Picking up the PACE: a multi-state empirical analysis of payments for agricultural conservation easement (PACE) program performance

Abstract The United States has implemented a variety of policy mechanisms to protect agricultural lands, and individual states have invested $5.5 billion in this protection; however, the conversion of prime farmland to development continues. Is farmland protection policy effective in maintaining viable agricultural landscapes? In this study, we developed a suite of indicators to measure the performance of state-funded agricultural conservation easement programs including a) land quality, b) cost, c) development risk, d) proportion of a state’s agricultural land protected, and e) contiguity of protected land. We then compared these indicators across 11 states and among three different easement program designs using regression analysis and landscape metrics. We found that state-funded easement programs do not necessarily perform better than easements that were not acquired with public funds. Furthermore, we found that program design may be an important factor when measuring program performance. We categorized these programs by the degree of centralized decision-making and found that decentralized programs protect lands with at least three times higher quality, that are almost twice as valuable, and with at least 1.5 times greater development risk than centralized and collaborative programs. At the landscape level, easements in states with decentralized programs have at least 1.3 times greater contiguity compared to centralized and collaborative programs though they were also associated with the lowest proportion of the state’s agricultural land base under protection at 0.8%. Overall, our analysis revealed that irrespective of program design, there may be trade-offs between the quantity, quality, and cost of the lands protected. Further research is needed to fully investigate how farmland protection policies in general, and program design specifically, affect society’s ability to maintain a viable agricultural land base.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Research Communications
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae009a
Primary Topic
Agricultural Economics and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Picking up the PACE: a multi-state empirical analysis of payments for agricultural conservation easement (PACE) program performance

Jodi Brandt, Matthew A. Williamson, Theresa Nogeire-McRae, Jayash Paudel et al.
Environmental Research Communications
Agricultural Economics and Policy
article

Picking up the PACE: a multi-state empirical analysis of payments for agricultural conservation easement (PACE) program performance

Jodi Brandt, Matthew A. Williamson, Theresa Nogeire-McRae, Jayash Paudel, Lee Parton, Kelsey K. Johnson
article en

Abstract

Abstract The United States has implemented a variety of policy mechanisms to protect agricultural lands, and individual states have invested $5.5 billion in this protection; however, the conversion of prime farmland to development continues. Is farmland protection policy effective in maintaining viable agricultural landscapes? In this study, we developed a suite of indicators to measure the performance of state-funded agricultural conservation easement programs including a) land quality, b) cost, c) development risk, d) proportion of a state’s agricultural land protected, and e) contiguity of protected land. We then compared these indicators across 11 states and among three different easement program designs using regression analysis and landscape metrics. We found that state-funded easement programs do not necessarily perform better than easements that were not acquired with public funds. Furthermore, we found that program design may be an important factor when measuring program performance. We categorized these programs by the degree of centralized decision-making and found that decentralized programs protect lands with at least three times higher quality, that are almost twice as valuable, and with at least 1.5 times greater development risk than centralized and collaborative programs. At the landscape level, easements in states with decentralized programs have at least 1.3 times greater contiguity compared to centralized and collaborative programs though they were also associated with the lowest proportion of the state’s agricultural land base under protection at 0.8%. Overall, our analysis revealed that irrespective of program design, there may be trade-offs between the quantity, quality, and cost of the lands protected. Further research is needed to fully investigate how farmland protection policies in general, and program design specifically, affect society’s ability to maintain a viable agricultural land base.

Environmental Research CommunicationsVol. 7(9)
Boise State University (US), American Farmland Trust (US), University of Oklahoma (US)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Agricultural Economics and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.