The Influence of Environmentalism on Attitudes Toward Local Agriculture and Urban Expansion

References

• Amburgey, J. W., and D. B. Thoman. 2012. Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior 44:235–56. doi:10.1177/0013916511402064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Farmland Trust. 2007. Santa Barbara county agricultural resources environmental/economic assessment (AREA) study. Available at http://www.farmlandinfo.org/santa-barbara-county-agricultural-resources-environmentaleconomic-assessment-area-study
   Google Scholar
• Bratt, C., P. C. Stern, E. Matthies, and V. Nenseth. 2014. Home, car use, and vacation: The structure of environmentally significant individual behavior. Environment and Behavior. 47:436–73. doi:10.1177/0013916514525038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2012. California agricultural statistics review, 2012–2013. Sacramento, CA: CDFA.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, C. F., M. J. Kotchen, and M. R. Moore. 2003. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:237–46. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00105-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleveland, D. A., A. Carruth, and D. N. Mazaroli. 2015. Operationalizing local food: Goals, actions, and indicators for alternative food systems. Agriculture and Human Values 32:281–97. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9556-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleveland, D. A., P. Gardinali, G. Glasgow, M. V. McGinnis, J. Mohr, E. Smith, M. Carney, and L. Copeland. 2010. Land use, agriculture, and the environment. The central coast survey. September. Santa Barbara, CA: Social Science Survey Center/Benton Survey Research Lab, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Cleveland, D. A., C. N. Radka, N. M. Müller, T. D. Watson, N. J. Rekstein, H. V. M. Wright, and S. E. Hollingshead. 2011. Effect of localizing fruit and vegetable consumption on greenhouse gas emissions and nutrition, Santa Barbara County. Environmental Science & Technology 45:4555–62. doi:10.1021/es1040317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coughenour, C. M., and L. E. Swanson. 2002. The agrarian mosaic in American society. In The social risks of agriculture, ed. R. C. Wimberley C. K. Harris J. J. Molnar and T. J. Tomazic 103–16. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Dalecki, M. G., and C. M. Coughenour. 1992. Agrarianism in American society. Rural Sociology 57:48–64. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00456.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. New environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education 9(4):10–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425–42. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2013. County, important farmland data availability. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
   Google Scholar
• Furuseth, O. J. 1987. Public attitudes toward local farmland protection programs. Growth and Change 18:49–61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.1987.tb00080.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C. K., and C. Bailey. 2002. Public support for a clean, green U.S. agriculture machine. In The social risks of agriculture, ed. R. C. Wimberley C. K. Harris J. J. Molnar and T. J. Tomazic 31–42. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Hawcroft, L. J., and T. L. Milfont. 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30:143–58. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. 2006. The nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, L. M., and L. Rinner. 2004. The association between environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society & Natural Resources 17:517–32. doi:10.1080/08941920490452454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ives, C. D., and D. Kendal. 2013. Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34:80–90. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, P., M. Holden, M. Lewin, L. Neilson, C. Oakley, A. Truter, and D. Wilmoth. 2013. Managing metropolisis by negotiating mega-urban growth. In Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development, ed. H. Mieg and K. Topler 217–32. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. H. 2013. Measuring the containment and spillover effects of urban growth boundaries: The case of the Portland metropolitan area. Growth and Change 44(4):650–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., M. Tomz, and J. Wittenberg. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44:341–55. doi:10.2307/2669316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, J., and D. Wichelns. 1996. Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs. Land Economics 72:538–49. doi:10.2307/3146914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotchen, M. J., and M. R. Moore. 2007. Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2006.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, F. S., and C. M. Frantz. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:503–15. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McManus, R. 2002. Future farms of America. Sierra 83:14.
   Google Scholar
• Molnar, J. J., and P. A. Duffy. 1988. Public perceptions of how farmers treat the soil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43:182–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montmarquet, J. A. 1989. The idea of agrarianism: From hunter-gatherer to agrarian radical in western culture. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, L. 1961. The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. New York, NY: Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Onsted, J. 2010. Agricultural retention in California: Modeling the effectiveness of the Williamson Act as public policy. California Geographer 50:1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Palmgren, C. R., M. G. Morgan, W. B. de Bruin, and D. W. Keith. 2004. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environmental Science & Technology 38:6441–45. doi:10.1021/es040400c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paül, V., and F. H. McKenzie. 2013. Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of alternative food networks: Insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Land Use Policy 30(1): 94–105. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press, D. 2002. Saving open space: The politics of local preservation in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salka, W. M. 2001. Urban–rural conflict over environmental policy in the western United States. American Review of Public Administration 31:33–48. doi:10.1177/02750740122064820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. 2011. 2010 Crop Report. Santa Barbara, California.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, P. W., C. Shriver, J. J. Tabanico, and A. M. Khazian. 2004. Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:31–42. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(03)00022-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, J., and L. Adua. 2009. The social basis of agro-environmental concern: Physical versus social proximity. Rural Sociology 74:56–85. doi:0.1526/003601109787524061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, J. S., and M. Tucker. 2005. Awareness and concern about large-scale livestock and poultry: Results from a statewide survey of Ohioans. Rural Sociology 70:208–28. doi:10.1526/0036011054776398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slimak, M. W., and T. Dietz. 2006. Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis 26:1689–705. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steger, M. A. E., J. C. Pierce, B. S. Steel, and N. P. Lovrich. 1989. Political culture, postmaterial values, and the new environmental paradigm: A comparative analysis of Canada and the United States. Political Behavior 11:233–54. doi:10.1007/bf00992298
   Google Scholar
• Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and G. A. Guagnano. 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior 27:723–43. doi:10.1177/0013916595276001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, E., Jr. 2007. Paving paradise: A new perspective on California farmland conversion. American Farmland Trust, November. Available at http://www.farmlandinfo.org/search?search_api_views_fulltext=Paving+Paradise
   Google Scholar
• Traill, W. B., S. R. Jaeger, W. M. S. Yee, C. Valli, L. O. House, J. L. Lusk, M. Moore, and J. L. Morrow Jr. 2004. Categories of GM risk–benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioForum 7(4):176–86.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. USA Counties. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/totals/2012/
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of agriculture. Geographic Area Series. Volume 1. Part 5. California State and County Data. Washington, DC: USDA.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014. 2012 Census of agriculture. Geographic Area Series. Volume 1. Part 5. California State and County Data. Washington, DC: USDA.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeiren, K., B. Adiyia, M. Loopmans, F. R. Tumwine, and A. Van Rompaey. 2013. Will urban farming survive the growth of African cities?: A case-study in Kampala (Uganda). Land Use Policy 35:40–49. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzel, W. C., L. L. Lacher, D. S. Sweezey, S. E. Moffitt, and D. T. Manning. 2012. Analysis reveals potential rangeland impacts if Williamson Act eliminated. California Agriculture 66(4):131–36. doi:10.3733/ca.v066n04p131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willits, F. K., and A. E. Luloff. 1995. Urban residents' views of rurality and contacts with rural places. Rural Sociology 60:454–66. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1995.tb00583.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zasada, I. 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—A review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4):639–48. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar