Public Preferences regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs: Comment

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Kline and Wichelns (1996) (hereafter KW) argued that public (government) farmland preservation programs would be more efficient if broadened to include not only agricultural productive and lifestyle criteria, but also open space criteria as preservation objectives. While the public may prefer the open space benefits more than the agrarian benefits, much of the enabling legislation of public preservation programs relegate open space objectives as secondary to the agrarian ones. Therefore, by broadening the legislative scope of these public programs to include the multiple objectives of agricultural productive, lifestyle, aesthetics, environment, and open space, targeted land for preservation would be more efficient (and effective) in meeting the public's multiple objectives. Often, the nonagrarian objectives are highlighted by program proponents to gain public support. As evidence on the ranking of land preservation preferences, KW collected qualitative data from Rhode Island residents on reasons