Policies to preserve prime farmland in the U.S.A.: a comment

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether basic arable land protection planning has reduced arable land loss in Fuyang County, Zhejiang Province, China and, if so, to identify how much arable land has been saved by the implementation of land use planning. Land use data covering 10 years, from 1999 to 2008, were collected from Fuyang County for analysis. A logistic discrete-time hazards model was used to model the conversion of arable land, and the effects of basic arable protection planning were estimated. The Youden index was used to determine the cut-off point for predicted probabilities, and the effects were estimated based on the classification with the cut-off point. Furthermore, an analysis framework combining effectiveness-based assessment and goals-based assessment was developed. The results suggest that basic arable land protection planning is effective, with the odds of basic arable land being converted to other uses decreasing by 89 percent compared with arable land outside the basic arable land protection district in Fuyang County, and the conversion of arable land in general decreasing by 72 percent due to basic arable land protection planning. Considering both the effectiveness and goal's achievement, the implementation of basic arable land protection planning is judged to be effective, but not entirely successful. Certain factors made basic arable land protection planning effective, these include the reallocation of approval rights for arable land conversion to the central government from the local government, the application of new technology in the central government's inspections of the local governments' land use regulation and land administration, the raising of compensation standards for arable land expropriation, the creation of a Supervisor of State Land, and the readjustment of the local land and resources administrative system. However, other factors made the implementation of basic arable land protection planning not completely successful, including a top-down administrative system of land use planning, differences of interests regarding land administration between the local and central governments, and the system by which local government cadres' performances are evaluated.