Targeting Spending for Land Conservation

Abstract

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.