Grantee Research Project Results
1999 Progress Report: Community and Conservation in California
EPA Grant Number: R825226Title: Community and Conservation in California
Investigators: Press, Daniel
Institution: University of California - Santa Cruz
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: November 15, 1996 through November 14, 2001
Project Period Covered by this Report: November 15, 1998 through November 14, 1999
Project Amount: $304,782
RFA: Exploratory Research - Early Career Awards (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Early Career Awards
Objective:
This 5-year project began in November 1996, with the generous support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and additional support from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation of southern California. This project is designed to: (1) establish patterns of local-level open-space preservation in California; and (2) account for the variations in preservation patterns from community to community. Today, local and regional communities are more and more likely to be left fending for themselves as the state and federal governments retreat from their roles as top-down managers and financial supporters. Although there is no simple way to account for the wide variation in local land protection practices, this project is based on the premise that several major factors are most important, and that, taken together, they offer a plausible, interrelated set of reasons for the observed variation. The most important factors are: (1) the degree of development pressure affecting a community; (2) local levels of fiscal capacity; (3) community civic engagement and environmentalism; and (4) the administrative and policy entrepreneurship provided by local leaders.Mirroring these different explanations for open-space variation, this research team has developed both qualitative and quantitative methods for researching the project's main questions. These methods range from a telephone survey of residents in 47 of the state's 58 counties, analysis of environmental policy measures on local and state ballots over the last 20 years, and in-depth interviews with local planners, park officials, members of non-governmental organizations, developers, and other land use stakeholders. This report summarizes my team's progress to date, now 3 years into this 5-year project.
Progress Summary:
Local Open Space Acreage. Compiling a comprehensive database of locally-acquired parks and open spaces has proven to be more difficult than anticipated, because no centralized database exists at either the state or federal level. Therefore, we have had to survey all 58 counties, approximately 400 cities, and about 100 special recreation and parks districts. We have asked each jurisdiction to report on lands, equal to or greater than 10 acres, it holds in fee simple (outright ownership). The database is nearing completion, with all but two dozen of the smallest jurisdictions yet to report their acreage.The resulting database shows that local government has acquired some 2,500 parks and open spaces larger than 10 acres in size. Moreover, although most of the parks are small (50 acres or less), the large majority of acreage is in large (greater than 500 acres) parks and open spaces. Because of their size and their proximity to urban areas, these large open spaces provide vital functions, including watershed and habitat protection, recreation and urban growth management.
In a related undertaking for this reporting year, the research group also compiled the only comprehensive, statewide database of land trust holdings in California. Conservation land trusts protect as much land as local government, either through fee simple acquisition or through the use of conservation easements. Whereas local government in California owns about 560,000 acres of open space, land trusts in the state have protected about 570,000 acres in 600 separate holdings.
Development and Preservation Patterns. During the year, the research team has gathered extensive data measuring the development pressure facing local communities throughout the state. New urban development steadily converts prime agriculture land and open space throughout California every year. When local residents perceive that rapid development erodes rather than enhances their communities, many are moved to embrace slow-growth or preservation strategies. Local perceptions of runaway sprawl, soaring land and housing costs, as well as the objective indicators of these land use changes critically affect the context for land preservation around the state. Increasing development pressure helps motivate land preservation and growth controls. If a community's capacity to address environmental challenges develops while land prices are still relatively low, relatively substantial preservation is possible. Communities that lack the capacity to contain growth or preserve land exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:
- Communities that grow too rapidly to respond or change their ability to manage development, say, through the mobilization of a slow- or anti-growth constituency and leadership,
- Where land prices outstrip the funding capacity of land preservation organizations, and
- Where very few relatively large parcels close to urban areas are available for acquisition.
Los Angeles County is the most obvious example of a part of the state where political support for containing growth and acquiring land has come "too little and too late."
The development indicators and survey data make it clear that: (1) development pressure varies from county to county; and (2) people are attuned to this variation, at least in the sense that they view it differently from county to county. Thus, the presence of development pressure, the variation in development, and the perception of pressure make sense as motivators of land preservation.
Whether development pressure and local revenues play a similar role in local government land versus private land trust land acquisitions remains to be seen.
Civic Environmentalism. A major premise of this project is that communities differ with respect to their levels of environmental support and civic engagement. Further, I expect that communities with more civic-minded residents, and with relatively greater mass environmental support, tend to expect more environmental protection of their local government and other institutions. Much of the Community and Conservation survey undertaken for this project consists of measures of civic engagement and environmentalism at the local level.
Interviews. The research team has completed approximately 45 interviews in about a dozen counties. These taped and transcribed interviews have yielded over 700 pages of rich perspectives and narratives on historical patterns of open space preservation at the local level. They include interviews of park ballot organizers, local park officials, local open space activists, and local policymakers. Most importantly, these interviews provide many of the details needed to understand how local policy entrepreneurs help to preserve land in their communities.
The interviews make clear that local policy entrepreneurs throughout California draw upon a common set of skills and resources. Table 3 summarizes these skills and resources.
Future Activities:
It will take another two to three dozen interviews to properly characterize the role of local open space policy entrepreneurs in the state, and my research team will conduct these interviews over the next 18-20 months. I also have begun analyzing the historical archives of regional newspapers for evidence of local activity and leadership on growth control and land preservation issues. This research team will be spending the remaining project time coding and analyzing news articles from the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Jose Mercury News.Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 3 publications | 2 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Press D. Local environmental policy capacity: a framework for research. Natural Resources Journal 1998. |
R825226 (1997) R825226 (1999) |
not available |
Supplemental Keywords:
open space, land use, urban sprawl, environmental policy, land preservation., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Geographic Area, State, Ecology and Ecosystems, decision-making, Social Science, Economics & Decision Making, demographic, ecosystem valuation, policy analysis, public resources, social psychology, community involvement, decision analysis, decision making, environmental assets, conservation, environmental values, socioeconomics, changing environmental conditions, community-based, public policy, California (CA), land use, longitudinal datasetRelevant Websites:
http://gis.ucsc.edu/Projects/sclara/directory.htmlProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.