 2011 .

[11]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Voluntary Cleanups and Redevelopment Potential: Lessons from Baltimore, Maryland , 2008 .

[12]  Lewis D. Hopkins,et al.  In What Circumstances Should Plans Be Public? , 2009 .

[13]  MARYLAND'S "SMART GROWTH": USING INCENTIVES TO COMBAT SPRAWL. IN: URBAN SPRAWL: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND POLICY RESPONSES , 2002 .

[14]  Marie Howland,et al.  Private Initiative and Public Responsibility for the Redevelopment of Industrial Brownfields: Three Baltimore Case Studies , 2003 .

[15]  J. Frece.  Twenty Lessons From Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative , 2005 .

[16]  Gerrit Knaap,et al.  Smart Growth in Maryland: Looking Forward and Looking Back , 2007 .

[17]  Arthur Christian Nelson,et al.  Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon , 1992 .

[18]  Arthur Christian Nelson,et al.  The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon , 1992 .

[19]  P. Berck,et al.  SPATIAL TARGETING STRATEGIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION , 2004 .

[20]  T. Daniels,et al.  Is Oregon's Farmland Preservation Program Working? , 1986 .

[21]  Qing Shen,et al.  Land-Use Changes in a Pro-Smart-Growth State: Maryland, USA , 2007 .