Colorado professionals with agriculture and natural resource managing responsibilities were surveyed on issues of growth. Their greatest concerns were water quality, water quantity, and agricultural profitability. Of least concern were large lot, low-density development, affordable housing, and forestland conversion. Respondents reported the greatest knowledge of fee simple land purchases, zoning, and conservation easements, and the least knowledge of water banking or trusts,  bargain  lands sales, and moratoria. They indicated the greatest interest in an overview of land management tools, conservation easements, and public-private partnerships, and the least interest in educational programming related to moratoria, development timing, and housing land trusts

Seidl, Andrew

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 39 Number 4 Article 14 8-1-2001 Colorado Professionals' Concerns, Abilities, and Needs for Land Use Planning Andrew Seidl Colorado State University, Andrew.Seidl@colostate.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Seidl, A. (2001). Colorado Professionals' Concerns, Abilities, and Needs for Land Use Planning. The Journal of Extension, 39(4), Article 14. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol39/iss4/14 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesAugust	2001	//	Volume	39	//	Number	4	//	Research	in	Brief	//	4RIB5Colorado	Professionals'	Concerns,	Abilities,	and	Needs	for	LandUse	PlanningAbstractColorado	professionals	with	agriculture	and	natural	resource	managing	responsibilities	weresurveyed	on	issues	of	growth.	Their	greatest	concerns	were	water	quality,	water	quantity,	andagricultural	profitability.	Of	least	concern	were	large	lot,	low-density	development,	affordablehousing,	and	forestland	conversion.	Respondents	reported	the	greatest	knowledge	of	fee	simpleland	purchases,	zoning,	and	conservation	easements,	and	the	least	knowledge	of	water	bankingor	trusts,	"bargain"	lands	sales,	and	moratoria.	They	indicated	the	greatest	interest	in	anoverview	of	land	management	tools,	conservation	easements,	and	public-private	partnerships,and	the	least	interest	in	educational	programming	related	to	moratoria,	development	timing,and	housing	land	trusts.	IntroductionThe	state	of	Colorado	is	in	a	period	of	uncommon	prosperity	and	economic	growth.	Five	of	the	10fastest	growing	counties	in	percentage	terms	in	the	United	States	are	found	in	Colorado	(Edelman,Roe,	&	Patton,	1999).	Colorado's	population	increased	by	1/4	to	more	than	4	million	between	1990and	1999	(CDLG,	1999).	As	a	result	of	this	growth,	nearly	1.5	million	acres	of	agricultural	land	wereconverted	between	1992	and	1997	(USDA,	1999).	However,	while	most	of	the	Colorado	economy	isgrowing,	the	agricultural	economy	is	in	a	period	of	decline.	In	this	climate	of	disparate	economicopportunity,	land	(and	other	natural	resource)	use	and	planning	pose	particular	challenges	to	thepeople	and	communities	of	Colorado.Growth	and	change	have	created	additional	challenges	and	opportunities	for	many	Coloradocommunities.	Recent	research	has	shown	that	growth,	budgetary	concerns,	and	economicdevelopment	needs	are	the	most	pressing	county-level	issues	in	Colorado.	Land	use	issues	andincreasing	demands	on	social	services,	particularly	for	aging	and	immigrant	resident	populations,were	shown	to	be	the	most	challenging	growth	concerns	facing	Colorado	counties	(CDLG,	1999).Tools	and	strategies	exist	for	communities	to	plan	for	and	guide	their	futures.	A	variety	of	publicand	private,	state,	federal,	and	local	agencies	might	provide	training,	insight,	or	information	totheir	clientele	or	constituencies	regarding	the	tools	and	strategies	available	to	them	to	managetheir	natural	resources	toward	both	private	and	collective	objectives.ApproachIn	the	spring	of	1999,	a	skills,	abilities,	and	needs	assessment	of	Colorado	professionals	withagriculture	and	natural	resource	managing	responsibilities	was	undertaken.	Colorado	StateUniversity	Cooperative	Extension,	Colorado	State	Forest	Service,	and	American	Farmland	Trustagreed	to	collaborate	on	survey	design,	mailing	lists,	finance,	analysis,	dissemination	of	results,and	follow-up	programming	from	this	research	effort.A	comprehensive	mailing	list	of	the	individuals	employed	by	the	following	organizations	wasAndrew	SeidlAssistant	Professor	and	Extension	Economist--Public	Policy,Department	of	Agricultural	and	Resource	EconomicsColorado	State	UniversityFt.	Collins,	ColoradoInternet	Address:	Andrew.Seidl@colostate.educompiled:County	Commissioners;Representatives	of	the	Ute	Mountain	Ute	and	the	Southern	Ute	Indian	tribes;Members	of	the	Colorado	Rural	Development	Council;Colorado-based	personnel	of	the	four	agencies	of	the	U.S.	Department	of	Agriculture	(i.e.,Rural	Development,	Farm	Service	Association,	Natural	Resource	Conservation	Service,	andResource	Conservation	and	Development);Bureau	of	Land	Management;U.S.	Forest,	Parks	and	Fish	and	Wildlife	Services;Colorado	State	Forests,	Parks,	and	Department	of	Local	Affairs;Cooperative	Extension	and	Community	College	personnel;County	assessors	and	real	estate	appraisers;Bankers,	lenders,	and	independent	consultants;Representatives	of	farmers'	and	ranchers'	organizations;Environmentally	oriented	non-governmental	organizations;	andLand	trusts.In	the	end,	822	six-page	surveys	were	mailed,	and	the	Dilman	(1972)	method	was	followed	withone	adaptation.	An	overall	return	rate	of	67%	(550	usable	surveys)	was	reached,	employing	thecommon	adaptation	of	the	inclusion	of	a	$1	courtesy	incentive	for	completion	of	the	survey	in	thefirst	mailing	to	all	recipients	except	Extension	personnel.In	accordance	with	the	methodology,	the	first	mailing	(introductory	letter,	survey,	and	$1)	wasfollowed	by	a	postcard	reminder	to	nonrespondents	after	2-3	weeks,	which	was	followed	by	asecond	survey	mailing	(reminder	letter,	and	survey)	to	remaining	nonrespondents	after	2-3additional	weeks.	Two	clear	"protest"	surveys	were	received,	and	16	surveys	were	returned	as"undeliverable."In	addition	to	demographic	information,	respondents	were	queried	regarding	their:1.	 Degree	of	concern	over	identified	growth	issues	(16	statements);2.	 Knowledge	of	common	growth	management	tools	and	agricultural	land	and	open	spacepreservation	tools,	and	comprehensive	strategic	planning	and	visioning	tools	(27	statements);3.	 Interest	in	educational	programming	on	each	of	the	statements	in	found	in	part	2	(27statements);	and4.	 Educational	preferences	for	media,	location,	duration,	cost,	format,	etc.	(30	statements).The	overall	mean	responses	to	Parts	1-3	above	are	reported	in	this	article.	In	Parts	1-3,respondents	were	asked	to	reflect	their	preferences	on	a	7-point	Likert	scale.	On	this	scale,	"1"indicates	strongly	disinterested,	unlikely,	or	unconcerned;	"4"	reflects	a	neutral	response;	and	"7"indicates	strongly	interested,	highly	likely,	or	highly	concerned.	In	addition,	the	relative	ranks	ofmean	responses	to	each	statement	within	a	category	(i.e.,	concerns,	knowledge	and	skills,interests,	and	needs)	are	reported.	On	this	scale,	"1"	indicates	highest	ranking	response	within	acategory,	and	each	number	higher	reflects	an	ordinal	step	lower	in	mean	response	(Seidl,	2000).ResultsConcernsRespondents	were	asked	to	gauge	the	degree	of	concern	of	their	clientele	on	16	dimensions.	Allmean	responses	were	greater	than	4,	indicating	that	there	was	some	overall	concern	for	all	of	thedimensions	queried.	The	greatest	concerns	were	water	quality,	water	quantity,	and	agriculturalprofitability,	in	decreasing	rank	order.	The	areas	of	least	concern	were	large	lot,	low-densitydevelopment,	affordable	housing,	and	forestland	conversion,	in	increasing	rank	order	(Table	1).Responses	to	four	pairs	of	factors	were	strongly	statistically	predictive	of	one	another	in	the	overallresults.	Responses	to	client	concerns	over	wildlife	habitat	conversion	and	forestland	conversionwere	highly	positively	correlated	(Pearson=0.66,	p<0.01)	as	was	open	space	preservation(Pearson=0.55,	p<0.01).	Concerns	over	open	space	preservation	were	highly	positively	correlatedwith	the	preservation	of	public	outdoor	recreation	(Pearson=0.55,	p<0.01)	and	large	lot,	low-density	development	(Pearson	=0.52,	p<0.01).Mean	responses	clustered	into	seven	categories	of	responses.	Water	quantity	stood	alone	as	thegreatest	concern.	However,	water	quality,	agricultural	profitability,	and	preservation	of	rurallifestyle	formed	a	statistically	similar	group	of	strong	secondary	concerns.	Agricultural	landconversion	and	public	finance	issues	fell	into	the	third	response	cluster.	At	the	other	end	of	thescale,	forestland	conversion	stood	alone	as	an	area	of	least	concern	to	respondents	in	the	state	ofColorado.Table	1Overall	Results,	ConcernsHow	concerned	are	yourclientele	about... MeanSt.Dev. Rank ClusterRural/urban	sprawl 5.11 1.73 7 4Agricultural	profitability 5.78 1.61 3 2Land	speculation 4.99 1.45 10 4,5Agricultural	land	conversion 5.50 1.36 5 3Forest	land	conversion 4.58 1.86 14 7Wildlife	habitat	conversion 5.07 1.57 9 4,5Multi-jurisdictional	planning 4.83 1.44 13 6Public	finance	(e.g.,	schools,roads) 5.42 1.33 6 3Open	space	preservation 4.99 1.71 11 4,5Affordable	housing 4.68 1.60 15 6,7Preservation	of	public	outdoorrecreation 4.92 1.55 12 5,6Large	lot,	low	densitydevelopment 4.44 1.61 16 7Air	quality 5.10 1.46 8 4Water	quality 5.82 1.20 2 2Water	quantity 6.03 1.12 1 1Preservation	of	the	"rurallifestyle." 5.66 1.32 4 2Scores	reported	on	a	7-pt.	Likert	scale	where	1=notconcerned,	4=neutral,	7=very	concerned.	Largest	possiblenumber	of	responses	=	550.	Ranking	of	scores	are1=highest	to	16=lowest	mean	score.	Clusters	arestatistically	distinct	rankings	(p<0.05)	where	1=highestmean	score	and	7=lowest	mean	score.	Mean	rankings	withineach	cluster	are	statistically	equivalent.Knowledge	and	SkillsAmong	the	purposes	of	this	survey	was	to	gauge	the	level	of	knowledge	and	ability	of	surveyedindividuals	in	using	common	land	use	planning	and	management	tools.	This	assessment	wasintended	to	identify	sources	of	expertise	in	Colorado,	to	indicate	whether	an	educationalprogramming	effort	might	be	useful,	and	to	determine	at	what	level	of	expertise	it	ought	to	betargeted.	This	approach	should	improve	both	the	appropriateness	and	efficiency	of	educationalprogramming	efforts	in	the	land	use-planning	arena.Respondents	rated	their	knowledge	and	skill	base	on	27	dimensions	related	to	land	and	othernatural	resource	use	and	planning.	Most	(21)	of	factors	evaluated	could	be	categorized	as	legal"tools."	Several	(5)	of	the	variables	evaluated	could	be	seen	as	social	policy,	planning,	or	visioningapproaches.	One	statement	solicits	an	overall	or	overview	assessment	(Table	2).Only	seven	factors	received	neutral	to	positive	knowledge	and	skill	ratings	by	respondents.Overall,	respondents	felt	that	they	possessed	the	greatest	knowledge	of	fee	simple	landpurchases,	zoning,	and	conservation	easements	relative	to	the	other	24	variables.	Respondentsindicated	the	least	knowledge	of	water	banking	or	trusts,	"bargain"	lands	sales,	and	moratoria.Except	for	strategic	planning	(4.41	mean	score,	5	rank),	knowledge	of	social	process	variables	allhad	a	mean	score	tending	toward	a	lack	of	knowledge	(<4.00).	Three	of	the	five	social	processvariables	received	knowledge	and	skill	ratings	ranking	below	the	midpoint	(i.e.,	civic	participationand	dialogue	approaches,	ranked	14th;	innovative	public-private	partnerships,	16th;	and	holisticframing	of	public	issues,	24th)	(Table	2).Interests	and	NeedsKnowledge	and	skill	information	can	be	combined	with	needs	and	interest	information	todetermine	the	primary	thrust	and	level	of	information	communicated	in	educational	efforts.Respondents	were	asked	to	rate	their	degree	of	interest	in	receiving	educational	materials	on	thesame	factors	on	which	they	provided	their	level	of	knowledge.On	average,	respondents	were	neutral	to	positive	regarding	interest	in	educational	programmingon	18	of	the	27	criteria,	including	all	of	the	social	process	variables	(Table	2).	Respondentsindicated	the	greatest	interest	in	programs	or	material	on	an	overview	of	land	management	tools,conservation	easements,	and	public-private	partnerships,	in	decreasing	rank	of	preference.	Theyindicated	the	least	interest	in	educational	programming	related	to	moratoria,	development	timing,and	housing	land	trusts,	in	increasing	rank	of	preference	(Table	2).Table	2Overall	Results,	Mean	Scores	and	Relative	RankingsHow	knowledgeable	are	youon...	How	interested	are	you	in	aneducational	programmingon...Knowledge&	SkillsNeeds	&InterestsMean Rank Mean RankStrategic	planning 4.41 5 4.35 8Land	purchases 4.71 1 4.23 10Purchase	of	Development	Rights(PDR) 3.79 13 4.06 16Land	banking 3.72 15 4.02 18Zoning	(e.g.,	agricultural,performance) 4.64 2T 4.52 5Cluster	Development 3.87 8T 3.84 22Planned	Unit	Development	(PUD) 3.87 8T 3.77 24Capital	ImprovementProgramming	(CIP) 3.24 21T 3.86 20TImpact	fees	and	exactions 3.37 20 3.88 19Development	timing	(phased) 3.40 19 3.68 26Cooperative	agreements	(e.g.,tax-base	sharing) 3.24 21T 4.05 17Environmental	impactstatements	(EIS) 4.49 4 4.21 11Moratoria 2.99 27 3.38 27Tax	credits 3.63 17 4.10 14Special	designations 3.25 23 3.80 23"Bargain"	land	sales 3.00 26 3.86 20TConservation	easements 4.64 2T 4.81 2Transferable	Development	Rights(TDR) 3.50 18 4.27 9Land	trusts 4.07 7 4.43 6TWater	banking/trusts 3.17 25 4.47 4Housing	land	trusts 2.80 12 3.71 25Outright	donations	of	property 3.83 10 4.17 13Innovative	private-publicpartnerships 3.71 16 4.68 3Holistic	framing	of	public	issues 3.18 24 4.07 15Civic	participation	and	dialogueapproaches 3.75 14 4.18 12Multi-jurisdictional	or	regionalplanning	approaches 3.82 11 4.43 6TOverall	land	&	other	naturalresource	planning	tools 4.39 6 4.98 1Scores	reported	on	a	7-pt.	Likert	scale	where	1=no	interest,4=neutral,	7=very	interested.	Rank	of	1	is	highest.	Largestpossible	number	of	responses	=	550.These	results	may	help	to	improve	the	efficiency	and	effectiveness	of	educational	efforts.	Forexample,	the	low	level	of	knowledge	of	public-private	partnerships	coupled	with	high	desire	forinformation	indicates	that	introductory	educational	programming	in	this	area	might	be	wellreceived.	Similarly,	the	low	level	of	knowledge	of	moratoria	coupled	with	a	low	desire	for	moreinformation	indicates	that	an	identified	knowledge	gap	is	likely	to	be	inadequate	to	motivateeducational	efforts.	The	high	level	of	knowledge	and	highly	ranked	desire	for	information	onconservation	easements	indicates	that	educational	efforts	on	the	topic	should	be	targeted	torelative	experts	to	be	useful.Concluding	RemarksAmong	those	principally	charged	with	providing	information	and	educational	programming	onnatural	resource	topics	is	Cooperative	Extension	and	the	Land	Grant	University	system.	Themission	of	Colorado	State	Cooperative	Extension	is	"to	provide	information	and	education,	andencourage	the	application	of	research-based	knowledge	in	response	to	local,	state,	and	nationalissues	affecting	individuals,	youth,	families,	agricultural	enterprises,	and	communities	ofColorado."	Is	land	use	planning,	broadly	termed,	an	appropriate	topical	area	for	ColoradoCooperative	Extension	programming?Largely,	the	traditional	role	of	Extension	has	been	to	focus	on	the	profitability	of	agriculturaloperations,	presuming	that	agricultural	profitability	was	pivotal	to	the	viability	of	ruralcommunities.	Increasingly,	the	benefits	of	diversifying	a	community's	economic	portfolio,	coupledwith	the	potentially	detrimental	impact	of	agricultural	industrialization	on	small	rural	economies,have	prompted	Coloradoans	to	look	toward	alternative	means	of	capturing	the	private	and	socialbenefits	of	agricultural	lands.The	evaluation	of	these	alternatives	is	complex,	research	intensive,	and,	often,	divisive.	Clearly,Cooperative	Extension	has	a	role	in	providing	relevant	information,	planning	and	issue	framingsupport	to	these	important	community	and	individual	decisions	of	rural	Coloradoans.This	survey	provides	an	essential	first	step	toward	cost-effective	and	useful	educationalprogramming	on	land	use	planning	topics	in	the	state	of	Colorado.	It	identifies	areas	of	relative	skilland	ability,	areas	of	relative	need,	and	areas	of	relative	concern.	With	this	information,Cooperative	Extension	and	other	educationally	oriented	private	and	public	agencies	can	hope	tobetter	serve	our	clientele.AcknowledgementsThe	Colorado	State	Forest	Service,	American	Farmland	Trust,	and	Colorado	State	UniversityCooperative	Extension	enabled	this	study.	Substantial	time	and	effort	in	crafting	the	surveyinstrument	and	mailing	list,	and	in	reviewing	the	results	were	expended	by	the	followingindividuals:	Phil	Schwolert,	Jeff	Jones,	Martha	Sullins,	Bob	Hamblen,	Elizabeth	Garner,	Sheila	Knop,and	Dennis	Lamm.	Administrative	support	was	provided	by	Jessica	Wells	and	by	a	number	ofstudents	and	staff	in	the	CSU-Department	of	Agricultural	and	Resource	Economics.	The	author	isindebted	to	these	individuals	and	institutions	for	their	support	of	this	project.	However,	as	usual,	allerrors	of	interpretation	and	omission	remain	mine.ReferencesCDLG.	Demography	Section	of	the	Colorado	Division	of	Local	Government.(1999,	August).Population	projections	and	ten	largest	and	fastest	growing	counties,	Aug.	8,	1999	[On-line].Available:	http://www.dlg.oem2.state.co.us/demog/demog.htm.Dillman,	D.	A.(1978).	Mail	and	telephone	surveys:	The	total	design	method.	New	York:	John	Wileyand	Sons.Edelman,	M.	A.,	Roe,	J.	&	Patton,	D.	B.	(1999).	Land	use	conflict:	When	city	and	county	clash.Chicago,	IL:	Farm	Foundation.Seidl,	A.	(2000).	Materials	used	for	the	1999	survey	of	Colorado	professionals'	concerns,	abilities,and	needs	for	land	use	planning.	APR00-06.	Agricultural	and	Resource	Policy	Report,	Departmentof	Agricultural	and	Resource	Economics.	Colorado	State	University,	Ft.	Collins,	CO.USDA.	(1999).	United	States	Department	of	Agriculture,	1997	Census	of	Agriculture	-	Colorado.Copyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Colorado Professionals\u27 Concerns, Abilities, and Needs for Land Use Planning

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5294&context=joe

Colorado Professionals\u27 Concerns, Abilities, and Needs for Land Use Planning

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints