A House in the Country: Rural-Urban issues and Research Needs

References

• American Farmland Trust. (1997). Saving American farmland: What works? Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrom, J., & Ready, R. (2003). Economic valuation of farm and ranch land amenities: What economists learned about public values and preferences. Paper presented at the What the public values about farm and ranch land conference, State College, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, D. (2002). Achieving sensible agricultural zoning to protect PDR investment. Protecting farmland at the fringe: Do regulations work? (Conference Proceedings). Columbus, OH: C. William Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy at The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, D. (2004). Farmland preservation report (14, 9). Street, MD: Bowers Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, L., & Stearns, J. (1991). Ohio’s drainage laws: An overview (Bulletin 822). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension.
   Google Scholar
• Cordes, M. (2002). Agricultural zoning: Impacts and future directions. Protecting farmland at the fringe: Do regulations work? (Conference Proceedings). Columbus, OH: C. William Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy at The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. (2002). Urban and agricultural communities: Opportunities for common ground (CAST Task Force Report No. 138). Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, T, & Bowers, D. (1997). Holding our ground: Protecting America’s farms and farmland. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117, 201-217.
   Google Scholar
• Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., & Harrison, A. (2001). Who sprawls the most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution - Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. (2000a). Ohio line fence law (Fact Sheet ALS-1001). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. (2000b). Liability for visitors to farm property (Fact Sheet ALS-1002). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension.
   Google Scholar
• Heimlich, R., & Anderson, W. (2001). Development at the rural-urban interface and beyond: Impacts on agriculture and rural land (AER 803). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Hellerstein, D., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Mullarkey, A., Tegene, A., & Bernard, C. (2002). Farmland protection: The role of public preferences for rural amenities (AER 815). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R., & Weibe, K. (2002). Land ownership and farm structure. In Agricultural resources and environmental indicators (AH722). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, E. (2002). The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics, 78, 465-480.
   Google Scholar
• Janofsky, M. (2004). EPA nears pact on waste by processors of livestock. New York Times. Retrieved June 3, 2004, from www.nytimes.com
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. (2000). The rural economy in a new century. In Beyond agriculture: New policies for rural America. Kansas City, MO: Center for Study of Rural America.
   Google Scholar
• Knowlton, P. (2003). Pennsylvania fence law. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Dickenson School of Law.
   Google Scholar
• Libby, L. (2005). Rural land use problems and policy options: Overview from a U.S. perspective. In Land use problems and conflicts: Causes, consequences, and solutions. United Kingdom: Routledge Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Libby, L., & Hall, P. (2003). Transfer of development rights: A real policy option for rural Ohio? (Workshop Report). Columbus, OH: C. William Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy at The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Libby, L., & Irwin, E. (2003). Rural amenities and farmland value. In Government policy and farmland markets. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (1995). Alternatives to sprawl Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews, S. (2003). Missouri fencing and boundary laws (MU Extension Guide 810). Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Law Center.
   Google Scholar
• McBride, W., & Key, N. (2003). Economic and structural relationships in U.S. hog production (AER 818). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, B., & Ewing, R. (2003). Measuring the health effects of sprawl: A national analysis of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. (2004). Air emissions from animal feeding operations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Conservation Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2001). Urbanization and the development of rural land. National Resources Inventory, 2001 Annual NRI. Available from www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri01
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, C, & Lynch, L. (2001). The effect of farmland preservation programs on farmland prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 241-251.
   Google Scholar
• Ohio Farm Bureau Task Force. (2004). Recommendations of the Line Fence Task Force. Columbus, OH: Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.
   Google Scholar
• Osterberg, D., & Melvin, S. (2002). Relevant laws, regulations and decisions. In Iowa concentrated animal feeding operations. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
   Google Scholar
• Renkert, D. (2004). The potential of landpooling for conservation and agriculture at the urban fringe and beyond. In Compensatory options for conserving agricultural land. Davis, CA: Agricultural Issues Center.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond, H. (2000). Metropolitan land use reform: The promise and challenge of majority consensus. In B. Katz (Ed.), Reflections on regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rodewald, A. (2003). The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31, 586-592.
   Google Scholar
• Roe, B., Irwin, E, & Morrow-Jones, H. (2004). The effects of farmland, farmland preservation and other neighborhood amenities on housing values and residential growth. Land Economics, 80, 55-75.
   Google Scholar
• Ruhl, J. (2000). Farms, their environmental harms, and environmental law. Ecology Law Quarterly, 27, 263-349.
   Google Scholar
• Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game, outside game. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Supreme Court of Iowa. (1998). Case of Bormann and McGuire v. Board of Supervisors, Kossuth County (No. 192/96-2276).
   Google Scholar
• Swallow, S. (2002). Critical lands conservation with development: Using contingent choice to establish impact fees for open space (Working Paper). Kingston, RI: Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, P. (2002). Air quality issues. In Iowa concentrated animal feeding operations air quality study Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, C. (2002). CAFO’s: Issues and development of new waste treatment technology. P enn State Environmental Law Review, 10, 217-243.
   Google Scholar
• Yengoyan, D. (2003). Comment: Title V of the Clean Air Act: The effects on California’s agricultural exemption on the San Joaquin Valley. San Joaquin Law Review, 1, 151-171.
   Google Scholar