Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of landowners’ attitudes towards the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve Gillis, Mark Herbert 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 G54_4.pdf [ 7.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094900.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094900-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094900-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094900-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094900-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094900-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094900-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094900-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094900.ris

Full Text

o.l AN ANALYSIS OF LANDOWNERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE by MARK HERBERT GILLIS B.A., The Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1980 (c) Mark Herbert G i l l i s , 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at.the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of Brit ish Columbia 2 0 7 5 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V 6 T 1 W S Date 12 October 1980 ABSTRACT In B r i t i s h Columbia since 1972 land which i s used for or has po t e n t i a l value for ag r i c u l t u r e or grazing has been r e s t r i c t e d to these and associated uses. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (ALR) system constitutes an unusually strong l i m i t a t i o n on property use and consequently on an owner's freedom to maximize economic gain from p o t e n t i a l a l t e r n a t i v e land uses. As a r e s u l t , the ALR system was highly c o n t r o v e r s i a l when i t was i n i t i a l l y introduced. This thesis examines the at t i t u d e s of owners of land i n the ALR, using survey data c o l l e c t e d f i v e years a f t e r i n i t i a t i o n of the ALR system. Review of the l i t e r a t u r e led to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of many variables which would be expected to a f f e c t the attitudes of these landowners toward the ALR. Most of these variables could be rela t e d to factors measured i n the survey data, or to regional influences which were added to the data base. The basic objective for undertaking the research i s implied i n the assumption that knowledge of sources or correlates of support and opposition to the e x i s t i n g ALR system i s knowledge that may be used i n improving the system. More than 80% of a l l land holders sampled i n the ALR support the ALR system, though with some reservations i n many cases, but less than 20% are neutral or opposed to the system of land use c o n t r o l . Theory and empirical findings were used to i d e n t i f y the landowners most l i k e l y to oppose the ALR, and even i n these s t a t i s t i c a l groupings the majority i n each expressed support for the ALR. Most of the var i a b l e s expected to a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s toward the ALR have i n fact n e g l i g i b l e or i n s i g n i f i c a n t i i i effect on these attitudes. One of the groups expected to be opposed to the ALR in 1978 were those who had taken some action in opposition to the proposed legislation when i t was introduced and debated in 1972 and 1973. When surveyed some five years later, a majority of these expressed at least qualified support of the ALR. The implications of this and other findings for agricultural land policy are discussed, and some suggestions are made for the process of initiating legislation which gives priority to the long term public welfare over short term private interests. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF MAPS i x LIST OF APPENDICES x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION (i) Problem Description 2 ( i i ) Thesis Objectives 5 ( i i i ) The Significance of Research Concerning Landowners' Attitudes 6 (iv) D e f i n i t i o n s 7 II ATTITUDES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USE LEGISLATION -LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK (i) Factors Associated with Land Tenure and E f f e c t s of Land Use Control L e g i s l a t i o n 12 ( i i ) Factors Associated with P o l i t i c a l Influence and I n i t i a l Implementation of the L e g i s l a t i o n 17 ( i i i ) Factors Associated with Viable Farm Operation . . . . 22 (iv) Factors Associated with Urbanization Pressure . . . . 25 (v) Chapter Summary 28 II I RESEARCH PROCEDURE (i) Research Terms of Reference 33 ( i i ) Data Sources 34 ( i i i ) The Study Regions 35 (i v ) Data Description 37 (y) Data Handling 40 IV ANALYSIS OF FACTORS HYPOTHESIZED AS INFLUENCING LANDOWNERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES (i ) Data Analysis - Level of Measurement and A n a l y t i c a l Procedure 43 ( i i ) Aggregate Levels of Landowner Support for the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves 46 ( i i i ) Explanation of Data Tables 49 (iv) Measurement of Significance and Association Between Factors and Landowners' Attitudes toward the A.L.R 59 a) Land Tenure and the E f f e c t s of L e g i s l a t i o n on Attitudes 59 v Page b) Factors Associated with the I n i t i a l Implementation of the L e g i s l a t i o n and Regional P o l i t i c a l A f f i l i a t i o n ^8 . c) Factors Associated with Viable Farm Operation. . 71 d) Factors Associated with Urbanization Pressure . . . ^1 (v) Chapter Summary 82 V CONCLUSIONS (i ) The Di r e c t i o n of Attitudes Towards A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Preservation 87 ( i i ) Planning Implications of the Research Findings and Associated Recommendations 90 a) Strengthening of P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use P o l i c y ^0 b) National Implementation of P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Preservation P o l i c i e s . . . . 96 ( i i i ) Recommendations of Future Research Concerning Attitudes Toward A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use Control . . . 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 APPENDICIES 112 v i LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 BRITISH COLUMBIA PERCENTAGE OF LAND BY C.L.I. CLASSIFICATION 4 TABLE 2 A.L.R. DESIGNATION OF RESPONDENTS 38 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A.L.R. BY STUDY REGION 39 TABLE 4 MEASURE OF ASSOCIATION AND SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES . . 47 TABLE 5 ATTITUDES OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE A.L.R. TOWARDS THE A.L.R 48 TABLE 6 AGGREGATED LEVELS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TOWARD THE A.L.R. ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FACTOR 51 TABLE 7 LEVELS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TOWARD THE A.L.R. ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FACTOR 55 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF OPINIONS TOWARD THE A.L.R. BY LAND USE SITUATION THROUGH THE USE OF THE KOLMOGROV-SMIRNOV TOO SAMPLE TEST 62 TABLE 9 PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES OF LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE A.L.R. 65 TABLE 10 EFFECTS OF ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH BETWEEN 1971 AND 1976 ON PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES 6 7 TABLE 11 REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO RESULTS OF 1972, 1975 AND 1979 BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS 72 TABLE 12 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE FUTURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES OF LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE RESERVE 75 TABLE 13 ATTITUDES OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 76 TABLE 14 PROPERTY OWNER OCCUPATION COMPARED TO GENERAL LAND USE 79 TABLE 15 STUDY REGION POPULATION GROWTH BY REGION: 1971-1976 . . . 80 v i i Page TABLE 16 STUDY REGION POPULATION GROWTH BY ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE: 1976-1977 8 1 TABLE 177 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTIONS 9(7) AND 9(8) OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT SINCE 1977 93 v i i i LIST OF MAPS Page MAP 1 LOCATION OF STUDY AREAS RELATIVE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES 3 6 ix LIST OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE UTILIZED IN DATA COLLECTION BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA 113 APPENDIX 2 PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP WITH JURISDICTION OF A.L.R. VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 126 APPENDIX 3 METHOD OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 128 APPENDIX 4 GENERAL LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 130 APPENDIX 5 FARM TYPE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 132 APPENDIX 6 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. . IMPLEMENTATION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. . . 134 APPENDIX 7 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R VERSUS REGIONAL RATE OF GROWTH 136 APPENDIX 8 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. VERSUS ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE RATE OF GROWTH 138 APPENDIX 9 ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 140 APPENDIX 10 RESULTS OF ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 142 APPENDIX 11 INITIAL REACTION OF LEGISLATION IN 1973 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 144 APPENDIX 12 PAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS (1972, 1975, 1979) BY REGION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R 146 APPENDIX 13 SIZE OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 148 APPENDIX 14 PROPERTY SOIL CLASS VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. . . . . . 150 APPENDIX 15 CONDITION OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. . . . . 152 APPENDIX 16 CONDITION OF FARM BUILDINGS VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. . 154 APPENDIX 17 YEARS OPERATING PROPERTY UNIT VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. 156 APPENDIX 18 PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 158 x Page APPENDIX 19 OCCUPATION IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. . 160 APPENDIX 20 GENERAL OCCUPATION VERSUS GENERAL LAND USE 162 APPENDIX 21 AGE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. 164 APPENDIX 22 CHILDREN ON PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 166 APPENDIX 23 LEVEL OF EDUCATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 168 APPENDIX 24 PERCEPTION OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 170 APPENDIX 25 ATTITUDES OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R I 7 2 APPENDIX 26 ADJACENT LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R I 7 4 APPENDIX 27 REGIONAL GROWTH RATE - 1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R 1 7 6 APPENDIX 28 ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE - 1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R I 7 8 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not" have been possible without the assistance of many i n d i v i d u a l s to whom I w i l l always be g r e a t f u l . Sincere appreciation i s extended to Mr. Axel Kinnear, Chairman of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission between 1978 and 1980, for h i s assistance and encouragement to me i n the i n i t i a l stages of topic development. Special thanks i s extended to Edward Manning, James McCuaig and the Staff of Environment Canada for providing the primary data base from which the research extends from. I am gr a t e f u l to Professor Henry Hightower who devoted many hours of h i s time i n reviewing my work and providing me with guidance to complete the research. Also, thanks are extended to Brahm Wiesman for h i s comments and guidance i n the to p i c . As with a l l goals I have undertaken to pursue, I must reserve my sincerest appreciation to my parents for the constant encouragement and love they have always provided for me. x i i 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION (i) Problem Description On A p r i l 18, 1973, the Land Commission Act became law i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (Smith, 1975) . In conjunction with the adoption of the Act, approximately 11.6 m i l l i o n acres of land were desig-nated as A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. A l l lands included within the Reserve are subject to s t r i c t r e s t r i c t i o n s on subdivision and use. The ultimate objective of such control i s the preservation of e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l a g r i c u l t u r a l land for future farm use. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (A.L.R.) has been described as a form of zoning. However, a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e x i s t s between the Reserve and the t r a d i t i o n a l land use zoning which c o n t r o l l e d a g r i c u l t u r a l land use p r i o r to the adoption of the Land Commission Act. Land use control under the Land Commission Act i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s f l e x i b l e than was control by zoning (Smith, 1975). Subsequently, land-owners possessing properties within areas designated as A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve have been subjected to l e g i s l a t i o n , c o n t r o l l e d at the P r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , which imposes s t r i c t l i m i t a t i o n s on the future land use of t h e i r properties. This thesis examines landowners' attitudes of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. B r i t i s h Columbia has an extremely l i m i t e d supply of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Approximately 90 percent of the land base i s mountainous and honarable ( P r o v i n c i a l Land Commiss ion, 1975), Only 4.1 percent of the province's t o t a l area i s considered to be arable ( B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of 3 A g r i c u l t u r e , 1978). P r i o r to the adoption of the Land Commission Act i n 1973, urbani-zation was consuming approximately 15,000 acres of a g r i c u l t u r a l land per year (B.C. Land Commission, 1975). In f a c t , f o r the twenty-year period p r i o r to the adoption of the Act, 195,000 acres of prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n the province was converted to nonagricultural usage (Baxter, 1974). It must be emphasized that the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of land varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y across the province. High c a p a b i l i t y land i n one region cannot be equally traded o f f against lower c a p a b i l i t y land i n another region (Davis and Rees, 1977). To match the p r o d u c t i v i t y l e v e l of 100 hectares of Class 1 land would require 143 hectares of Class 3, or 233 hectares of Class 4. Also, the crop d i v e r s i t y p o t e n t i a l i s greatly reduced on lower c a p a b i l i t y land from that of high c a p a b i l i t y ( A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1975). Hence, the importance of high q u a l i t y a g r i c u l -t u r a l land i n the province i s r e a d i l y evident; however, the natural abundance of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r resource i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s extremely l i m i t e d . The following table shows the t o t a l percentage of land i n the province under each of the seven Canada Land Inventory (C.L.I.) a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . As seen from Table 1, the severe shortage of high q u a l i t y a g r i -c u l t u r a l land i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s very evident. I t was i n response to the rapid urbanization of t h i s extremely l i m i t e d resource that B i l l 42 was passed i n 1973. While the province-wide argument for the adoption of the l e g i s l a t i o n was sound i n that i t s objective was to protect the province's future food resource base, the e f f e c t s of such l e g i s l a t i o n are often f e l t at the l o c a l l e v e l . I t i s , therefore, the property owners who are 4 TABLE 1 BRITISH COLUMBIA PERCENTAGE OF LAND BY C.L.I. CLASSIFICATION Water Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Surfaces Other* T o t a l Percent of To t a l Acreage 0.02 0.25 0.73 1.78 6.97 5.66 15.92 2.45 66.22 100.0 *0ther includes u n c l a s s i f i e d urban areas, nation a l parks, and unmapped portions of the d i s t r i c t . Source: B r i t i s h Columbia Environment and Land Use Se c r e t a r i a t , 1976. 5 subjected to a p o l i c y whose normative roots e x i s t at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . An important aspect of the plan-monitoring process i s to under-stand not only how, but why i n d i v i d u a l s respond i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner to a p o l i c y . P o l i c y makers may often understand the general d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of the response to such a p o l i c y , but they may not know the, degree to which these attitudes can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to factors which are external or secondary to the underlying purpose of the p o l i c y . Economic, p o l i t i c a l , farm v i a b i l i t y , urban pressures, or other factors may be instrumental i n influencing an i n d i v i d u a l ' s reaction to the imposition of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Therefore, i f p o l i c y analysts can provide better knowledge concerning the e f f e c t s of such factors on landowners' attitudes towards the l e g i s l a t i o n , then p o l i c y makers are better equipped to manipulate and strengthen the l e g i s l a t i o n . ( i i ) Thesis Objectives The objective of the thesis i s to add to the knowledge concerning landowners' attitudes towards a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation p o l i c y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the research w i l l seek to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c sources of support or opposition towards the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve as held by affected landowners. The i m p l i c i t objective being that once such factors have been i d e n t i f i e d then they may eventually become the basis f or future p o l i c y development and subsequent implementation. The consequences of such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n process, therefore, would i d e a l l y r e s u l t i n the strengthening of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l . Land Commission Act. The research w i l l examine the att i t u d e s of landowners with property i n the A.L.R. i n several study areas throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. 6 Landowners' att i t u d e s w i l l be assessed within the context of several sets of factors which have been i d e n t i f i e d within l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to land use c o n t r o l . The objective, therefore, i s to examine, i n the context of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, how i n f l u e n t i a l these factors are i n a f f e c t i n g landowners' a t t i t u d e s . ( i i i ) The Significance of Research Concerning Landowners' Attitudes There has been a marked increase i n the rate of urban development i n many areas of North America. Since 1970, demographers have reported that nonmetropolitan areas have been gaining population more r a p i d l y than metropolitan areas f o r the f i r s t time since the Depression (Healy and Short, 1979, p. 305). Also, a great d i v e r s i t y of a c t i v i t y presently e x i s t s i n r u r a l areas which immediately d i s p e l l s the notion that r u r a l Canada i s a homogeneous segment of the Canadian system. This changing mixture and increased rate of development i n nonmetropolitan areas has been expressed i n the landscape by the rapid emergence of a c t i v i t i e s which symbolize the pursuits of the r u r a l l i f e s t y l e ; examples of these include hobby farms, r u r a l retirement homes, and the ever popular ranchette (Qadeer, 1979). I t i s very evident that the r u r a l environment cannot be characterized as being composed of residents with homogeneous values and att i t u d e s . The "adoption of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve has affected many people i n these r u r a l areas and i t i s therefore an important planning objective to understand both the d i v e r s i t y of response to t h i s land use control, as w e l l as the underlying factors associated with these responses. 7 (iv) D e f i n i t i o n s In order to assure that ambiguous meanings are not associated with terms, i t i s necessary to state several d e f i n i t i o n s at th i s time. For the purpose of th i s t h e s i s , an attitude i s defined as the pred i s p o s i t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l to evaluate some symbol, object, or aspect of h i s world i n a favourable or unfavourable manner (Katz, 1960). Individuals hold attitudes concerning an enormous number of concrete and abstract phenomena. McKeen states that: although each i n d i v i d u a l possesses a unique framework of a t t i t u d e s , c e r t a i n systems of ideas provide a common source of i n d i v i d u a l attitudes and of atti t u d e s held by d i f f e r e n t groups within a society. (1978, p. 2) This the s i s , therefore, w i l l seek to i d e n t i f y such "systems o-f:ideas" which are responsible f o r e l i c i t i n g common sources of atti t u d e s by land-owners within the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. These "systems of ideas" as defined by McKeen w i l l be ref e r r e d to as factors within the context of t h i s research. Factors, therefore, are defined as those a t t r i b u t e s capable of infl u e n c i n g landowners' a t t i t u d e s towards the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. In order to reduce confusion, a d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be made at th i s point between the Land Commission Act and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  Act, as both Acts w i l l be referred to throughout the course of the t h e s i s . The Land Commission Act r e f e r s to the l e g i s l a t i o n introduced by Cabinet under the New Democratic Party government i n 1973. Following a change i n government i n 1975, the Act was renamed the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  Act i n S o c i a l Credit government l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1977. Under both Acts, however, the land use co n t r o l designation i s re f e r r e d to as the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve (A.L.R.). 8 References Cited A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada (1975). "A Land Use P o l i c y f o r Canada," Agrologist. Volume 4, pp. 22-25. Baxter, David (1974). "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission A c t — A Review," Report No. 8. Department of Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia Environment and Land Use Secretariat (1976). A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land Capability i n B r i t i s h Columbia. September, 1976. Davis, Craig H. and William E. Rees (1977). "Agriculture and Uncertainty: Keeping the Options Open," School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Healy, Robert G. and James L. Short (1979) "Rural Land: Market Trends and Planning Implications," American Planning Association Journal. July, 1979, pp. 305-317. Katz, Daniel (.1960) . "The Functional Approach to the Study of A t t i t u d e s , " Public Opinion and Communication. B. Berelson and M. Janovitz (eds.). Collier-MacMillan: London, 1966, pp. 51-64. Manning, Edward W. and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of British.Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Environment Canada: Ottawa. McKeen, Kenneth J . (1978). The V a l i d i t y of C i t i z e n Attitudes As Conveyed to P o l i t i c i a n s and Planners through P a r t i c i p a t i o n arid Representa^  t i o n . Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Pearson, Norman (1972) . "Fraser Valley—Rape It or Preserve I t ? " Land Use  i n the Fraser Valley—Whose Concern? Proceedings of the Seminar on Land Use i n the Fraser Valley, Centre for Continuing Education and Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r a l Sciences, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Mini s t r y of Agriculture (.1978). Agr i c u l t u r e  S t a t i s t i c s Yearbook. B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (1975) . Keeping the Options Open. Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia. Qadeer, Mohammed A. (1979). "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Plan-ning i n Canada," Plari Canada. 19/2, June, 1979, pp. 106-121. 9 Smith, Barry (1975). The British Columbia Land Commission Act—1973. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. White, Gilbert F. (1966). "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes," Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. Harry J a r r e t (ed.) Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, pp. 105-127. 10 CHAPTER TWO ATTITUDES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USE LEGISLATION LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 11 ATTITUDES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USE LEGISLATION LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK Li t e r a t u r e concerning landowners' attitudes towards land use l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l be examined i n th i s section, to e s t a b l i s h a research frame-work. This w i l l serve to i d e n t i f y research areas to be used as a basis f o r hypotheses testing and guided exploration of factors associated with landowners' a t t i t u d e s . The expectation i s that subsequent data analysis and hypotheses t e s t i n g w i l l a s s i s t i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c sources of opposition and support f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. L i t e r a t u r e pertaining d i r e c t l y to the concept of landowners' attitudes of land use l e g i s l a t i o n i s l i m i t e d , and most of the l i t e r a t u r e which i s av a i l a b l e i s based on experience i n the United States. However, whether the theory i s based upon B r i t i s h Columbia, other Canadian, or American land use l e g i s l a t i o n experiences, i t may be of value to th i s study as i t w i l l provide a basis f o r the examination of attitudes i n th i s p a r t i c u l a r land use l e g i s l a t i o n experience. On the basis of the l i t e r a t u r e examined, four general groups of factors r e l a t i n g to owners' attitudes towards A.L.R. l e g i s l a t i o n can be i d e n t i f i e d : (1) Land Tenure and E f f e c t s of L e g i s l a t i o n ; (2) I n i t i a l Reac-t i o n to the L e g i s l a t i o n and P o l i t i c a l B e l i e f s ; (3) Viable Farm Operation; and (4) Urbanization Pressure. The remainder of t h i s s ection w i l l discuss these f a c t o r s . 12 (i) Factors Associated with Land Tenure and Effects of Land Use  Control Legislation For the purpose of this study, land tenure factors are defined as the rights and values associated with property ownership. There are several factors associated with the interrelationship between property rights and values and land use control legislation. The concept of land tenure as developed in Canada is often conceived in terms of a "bundle of rights" such as the right to mortgage, to establish various charges against the estate, to develop, etc. The rights that comprise an estate in land may be separated into various bundles recognized and protected by the state (Timmons and Cormack, 1971). Through the establishment of the Agricultural Land Reserves in British Columbia, the bundle of rights held by property owners whose estates came under the jurisdiction of the Reserve were effectively reduced. Strict land use and subdivision restrictions were imposed upon these properties. These restrictions are specified in Section 10(4)(a) and Section 10(4)(d) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act as: 10(4)(a) no municipality, or regional district, or any authority, board, or other agency established by i t shall authorize or permit agricultural land reserve to be used for a purpose other than farm use, or authorize or permit a building to be erected thereon, except (i) for farm use; or (ii) for residences necessary for farm use; or (i i i ) such residences for an owner of the agricultural land as may be permitted to be erected by the regulations; 10(4)(d) no Registrar of Titles shall: (i) accept an application for deposit of a subdivision-plan, reference plan, explanatory plan, or other plan evidencing the subdivision of land, or 13 (ii) permit a new parcel of land to be created by a metes and bounds description, or an abbreviated description, under the Land Registry Act, Strata Titles Act, or Real Estate Act, a l l or part of which consists of land in an agricultural land reserve. Land use legislation may affect property values in one of two ways. According to Goodall: The value of that site will be raised where legislation (1) increases demand relative to supply for which that site has the greatest comparative advantage or (2) decreases the supply of sites for that purpose relative to demand. The value of that site will f a l l i f legislation (1) increases the supply of such sites relative to demand or (2) decreases demand relative to supply.((1970, p. 14) On the basis of Goodall's explanation, the Agricultural Land  Commission Act has the potential effect of reducing the value of properties which f a l l under its jurisdiction. Demand for the use of properties within the Reserve for nonfarm purposes will be reduced and the supply of farm-land, as designated by the Reserve has been increased; hence, in theory, the value of the property is lowered. With definite agricultural zoning now enforced throughout British Columbia, agricultural land values have been reduced in some areas (Low, 1973). Typically there is l i t t l e doubt that land use regulations can cause a substantial difference in property value (Reilly, 1977). In light of this discussion, i t is important to note that Section 16 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act specifically establishes that no compensa-tion shall be paid to property owners who are affected by the legislation. On the basis of the foregoing discussion alone, i t would be logical to assume that the increased restrictions on land use and associated potential reductions in property value created by the A.L.R. would be important factors influencing owners' attitudes towards the 14 l e g i s l a t i o n . However, other economic f a c t o r s , i n the form of government p o l i c y , operate which may i n f a c t reduce e f f e c t s of the foregoing land tenure f a c t o r s . In order to assure farmers i n the A.L.R. would s t i l l be able to make a f a i r income, the P r o v i n c i a l Government passed several acts i n 1973. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Credit Act provides f o r loans and guarantees loans f o r farmland purchase and improvement, and, the Income Assurance Act provides guaranteed returns to farmers f o r products sold (Krueger, 1977). Hence, i f e f f e c t i v e , these Acts should influence landowners' attitudes within the Reserve i n a p o s i t i v e manner. A g r i c u l t u r a l support schemes have the p o t e n t i a l of r a i s i n g income earned above the corresponding free-market l e v e l . There should be a proportionate r i s e i n the value of a g r i c u l t u r a l land ( i . e . , those properties which benefit from support schemes) r e l a t i v e to non a g r i c u l t u r a l land ( i . e . , these properties not b e n e f i t i n g ) . E x i s t i n g use value w i l l therefore increase and the economic d i f f e r e n t i a l s between a g r i c u l t u r a l and other land values w i l l be reduced (Goodall, 1970). Therefore, i f e f f e c t i v e , such a g r i c u l t u r a l support schemes should have the e f f e c t of increasing landowners' support f o r the A.L.R. even though such landowners may have experienced losses i n property values. If t h i s i s the case, then these support schemes can be i d e n t i f i e d as having p o s i t i v e influences on landowners' a t t i t u d e s . The desire to have property excluded from the Reserve or to subdivide property within i t are ind i c a t o r s that the landowner i s not s a t i s f i e d with h i s present land tenure s i t u a t i o n . I t i s the objective of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission to prevent the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to nonfarm use and, to prevent subdivision of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n t o 15 nonviable farm parcels. However, i n c e r t a i n circumstances i t i s recognized by the Commission that i t may be necessary to permit the exclusion or subdivision of a g r i c u l t u r a l properties. Provisions f o r such are provided within Section 11(4) and Section 9(2) of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  Act. Under Section 11(4) of the Act, landowners may apply to the Commission f o r permission to subdivide t h e i r properties or to use the property f o r a nonfarm use. Under Section 9(2) of the Act, a p p l i c a t i o n may be made by landowners to have t h e i r properties excluded from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. Hence, landowners, i f successful i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , may regain some of t h e i r r i g h t s i n the case of subdivision, and a l l of t h e i r o r i g i n a l tenure r i g h t s i n the case of exclusion a p p l i c a t i o n s . Hence, i t can be conjectured that those property owners who are refused by the Commission w i l l f e e l that t h e i r desired actions have been greatly i n h i b i t e d by the A.L.R., and hence presumably would not support the A.L.R. On the basis of the foregoing discussion concerning land tenure and land use l e g i s l a t i o n , two r e l a t e d factors have been shown to be i n f l u e n t i a l i n shaping landowners' a t t i t u d e s ; these are property r i g h t s and economic issues. In response to the research objectives, i t i s desirable to examine the extent to which these two factors influence landowners' attitudes i n the context of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Acknowledging the f a c t that t o t a l independence does not e x i s t between land values and property r i g h t s , i t i s , however, possible to examine separately how these two factors contribute to landowners' a t t i t u d e s . To examine the extent to which property holders f e e l that t h e i r property r i g h t s have been r e s t r i c t e d by the A.L.R., i t i s hypothesized that: 16 The level of support of the A.L.R. is higher among owners of property outside the A.L.R. than among owners of property inside the A.L.R. Economic issues include property values and the effects of the Agricultural Credit Act and the Income Insurance Act have on operating farms. First, on the basis of the preceding literature survey concerning the effects of legislation on property values, i t is important to examine the extent to which landowners perceive their property values have been affected by the A.L.R. Therefore, i t is hypothesized that: Landowners within the A.L.R. perceive that the A.L.R. has produced a reduction in their property values, and those with this perception will be more opposed to the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, the extent to which the Agricultural Credit and Income  Insurance Acts have mitigated the changes in property values will be reflected by the level of support towards the A.L.R. displayed by land-owners. Hence, i f these Acts have been successful, i t is hypothesized that: The level of support toward the A.L.R. is higher from those owners whose properties are actively used as farms than those whose properties are used for nonfarm purposes. An activity which can be considered a combination of property rights and economic issues is the attempt by landowners to have their properties either excluded from the A.L.R. or subdivided. Hence, i f declined by the Commission for approval to undertake such actions, i t would seem logical to conjecture that landowners will feel inhibited by the A.L.R. Such individuals would have been either prevented from gaining back tenure rights, or, receiving economic gains for subdivision or a nonfarm use of the property. Following this i t is hypothesized that: Landowners who have been prevented from excluding property from the A.L.R. or subdividing property will show lowered levels of support than landowners who have not pursued such actions. 17 The foregoing discussion, therefore, will serve as a basis of analysis of attitudes in areas of property rights and economic issues of properties within the A.L.R. Two other factors, farm type and method of property acquisition, will also be examined under the category of Land Tenure and the Effects of Land Use Control Legislation. However, as no literature is available concerning these factors, inquiry shall proceed on the researcher's assumption that a relationship between these factors and attitudes of the A.L.R. may exist. (ii) Factors Associated with Political Influence and Initial  Implementation of the Legislation The purpose of this section is to review literature concerning the i n i t i a l implementation of the Land Commission Act and associated political issues. It is the expectation that this will lead to further identification of factors which may influence landowners' attitudes towards the A.L.R. There are several attributes associated with the Land Commission legislation which may be influential in shaping attitudes. The introduc-tion of this legislation was a milestone event in the history of the British Columbian legislature; in the words of Dave Barrett, premier at the time: No other experience in my political career brought me more heat, more concern and more wonderment about what I was doing in the world of politics than the day we froze farm-land in this province. (Vancouver Sun, October 26, 1979) Many actions were taken in response to the proposed implementation of the Act which may have clouded the actual issues at hand and influenced people's attitudes towards the legislation. High-profile political statements, 18 protest marches, and allegations which linked the N.D.P. government's Land  Commission Act with communism are examples which may have strongly influenced people's i n i t i a l reaction to its implementation. It is difficult to assess the general public's attitude towards the proposed implementation of the Act. Initial reactions to the announce-ment were extremely mixed. Malzahn describes the situation in late 1972 as: The situation had a l l the right ingredients for a classic British Columbia-style political battle: big and small land developers suspicious of the N.D.P.'s "socialist" rhetoric about land and housing; conservation minded citizens appalled at the destruction of a scarce resource; farmers upset about their own economic problems; other rural landowners resentful of government interference in the use of private property; municipal politicians fighting what they perceived as an attempt to meddle with the local jurisdiction over land use planning; and more than a few people who regarded land use controls of any kind as creeping communism. (Malzahn, 1979, p. 15) Smith (1975) extensively researched and recorded reactions to the proposed adoption of the Act. The leader of the provincial Liberal party at that time, David Anderson, referred to the Land Commission Act as "dictatorial," adding that "this government's record is such that we cannot trust them, and this B i l l shows why" (Smith, 1979, p. 133). W. A. C. Bennett cut short his vacation, returning home from South Africa in reaction to the proposed legislation. He immediately proclaimed that "Socialism is now in fu l l flood in B.C." and demanded that a provincial election be called forthwith. He warned that "No house is safe, no business is safe"; the legislation he said "destroys the value of land . . . i f you are going to attack freedom, you always attack the land" (Vancouver Sun, March 3, 1973). John Diefenbaker, federal opposition leader, exhibited strong opposition towards the proposed legislation as well. Diefenbaker requested Justice Minister Otto Lang to use the presumed federal power of reserving royal 19 assent to the l e g i s l a t i o n , so that even i f adopted by the B r i t i s h Columbia Legislature i t would not take l e g a l e f f e c t (Toronto Globe and M a i l , March 9, 1973). A telegram was sent to Prime Minister Trudeau explaining that the B i l l was " i n t o t a l an unprecedented example of p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n denying i n every respect the p r i n c i p l e s involved i n the Canadian B i l l of Rights" (Vancouver Sun, February 23, 1973). A f i n a l example of the strong emotions which p r e v a i l e d i n the attitudes towards debate of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was a telegram from several lower mainland r e s i -dents sent to Buckingham Palace asking the Queen to withold r o y a l assent (Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1973). I t i s d i f f i c u l t to quantify the l e v e l of support among the general public at that time. Public a t t i t u d e toward the l e g i s l a t i o n may have been highly obscured by p o l i t i c a l statements. Harold Steves, New Democrat MLA from Richmond found through checking p o s t a l meter r e g i s t r a t i o n s that many of the "Stop B i l l 42" postcards he received were mailed by people working for development, r e a l estate and bu i l d i n g supply companies. In f a c t , of the several hundred l e t t e r s and postcards he received objecting to the Land Commission l e g i s l a t i o n , only three were from bona f i d e farmers (Smith, 1975, p. 137). In an attempt to measure, i n a very rough sense, the attitudes during t h i s time, Smith examined "Letters to the E d i t o r " i n the Vancouver Sun and the Province d a i l y newspapers f o r a two-month period following the introduction of B i l l 42. The r e s u l t s showed: In t o t a l , four l e t t e r s can be described, as being ne u t r a l , 20 were d e f i n i t e l y against the B i l l (31.25%) and 40 (62.5%) of the l e t t e r s were i n favour of the Government's land p o l i c y . (Smith, 1975, p. 134) From a s t a t i s t i c a l perspective, these figures may not be 20 considered useful because of potential bias. However, such findings can be considered relevant as secondary information. The letters appeared in British Columbia's two most widely circulated newspapers and therefore have some value in describing prevailing public attitudes at the time of legisla-tion debate. There were other indicators of the emotional fervour which was associated with the proposed legislation during this period. On March 15, 1973, 2,500 people attended a protest march in Victoria (Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1973). Throughout 1973, the Cabinet received large quantities of letters and petitions in response to the legislation. An individual's political beliefs and associated values determine his attitudes towards a wide range of issues (McKeen, 1978). Attitudes towards land use legislation may therefore be highly influenced by the particular political party which the individual aligns himself with. In other words, a particular individual may support a policy specifically because his party supports i t ; he feels that his party is acting in his best interests. Under the philosophy of the N.D.P. government, land is regarded as a basic element to the economy, and its control is therefore basic to ensure the welfare of the people (Smith, 1975). The Social Credit party (the official opposition party from 1972 to 1975) was the only major party in the 1972 provincial election which did not have firm policy directly related to the preservation of farmland. The widespread impression in British Columbia is that the Social Credit party has a prodevelopment philosophy and they are less determined to keep builders away from prime agricultural land (Beaubien and Taboenik, 1977). 21 In respect to philosophies of land development and agricultural land preservation in British Columbia, many individuals were, and s t i l l are, opposed to state interference in private property rights regardless of the circumstances. According to Malzahn, "In a province where private land ownership and the right to speculate have verged on the sacrosanct through-out our history, this viewpoint is s t i l l politically potent" (Malzahn, 1979, p. 16). It is evident, therefore, that strong differences in attitudes exist on the basis of diverging political philosophies. The N.D.P. party views land control as a basic means of protecting public welfare. The philosophy of the other major political party in British Columbia, Social Credit, is that of reduced state interference in land use control. The difference in attitude toward the importance of agricultural land use control between these two parties is reflected in Malzahn's statement con-cerning the Agricultural Land Commission Act: Although public acceptance of the land reserve concept gradually grew over the years, many critics persisted in their efforts to weaken the A.L.R. The result was that in 1977 B i l l Bennett's Social Credit Government responded to the criticism by watering down the original legislation. (Malzahn, 1979, p. 17) The preceding discussion concerning the influences of i n i t i a l reaction to the Land Commission legislation and political influences leads to the formulation of two important research questions. First, to what extent have landowners' attitudes changed from the time of i n i t i a l legisla-tion. Second, to what extent do regional differences in attitudes toward the A.L.R. correspond to regional differences in political party support? In other words are regional political preferences associated with landowners' attitudes of the Agricultural Land Reserve? On the basis of the foregoing 22 discussion two hypotheses may be established: There i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between landowners who pursued a p o s i t i o n of opposition to the implementation of the Land Commission l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1973 and t h e i r attitudes of the A.L.R. i n 1977; and There i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between regional patterns of support f o r the A.L.R. and N.D.P. votes by e l e c t o r a l r i d i n g i n past p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s . ( i i i ) Factors Associated with Viable Farm Operation The purpose of t h i s section i s to i d e n t i f y f a c t ors which are associated with v i a b l e farm operation. Factors that can be associated with nonviable use of a property as a farm may be associated with landowner d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. P h y s i c a l factors associated with a property are important i n determining the success of a farming operation. S o i l q u a l i t y i s one of the most c r i t i c a l constraints to commercial farming a c t i v i t i e s (Berry, Leonardo, and B i e r i , 1976). High c a p a b i l i t y s o i l s are more e f f i c i e n t i n terms of crop output as well as capable of supporting wider v a r i a t i o n s i n crop species. To i l l u s t r a t e the importance of s o i l p r o d u c t i v i t y , 1 hectare of Class 1 s o i l i s approximately equivalent to 2 hectares of Class 4 s o i l (Nowland and McKeague, 1977, p. 111). Therefore, property owners with lower c a p a b i l i t y s o i l s may f e e l that t h e i r properties have low p o t e n t i a l f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes and r e l a t i v e l y higher p o t e n t i a l f o r urban development; subsequently, these landowners may see the l e g i s l a t i o n as p r o h i b i t i n g them from u t i l i z i n g t h e i r properties f o r other purposes. S i m i l a r l y , those landowners with high qu a l i t y lands ( i . e . , Class 1 and Class 2) may perceive the A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land Commission Act as protecting t h e i r productive land. 23 Rodd and van Vuuren (1975) state that r e l a t i o n s h i p s appear to e x i s t between farm s i z e and v i a b i l i t y . The importance of farm s i z e with respect to farm v i a b i l i t y i s also supported by Noble (1962) who, i n a study on farm abandonment trends found that: Of a l l the farms that ceased i n t h i s e n t i r e survey by 1960, over three out of every f i v e of these farms (63%) were small i n s i z e , having fewer than 60 t i l l a b l e acres. (Noble, 1962, p. 72) Therefore, farmers with small land areas may not be v i a b l e and may f e e l that t h e i r property may be better u t i l i z e d i n a nonfarm use. In h i s study, Noble also found strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the s i z e and condition of farm buildings and farm v i a b i l i t y . Following t h i s f i n d i n g , farm condition may be an i n d i c a t o r of a g r i c u l t u r a l economic conditions i n the area or, perhaps an i n d i c a t i o n of the landowner's at t i t u d e towards the use of h i s property for a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. Noble also found occupation patterns of farm owners appeared to be re l a t e d to farm operation v i a b i l i t y . I t was found that v i a b l e farms were much more l i k e l y to have f u l l - t i m e operators working the u n i t . Those operations which were operated on only a part-time basis were more prone to f a i l u r e (Noble, 1962). S i m i l a r l y , Runka (19:77) claims that the majority of applications that are received by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission f o r exclusion are from people who own properties i n the Reserve, but farming i s not t h e i r p r i n c i p a l occupation. Occupation, therefore, appears to be an important factor i n determining the l e v e l of support towards land use l e g i s l a t i o n . The farmer's l i f e cycle and whether or not he has ch i l d r e n to take over h i s operation may a f f e c t h i s decision to keep the farm operation i n the family, or to put the property up f o r sale (Keene-, 1977). 24 Age arid health aspects of the farmer are important factors which often influence his decisions with respect to future use of the property (Brancroft, Sinclair and Tremblay, 1977) . Fumalle reported that the age of a farmer was often a major reason for selling his property (1975) . Also, many older farmers have in fact viewed their properties as "pension funds" and that once the decision has been made to selL, they would strive to collect as much profit as possible and were not concerned with the intended use of the property (Fumalle, 1975). Hence to profit-motivated retiring farmers, the Agricultural Land Commission Act could easily be seen as an inhibiting factor in their attempts to dispose of their properties. Education is a social factor which may influence attitudes towards the Agricultural Land Reserve. Those property owners who have been to Agricultural Institutes or higher educational institutes may be exposed to the factors supporting the positive benefits of agricultural land preservation. Further, the degree to which the A.L.R. is supported may be determined by how important an issue farmland preservation is perceived to be by landowners, as, according to the University of Vermont Agricultural Research Station: The acceptance or rejection of policy alternatives is determined to a large degree by the perceptions of the problems and the attitudes held by those affected by the policy. (1977, p. 9). Finally, Fumalle (1975) reports that farming experience is an important factor which contributes to viable farm operation. Experience in the farming process will probably also lead to an improved understanding of the benefits which may result from farm protection policies. On the basis of the literature review concerning farm viability, 25 several factors have been identified which may or may not be important in influencing landowners' attitudes in the context of the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve. In order to, assess the extent to which these factors are influential within the British Columbian experience, the fol -lowing research hypothesis is advanced: A more positive attitude toward the A.L.R. is associated with: higher property soil capabilities; larger property size; better condition of farm property and buildings; farming as an exclusive or primary occupation; younger-aged property owners; the existence of children on property; higher levels of formal education of property owners; and a higher awareness of the importance of agricultural land preservation. (iv) Factors Associated with Urbanization Pressure The rural-urban fringe is a complex region from a planning perspective. There are many factors associated with this region which may influence attitudes towards the A.L.R. The problem in the "Rurban Fringe" is that i t is neither urban nor rural but a mixture of both (Pearson, N., 1973A).. Farmers within the fringe area are subjected to many pressures that are generated by nonagricultural demands for land (Manning and McQuaig, 1977). Several factors associated with the rural-urban fringe may influence the attitudes of land owners with property under the jurisdiction of the legislation. Economic, physical, and social forces may influence the owner's desire to either continue farming the property or to sell his property for urban uses (Fumalle, 1975). The most direct factor influencing this decision is economic. Economic factors f a l l into two general categories (Keene, 1977, p. 41): 26 . . . f i r s t , the p r i c e offered f or the land may be so high that i t i s most d i f f i c u l t not to s e l l , and second, the net returns to the a g r i c u l t u r a l operation of of the farm may be i n s u f f i c i e n t over the long run to warrant continued farming. However, because the property i s frozen f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l use by the l e g i s l a t i o n , i t s actual value i s often only a f r a c t i o n of i t s p o t e n t i a l value used for urban purposes. Hence, one could assume, on the basis of economic reasoning, that these property owners adjacent to urban develop-ment would display higher l e v e l s of opposition towards the A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land Commission Act than those property owners who are f a r removed from urban pressures. This conclusion i s i n alignment with Baxter's observations of farmers' i n i t i a l reactions to the l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1973. He states: Farmers i n areas w e l l removed from urban expansion generally supported the B i l l while those i n urbanizing regions were the most vocal opponents. (Baxter, i n Lane 1974, p. 9) Ph y s i c a l factors i n the urban and r u r a l f r i n g e also influence property owners' attitudes towards the future of land use i n t h e i r immediate area and hence t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards land use l e g i s l a t i o n . Often r u r a l and urban a c t i v i t i e s have c o n f l i c t i n g negative e x t e r n a l i t i e s a s s o c i -ated with them which may r e s u l t i n incompatible coexistence. C o n f l i c t i n g a t t r i b u t e s associated with these two a c t i v i t i e s include: 1. Regulation of farming a c t i v i t i e s by suburban residents that are deemed nuisances by those new residents i n the area. For example, r e s t r i c t i o n s on f e r t i l i z e r use, manure dispo s a l , smells, slow moving farm v e h i c l e s on commuter roads, etc., are imposed so as to accommodate a suburban l i f e s t y l e as opposed to a r u r a l l i f e s t y l e . 2. A i r p o l l u t i o n damage to crops caused by automobiles or i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y or even r e s i d e n t i a l space heating. 3. Destruction of crops or equipment or harassment of farm animals by c h i l d r e n and animals from the suburban development. Stocking of tree crops i s a common complaint. 27 4. Use of eminent domain to acquire farmland for public uses aimed at serving the new suburban population. Roads and reservoirs are the two most important categories of public use here. (Berry, Leonardo and Beire, 1976, p. 11) In fact, the effects of negative externalities on farm operations are considered to be very severe in a physical sense. It has been estimated that for every acre of land actually used for urban purposes, at least another two acres are destroyed for agricultural useage because of the effects of such externalities (Krueger, 1977). Urban-oriented uses of rural land may increase social pressures on the rural residents of the area. Such use can detract in a number of ways from the rural people's enjoyment of their environment and perhaps even endanger the stability and viability of the area (Rodd and van Vuuren, 1975). Diverging attitudes in terms of social and political beliefs of the new urban residents may create social pressure on the farm residents and hence influence their attitudes towards the future of continuing an agricultural livelihood in that area. Hence, economic, physical and social forces are a l l important factors which may influence a farmer's attitudes towards agricultural prac-tice in the face of urbanization. According to Berry, Leonardo and Bieri (1976, p. 13): Effects on farmers of urbanization and other forces can result in changes in their attitudes toward farming in the sphere of urban influence. The outcome of these changes in attitudes is often an "impermanence syndrome"— characterized by farmers believing that agriculture in their areas has a very limited or no future and that urbanization will claim most of the land not too far in the future. It is very evident, therefore, that farmers in areas adjacent to urbanization are exposed to pressure in many forms. The extent to which 28 farmers are influenced by this pressure will be dependent upon: (1) their relative distance from urban influence; and (2) by the absolute growth rate of the urbanization process in the immediate region of the owner's property. Therefore, two hypotheses can be advanced: Owners of properties distant from urban areas and activities will have higher levels of support for the A.L.R. than those properties adjacent to urban areas; and There is a negative relationship between the rate of absolute growth in the region within which a property is situated and the level of support for the A.L.R. (v) Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to review pertinent litera-ture to identify factors responsible for influencing landowners' attitudes towards land use legislation. Four general categories were identified through the literature survey; these are: 1. Factors associated with land tenure and land use control legislation; 2. Factors associated with i n i t i a l reactions to the implementa-tion of the A.L.R. legislation and political beliefs; 3. Factors associated with viable farm operation; and 4. Factors associated with urbanization pressure. The remainder of the research will concentrate on the analysis of the level of support of the A.L.R. by landowners disaggregated into categories based on the identified factors. The research structure by which this analysis is to be achieved is outlined in the following chapter. 29 References Cited Beaubien, Charles and Ruth Taboenik (1977). "The B.C. Land Commission Act," People and Agricultural Land. Science Council of Canada, pp. 50-52. Berry, D., E. Leonardo and K. Bieri (1976). The Farmer's Response to  Urbanization: A Study of the Middle Atlantic States. Philadelphia: Regional Science Institute Discussion Paper Series No. 92. Brown, Steven R. and James Coke (1977). Public Opinion on Land Use Legislation. Academy for Contemporary Problems: Columbus, Ohio, January 1977. Fumalle, Michael J. (1975). Public Policy and the Preservation of Agricultural Land in the Southern Okanagan Valley. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. Goodall, B. (1970). "Some Effects of Legislation on Land Values," Regional  Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 11-23. Keene, John C. (1977). "The Effectiveness of Differential Assessment for Preserving Farmland," Urban Law Annual, Vol. 14, pp. 11-56. Krueger, Ralph R. and Bruce Mitchell (1977). Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. Toronto: Methuen. Lane, William T. (1974). "The Emergence of a Counter-Theme: Some Recent Developments in Canadian Land Use Policy," Canadian-American  Relations in the West. Gerand F. Ruten (ed.). Northwest Scientific Association, Western Washington State University, August, 1974. Lee, Colin L. (1973). Models in Planning. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Low, T. W. (1973). "B.C. and B i l l 42," Agrologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, July/August 1973, pp. 16-17. Malzahn, Manfred (1979). "B.C.'s Green Acres," Urban Reader, Vol. 7, No. 5/6, 1979, pp. 14-19. Manning, E. W. and J. D. McQuaig (1977). Agricultural Land and Urban Centres. Fisheries and Environment Canada, Lands Directorate. July 1977. Noble, Henry F. (1962). "Trends in Farm Abandonment," Canadian Journal of  Agricultural Economics, Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 69-77. 30 Nowland, J . L. and J. A. McKeague (1977). "Canada's Limited A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Resource," Chapter 9 i n Managing Canada's Renewable  Resources. R. Krueger and B. M i t c h e l l (ed.). Toronto: Methuen. Pearson, Norman (1973). A g r i c u l t u r e and Planning. Department of Agri c u l t u r e Research Branch: Ottawa. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia, Chapter 46. R e i l l y , William K. (1973). The Use of Land: A C i t i z e n ' s P o l i c y Guide to  Urban Growth. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Rodd, R. S. and W. van Vuuren (1975). "A New Methodology i n Countryside Planning," Canadian Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics. Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop of the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Society, Banff, Alberta, March, 1975, pp. 109-140. Runka, G. G. (1977). " B r i t i s h Columbia's A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Preservation Program," Land Use: Tough Choices i n Today's World. S o i l Conservation Society of America, Proceedings of the National Symposium, March 21-29, 1977, Omaha, Nebraska. Smith, Barry (1975). The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act—1973. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Timmons, J . F. and J. M. Cormack (1971). "Managing Natural Resources through Land Tenure Structures," Journal of S o i l and Water Conservation, V ol. 26, No. 1, January-February 1971, pp. 4-10. University of Vermont, A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Station (1977). Attitudes  toward Preserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Vermont. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, University of Vermont Miscellaneous P u b l i c a t i o n No. 93, August, 1977. Newspaper A r t i c l e s Cited "Barrett Hits Land Bank Issue i n Wowing Canadian Club," Vancouver Sun, October 26, 1979. "Bennett Demands E l e c t i o n on Land Act—'No House Safe, No Business Safe,'" Vancouver Sun, March 3, 1973. "Block B.C. Act, Lang Is Urged by Diefenbaker," Toronto Globe and M a i l , March 9, 1973. "Land Act V i o l a t e s B i l l of Rights," Vancouver Sun, February 23, 1973. "Land B i l l Opponents Ask Queen for Help," Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1973. 31 "2,500 Rally in Victoria to Protest NDP Land B i l l , " Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1973. 32 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH PROCEDURE 33 RESEARCH PROCEDURE The purpose of th i s chapter i s to out l i n e the procedure by which the research objectives have been r e a l i z e d . The chapter w i l l commence with a discussion of the research terms of reference i n order to e s t a b l i s h the s t y l e i n which the analysis have been pursued. Data sources, and associated study areas i n which information pertaining to landowners' attitudes has been c o l l e c t e d i s then b r i e f l y discussed. The chapter w i l l conclude with a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the sampling framework and r e s u l t i n g data base. (i) Research Terms of Reference As the objective of t h i s research i s to i d e n t i f y f a c t ors associated with strongly p o s i t i v e or negative reactions toward the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, a data base was required which contains informa-t i o n on variables pertaining to the evaluation of the e f f e c t s of th i s l e g i s l a t i o n on property owners. A recent data source which s a t i s f i e s the outlined objectives has been c o l l e c t e d by Edward Manning and Sandra Eddy of Environment Canada. A summary of th i s research and data base i s contained i n t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n , The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h  Columbia: An Impact Analysis. The objective of the Environment Canada research was to evaluate the impact of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve on land owners who u t i l i z e a g r i c u l t u r a l land for r e s i d e n t i a l purposes and a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises. In the introduction to t h e i r report, Manning and Eddy state t h e i r objec-tives as understanding the e f f e c t s of the l e g i s l a t i o n on landowners: I t i s important to understand whether steps taken i n thi s d i r e c t i o n have achieved t h e i r stated aims and what 34 the impact of various l e g i s l a t i v e tools i s on the owners of the users of the land. (Manning and Eddy, 1978, p. i i i ) More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they state: The problem addressed by the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve Impact Analysis can be stated as follows: to analyze and evaluate the impact of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves on the use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land within the province, and on the v i a b i l i t y of r u r a l enterprise. (Manning and Eddy, 1978, p. 28) The research conducted by Environment Canada has provided an important basis f or t h i s t h e s i s . The research conducted f o r t h i s thesis takes two forms. S p e c i f i c f a c tors from the l i t e r a t u r e survey i n Chapter Two w i l l be tested i n order to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r comparative effectiveness i n i n f l u e n c i n g landowners attitudes towards the A.L.R. The second type of research w i l l be of a guided-exploratory nature, using the data base to f i n d associations as opposed to hypotheses t e s t i n g . ( i i ) Data Sources The major data source f o r the study i s the r e s u l t s obtained by Environment Canada from a questionnaire administered to 803 respondents i n twelve study regions throughout the province. A copy of t h i s questionnaire i s located i n Appendix 1. Environment Canada (Manning and Eddy, 1978) u t i l i z e d B r i t i s h Columbia Assessment Authority tax assessment r o l l and a random number generating programme to s e l e c t respondents. A preliminary s o r t i n g procedure eliminated properties: a. le s s than two acres i n s i z e b. wholly outside each defined study area, and 35 c. properties whose owners had previously been identified for interview. The questionnaire utilized in the Environment Canada study covered 151 variables pertaining to characteristics of the property, the property owner, and any changes which have been made since the implementation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Statistics Canada consulted on the design of the questionnaire; pretesting was performed before the questionnaire was administered to respondents. Interviewing was conducted between January and March 1977 by students and professionals associated with British Columbian regional colleges and universities. The interview programme was successful with few problems reported in most regions. Replacements were used to substitute for a l l respondents who could not be located or who were not prepared to respond. In fact, less than 5 percent refusals were encountered (McQuaig, 1980). (iii ) The Study Regions Respondents for the Environment Canada study were selected from 12 study regions throughout British Columbia (refer to Map 1). The basis of this selection was to provide information on landowners in the broadest possible range of situations; from areas of agricultural forest fringe to areas of intensive agriculture and areas on the margins of expanding urban areas (Manning and Eddy, 1978). The 12 regions are: Saanich, Surrey, Vedder, Smithers, Prince George, Peace, Cariboo, Kamloops, Coldstream, Kelowna, Grand Forks and Creston. Within the 12 study areas, respondents were selected from both in and out of the A.L.R. The majority of those surveyed, however, were 36 MAP 1 LOCATION OF STUDY AREAS RELATIVE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES ^ i fry. LEGEND/ LEGENDE STUDY AREAS/ REGIONS ETUDIEES i SAANICH 2 SURREY 3 VEDOER 4 SMI THE RS 5 PRINCE GEORGE 6 PEACE 7 CARIBOO 8 KAMLOOPS 9 COLD STREAM » KELOWNA 11 GRAND FORKS 12 CRESTON AGRICULTURAL LAND gr-- ] RESERVES/RESERVES " DE TERRES AGRICOLES Source: Manning, Edward W. and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact A n a l y s i s . Environment Canada: Ottawa, November, 1978. 37 property owners with land in designated A.L.R. areas. The breakdown of respondents, by tenure, will be given in the following section. Samples of from 60 to 80 individuals were selected at random and interviewed in each area. (iv) Data Description The data consists of information on 151 variables for 803 land holders in the 12 study regions. Sample size was based upon the objective of a representative sample of respondents within each sample area upon which statistically confident conclusions could be drawn. According to Manning and Eddy, size of the selected sample population in each study region is described as: . . . in each case the percentage of respondents is high enough to permit generalization for each region based on the sample results, within statistically acceptable confidence limits. Aggregated, the results of the 12 regions can be used to approximate the responses of individuals throughout the areas influenced by the Agricultural Land Reserves. (1978, p. 33) The Environment Canada data base consists of cases both in and out of the A.L.R. As the objective of the thesis is to analyze landowners affected by the A.L.R., the majority of the analysis focuses upon only those landowners who have some, or a l l of their property within the jurisdiction of the A.L.R. Properties outside the A.L.R. were excluded from the thesis data base. Table 2 gives a breakdown of cases in and out of the A.L.R.; Table 3 describes the distribution of property owners affected by the A.L.R. by region. Additional data has been integrated into the data base on subjects not covered by Environment Canada. Absolute growth rates between 1971 and 38 TABLE 2 A.L.R. DESIGNATION OF RESPONDENTS Respondents with property i n A.L.R. 581 Respondents without property i n A.L.R. 109 A.L.R. designation unknown to respondent 113 To t a l 803 39 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A.L.R. BY STUDY REGION Study Region Number of Property Owners Saanich 46 Surrey 54 Vedder 69 Smithers 55 Prince George 27 Peace 54 Cariboo 31 Kamloops 37 Coldstream 59 Kelowna 54 Grand Forks 47 Creston 48 Total 581 40 1976 were obtained through Canada Census data (Statistics Canada, 1976). Provincial election results from 1972, 1975, and 1979 were obtained through provincial election return publications (Province of British Columbia, 1972, 1975, 1979). (v) Data Handling Data from each questionnaire was coded and entered into a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (S.P.S.S.; see Nie, et al., 1975) programme by Environment Canada. With the assistance of Environment Canada, the data were replicated at the University of British Columbia Computing Centre in an S.P.S.S. f i l e . Two specific characteristics of each factor will be identified within the data analysis. First, i t will be determined whether or not a relationship exists between each individual factor and landowners' attitudes towards the A.L.R. Second, the strength to which each factor influences attitudes towards the land use legislation in the context of the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve will be identified. Details of the data analysis are described in the following chapter. 41 References Cited McQuaig, Jim (1980) . Environment Canada. Personal Communication, March 14, 1980. Manning, Edward W. and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Environment Canada: Ottawa. Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai H u l l , Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and DaleH. Bent (1975). S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences. Second E d i t i o n . McGraw-Hill: New York. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1972). Statement of Votes. Queen's P r i n t e r : V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. August 30, 1972. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1975). Statement Of Votes. Queen's P r i n t e r : V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. December 11, 1975. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1979) . Statement of Votes. Queen's P r i n t e r : V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. May 10, 1979, S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1976). "Population: Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n s , " 1976  Census Of Canada. Catalogue 92-805, pp. 3-43 - 3-45. 42 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF FACTORS HYPOTHESIZED AS INFLUENCING LANDOWNERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES 43 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS HYPOTHESIZED AS INFLUENCING LANDOWNERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES The l i t e r a t u r e review i n Chapter II i d e n t i f i e d various factors which may influence landowners' attitudes toward land use c o n t r o l . In an attempt to gain a clearer understanding of the degree to which these factors influence attitudes i n the case of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves, s t a t i s t i c a l analyses have been performed. This chapter discusses the a n a l y t i c a l procedures u t i l i z e d and the r e s u l t s obtained. (i) Data A n a l y s i s — L e v e l of Measurement and A n a l y t i c a l Procedure The dependent v a r i a b l e u t i l i z e d i n measuring attitudes towards the A.L.R. was based upon landowners' responses to the following question i n the Environment Canada survey (Manning and Eddy, 1978, p. 141): "In general, what i s your opinion of the A.L.R. Zoning?" Responses to the question were coded i n t o the following categories: 1. Very much i n favour 2. In favour 3. Q u a l i f i e d i n favour 4. Neutral 5. Q u a l i f i e d Against 6. Against 7. Very much against 8. Don't know 9. No opinion given 44 The first seven of these categories were used as an ordinal level scale. The definition of an ordinal scale of measurement is one where "a category will be thought of as higher than or lower than the adjacent category" (Roscoe, 1975, p. 16). In this respect the "Don't know" and "No opinion given" categories have no ordinal relationship with the other seven categories and were, therefore, deleted (however, in order that a l l landowner attitudes recorded are summarized in the study, these two categories were combined as "other" and displayed in Tables 6 and 7). The seven-category ordinal scale was used for the calculation of significance levels and measurement of association. While i t could be argued that the deletion of the two response categories could affect the outcome of these calculations, such effects can only be considered minimal. In fact, i f the row totals of a particular value from Table _6 or I are compared with associated row totals from the appropriate contingency table in the Appendix section of this study, i t can be seen that this deletion process has resulted in the loss of only a few cases (in many instances i t can be seen that no difference results). The independent variables used in the study are those values used in representing the factors identified in Chapter II. Each of these factor categories are listed in the left side of Tables .6 and 7. As the dependent variable has an ordinal level of measurement and in several instances the independent variables are only nominal, the selection of tests for association and significance are limited. In order to utilize the most powerful tests available, ordinal tests were selected in preference to nominal tests where appropriate. Tests of significance were undertaken to determine the likelihood 45 that exhibited associations could only be due to normal sampling error. The Kruskal-Wallis test of significance was utilized to assess the significance of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test of significance is a nonparametric, one-way analysis of variance in ranks (Kirk, 1968). When ties occur between two or more scores, each score is given the mean of the ranks for which i t is tied. The .05 level of significance was used as the rejection level for a l l hypotheses testing in the study. A measure of association was used to summarize the degree to which variation in one variable can be accurately inferred from the variation in the other variable. This aspect of bivariate data summarized through a measure of association is often referred to the degree of predictability which exists within the joint distribution (Mueller, Schuessler and Costner, 1970). Therefore, a measurement of association summarizes the degree of relative accuracy in predicting the value for the dependent variable given knowledge of the independent variable. Hence, a measurement of association was utilized to assess the degree to which attitudes towards the A.L.R. can be predicted on the basis of knowledge concerning of each factor. Gamma was selected for the measure of association. It is one of the few measures designed specifically for use with categoric ordinal data (Roscoe, 1975). As indicated previously, the data base frequently contains ties between scores. Gamma has an advantage in its ability to handle ties which exist during calculation (Blalock, 1979). Also, the number of categories vary considerably from variable to variable resulting in tables of differing sizes. Gamma is therefore appropriate because, according to 46 Mueller, Schuessler and Costner " i t may be applied to cross tabulations of any size" (1970, p. 286). The Gamma value is the proportion of the ordinal rankings on one variable which correspond to the categories of the other variable. Values may range from -1.0 to +1.0, representing the direction as well as the magnitude of the association (Babbie, 1975). A positive sign indicates that the variables increase together, while a negative sign indicates that as one variable increases, the other decreases in rank order (Mueller, Schuessler and Costner, 1970). The results of the test of significance and measure of association which exists between the dependent and independent variables are summarized in Table 4. A measure of central tendency was required for assessing the relative level of support associated with each independent variable. The median was selected as opposed to the mean because values for variables exist predominantly at the ordinal level of measurement. (ii) Aggregate Levels of Landowner Support for the Agricultural Land Reserves Table 5 summarizes aggregated attitudes of landowners' towards the Agricultural Land Reserves from a l l 12 study areas. As is seen in the table, the majority of the respondents are contained within the "Qualified in favour" and "In favour" categories. The median falls between these two categories, when considered on the basis of the seven-category classification. In fact, 64.5% of those expressing an opinion f a l l into these two categories. The right side of Table 4 describes the aggregated levels of support and opposition towards the A.L.R. as indicated by those landowners 47 TABLE 4 MEASURE OF ASSOCIATION AND SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES VARIABLES ASSOCIATION GAMMA VALUE 4. LAND TENURE AND EFFECTS OF LEGISLATION a. In Versus Out of ALR -0.13835 b. Method of Acquisition -0.06691 c. General Land Use d. Farm Type/Land Use e. Perceived Changes in Property Value f. Attempts to Vary ALR Designation g . Results of Attempt POLITICAL BELIEFS AND INITIAL REACTION TO ALR LEGISLATION a. I n i t i a l Reaction to Legislation b. Regional P o l i t i c a l Influence 0.13960 -0.02973 0.24042 0.21023 0.03938 0.23357 -0.04567 VIABLE FARM OPERATION a. Size of Operation b. Class of Land c. Condition of Property 0.06626 d. Condition of Farm Buildings Years Operating Unit Occupation Age of Owner Children on Property -0.36064 Level of Education -0.03216 e. f. g -h. I. j -0.07864 0.09801 0.04210 0.06055 0.07716 -0.01610 Future Attitude toward toward ALR 0.31461 URBANIZATION PRESSURE a. Adjacent Land Use 0.04290 b. Regional Urbanization Pressure 0.12482 c. Adjacent Urban Centre Growth Pressure 0.14593 SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT KRUS KAL-WALLIS RELATIONSHIP (Corrected for Ties) (.05 Level) 0.075 0.682 0.003 0.886 0.000 0.307 0.167 0.039 0.040 0.142 0.357 0.551 0.884 0.307 0.647 0.906 0.015 0.580 0.000 0.347 0.078 0.017 NO NO YES NO YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO YFS NO -NO YES 48 TABLE 5 ATTITUDES OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE A.L.R. TOWARDS THE A.L.R. RESPONSE LANDOWNER RESPONSE AGGREGATED RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Highly Favourable 99 17.0 \ In Favour 155 26.7 Support 474 81.6 Qualified in Favour 220 37.9 Neutral 9 1.5 Neutral 9 1.5 Qualified Against 22 3.8 Agains t 42 7.3 Opposition 77 13.3 Very Against 13 2.2 SUBTOTAL OF ABOVE CATEGORIES 560 96.4 560 96.4 No Opinion 3 0.5 Don't Know 4 0.7 Other 21 3.6 No Answer Received 14 2.4 SUBTOTAL OF ABOVE CATEGORIES 21 3.6 21 3.6 TOTAL OF ALL CATEGORIES 581 100 581 100 49 contained within the data base. Clearly, support towards the land use legislation predominates among these landowners surveyed, with 81.6% of those expressing an opinion indicating favourable attitudes of the A.L.R. Subsequently, i t is evident on the outset of the analysis that the amount of variance in terms of attitudes toward the A.L.R. within the data base is limited. The 13.3% opposed to the A.L.R. constitute a small, but neverthe-less, sufficient anomaly in terms of sample size of the total population surveyed. These landowners who are opposed to the A.L.R. as well as those highly supportive of i t will provide valuable information as to the effects of the various factors on attitude formulation in the following discussion. (ii i ) Explanation of Data Tables Discussion pertaining to analysis of landowner support toward the A.L.R. is primarily centred upon Table 4, Table 6 and Table 7>. Table 4 summarizes the results of relationship between the dependent variable and each independent variable in terms of significance and association. The first column of values describes the level of association between each factor and landowner attitudes toward the A.L.R.; the second column summarizes the level of significance of the relationship; the final column states whether or not the relationship is significant at the .05 level. The contingency tables from which these values were derived from are listed in Appendices 2 through 28. It should be noted that the totals in each of these contingency tables do not correspond exactly to the associated totals in Tables .6. and 2 because, as previously explained, the values which make up the "Other" category in Tables A and B were excluded 50 during the calculation of the contingency tables. In Table 6., the responses to the question concerning attitudes toward the A.L.R. have been aggregated into four categories. Each factor, listed down the left column of the table, can be examined in terms of the level of support of the A.L.R. which is associated with i t . The "Number of Cases" column summarizes the number of landowners from the total sample population which are contained within each factor category. At the bottom of each column is a respective median value for each column. The median value can be used as a benchmark from which deviations in factor support values can be measured. Table 7 is similar to Table 6. Where in Table 6.. the "support" and "opposed" responses pertaining to A.L.R. opinion are summarized, Table 7. shows the complete distribution by category. This facilitates analysis of of the variance and magnitude of support associated with each factor toward the A.L.R. Again, the median value for each category is indicated at the bottom of each column to enable intra factor support level comparison. In order that the format of each table is fully comprehended, the relationship between the dependent variable and the first factor will be described in detail with close attention to the tables. Subsequent factors will be discussed in less detail, highlighting important points and anomalies rather than completely describing individual values within the tables. Any additional detail required may be gained through inspection of appropriate tables. 51 FACTOR 1. LAND TENURE AND EFFECTS  OF LEGISLATION £. In Versus Out of ALR ( i ) In ALR ( l i ) Out ALR b_. Method of Acquisition (i) Inherit ( i i ) Purchase ( i i i ) Other c_. General Land Use (i) Farm - Ranch ( i i ) Forestry ( i i i ) Residential (iv) Commercial (v) Vacant (vi) Other Land Use d.. Farm Type/Land Use (i) Crops - Vegetables ( i i ) Berries - Fruit ( i i i ) Forestry (iv) Dairy - Beef (v) Livestock (vi) Mixed Farm ( v i i ) Hay - Fodder ( v i i i ) Hobby Farm Perceived Changes i n Land Value (i) Rose Greatly ( i i ) Rose S l i g h t l y ( i i i ) Stable (iv) Down S l i g h t l y (v) Down Greatly f.. Attempts to Vary ALR Designation (i) Land Included i n ALR ( i i ) Land Excluded (iii)''Subdivided (iv) Change Zoning (v) Other Attempts TABLE 6 AGGREGATED LEVELS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TOWARD THE A.L.R. ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FACTOR o™L % Z NUMBER SUPPORT OPPOSITION NEUTRAL OTHER OF CASES 83.6 88.9 13.6 6.5 1.6 2.8 1.2 1.9 566 108 83.7 83.3 83.1 13.6 16.7 13.3 1.3 0.0 3.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 472 12 83 85.5 100.0 88.6 87.5 64.7 76.9 12.3 0.0 7.6 12.5 29.4 19.2 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.9 2.6 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.9 1.3 366 2 79 8 34 78 83.3 78.2 75.0 84.8 82.7 100.0 83.3 84.0 16.7 18.2 25.0 14.4 15.4 0.0 16.7 12.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 18 55 4 132 52 10 6 94' 87.5 93.1 84.1 74.0 75.9 11.1 5.2 12.6 20.0 22.4 1.1 0.0 2.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 .1.7 88 58 207 50 116 75.0 81.0 84.3 66.7 47.1 25.0 14.3 15.7 33.3 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 21 51 21 17 52 TABLE 6 (CONT'P) FACTOR j>. Results of Attempts to Vary Land Use (i) Successful Exclusion ( i i ) Unsuccessful Subdivision or Exclusion ( i i i ) Successful Inclusion (iv) Awaiting Results SUPPORT 94.7 65.6 77.4 100.0 OPPOSITION 5.3 32.8 22.6 0.0 NEUTRAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OTHER 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 NUMBER OF CASES 19 61 31 1 REGIONAL POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND INITIAL REACTION TO ALR LEGISLATION a. I n i t i a l Reaction to Legislation (i) Complained in Writing Or Signed Petitions 87.5 ( i i ) Actively Opposed ALR 33.3 ( i i i ) Protested i n V i c t o r i a 71.4 (iv) Protested with Other Farmers Against ALR 100.0 (v) Attended Meetings On ALR 86.2 (vi) Attended Discussions With Land Commission Or Regional 63.6 Board ( v i i ) On ALR Committee 100.0 b. Regional P o l i t i c a l A f f i l i a t i o n (1) Strong NDP Region 87.0 ( i i ) NDP Region 0.0 ( i i i ) Weak NDP/Weak Socred Region 84.3 (iv) Socred Region 83.5 (v) Strong Socred Region 82.6 12.5 66.7 28.6 0.0 12.8 36.4 0.0 10.9 0.0 12.0 12.8 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.9 8 3 7 2 94 11 2 46 0 109 194 218 3. VIABLE FARM OPERATION a. Size of Operation (i) 0 - 5 Acres ( i i ) 5 - 2 0 Acres ( i i i ) 20 - 50 Acres (iv) 50 - 100 Acres (v) 100 - 200 Acres (vi) 200 - 500 Acres ( v i i ) 500 - 1000 Acres ( v i i i ) 1000 - 2000 Acres (xi) Over 2000 Acres 1>. Class of Land (i) Class 1 ( i i ) Class 2 ( i i i ) Class 3 (iv) Class 4 (v) Class 5 (vi) Class 6 ( v i i ) Class 7 ( v i i i ) Mixed Classes 85.4 81.2 79.1 79.3 87.5 88.7 80.5 94.7 77.8 87.5 87.5 83.8 80.1 87.5 81.6 66.7 83.3 11.7 13.7 17.9 17.2 11.1 9.9 19.5 5.3 22.2 0.0 11.0 14.1 15.4 8.9 14.3 33.3 16.7 1.9 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 1.0 2.2 1.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.6 1.5 1.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 103 117 67 58 72 71 41 19 9 8 82 198 136 56 49 6 30 53 FACTOR c_. Condition of Property (i) Very Good ( i i ) Good ( i i i ) Average (iv) Poor (v) Very Poor d.. Condition of Farm Buildings (i) Very Good ( i i ) Good ( i i i ) Average (iv) Poor (v) Very Poor e_. Years Operating Unit (1) Less Than 2 Years ( i i ) 2 - 5 Years ( i i i ) 6 - 1 0 Years (iv) More Than 10 Years (v) Other f^ Occupation (1) Managerial ( i i ) Science/Engineering ( i i i ) Medical/Health (iv) C l e r i c a l (v) Sales (vi) Services ( v i i ) Farmer ( v i i i ) Processing (xi) Transportation Operator j>. Age of Owner (i) Less than 30 ( i i ) 31 - 40 ( i i i ) 41 - 50 (iv) 51 - 60 (v) 6 1 - 7 0 (vi) 71 - 80 ( v i i ) Greater than 80 h_. Children on Property (i) Children ( i i ) No Children i i ^ . Level of Education (i) None ( i i ) Primary ( i i i ) High School (iv) University (v) Post Graduate (vi) Technical ' ( v i i ) A g ricultural ( v i i i ) Other TABLE 6 (CONT'D) 2 % % NUMBER SUPPORT OPPOSITION NEUTRAL OTHER OF CASES 86.9 88.8 81.8 77.5 66.7 11.9 8.4 16.0 22.5 33.3 1.2 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 84 143 181 40 3 89.8 88.9 82.9 74.4 85.7 8.5 10.1 15.1 23.3 14.3 1.7 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 59 94 152 43 7 83.5 81.9 100.0 89.7 81.0 14.6 15.3 0.0 8.0 14.4 0.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.6 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 254 72 1 87 153 80.0 86.4 83.3 93.3 80.6 100.0 85.0 78.9 87.9 14.3 13.6 6.7 6.7 16.1 0.0 14.1 14.4 12.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.4 4.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.2 0.0 35 22 12 15 31 3 234 " 90 33 88.2 90.0 76.8 87.6 78.7 90.3 70.0 5.9 9.0 19.0 11.8 17.3 6.5 20.0 5.9 1.0 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 1.3 3.2 10.0 17 100 192 169 75 31 10 83.1 92.3 14.4 7.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 480 26 66.7 75.2 85.9 88.5 92.3 90.5 100.0 80.0 0.0 21.2 11.3 9.6 7.7 9.5 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 33.3 2.7 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 3 113 234 52 13 21 6 75 FACTOR J,. Future Attitude Toward ALR (i) Ineffective ( i i ) Stay i n Different Form ( i i i ) Depends on P o l i t i c s (iv) May Leave i n Long Run Due to Pressure (v) Stay on Good Land (vi) Here to Stay ( v i i ) Passing Fad ( v i i i ) Do Not Want It 4. URBANIZATION PRESSURE j i . Adjacent Land Use (i) Farm ( i i ) Vacant ( i i i ) Hobby Farm/Mixed Use (iv) Residential (v) Commercial/Industrial b_. Regional Growth Rate (i) Less than 15% ( i i ) 15 - 25% ( i i i ) Greater than 25% c_. Adjacent Urban Centre Growth Rate (i) Less than 10% ( i i ) 10 - 20% ( i i i ) Greater than 20% MEDIAN 54 TABLE 6 (CONT'D) * % % NUMBER SUPPORT OPPOSITION NEUTRAL OTHER OF CASES 50.0 91.7 77.8 84.6 90.0 89.2 53.5 40.0 50.0 8.3 19.4 15.4 10.0 7.7 41.9 53.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 6.7 2 24 36 13 10 351 43 15 85.0 72.7 84.6 84.4 100.0 12.4 25.0 12.5 14.1 0.0 1.7 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 233 44 136 64 7 87.7 81.0 83.1 9.9 15.3 14.9 0.6 2.5 1.3 1.8 1.2 0.6 171 242 154 88.5 77.4 83.7 83.7 9.5 18.9 13.5 14.1 1.0 2.5 1.4 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 200 159 203 55 TABLE 7 LEVELS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TOWARD THE A.L.R. ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FACTOR LAND TENURE AND EFFECTS OF LEGISLATION -SUPPORT- -OPPOSITION-% % HIGHLY IN FAVOURABLE FAVOUR % % % QUALIFIED % QUALIFIED % VERY % NUMBER IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST OTHER OF CASES IN VERSUS OUT OF A.L.R. (i) In A.L.R. 17.5 27.4 38.7 1.6 3.9 7.4 2.3 1.2 566 ( i l ) Out A.L.R. 22.2 28.7 38.0 2.8 1.9 2.8 1.9 1.9 108 b. METHOD OF ACQUISITION (i) Inherit 16.7 26.9 40.0 1.3 4.2 6.8 2.5 1.5 472 ( i i ) Purchase 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 0.0 12 ( i i i ) Other 19.3 31.3 32.5 3.6 2.4 10.8 0.0 0.0 83 c. GENERAL LAND USE (i) Farm - Ranch 18.6 29.0 38.0 1.1 3.0 7.4 1.9 1.1 366 ( i i ) Forestry 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 ( i i i ) Residential 20.3 32.9 35.4 2.5 1.3 3.8 2.5 1.3 79 (iv) Commercial 12.5 37.5 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 (v) Vacant 8.8 8.8 47.1 2.9 11.8 11.8 5.9 2.9 34 (vi) Other Land Use 14.1 20.5 42.3 2.6 6.4 10.3 2.6 1.3 78 d. FARM TYPE/LAND USE (i) Crops - Vegetable 33.3 22.2 27.8 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 18 ( i i ) Berries - Fruit 14.5 30.9 32.7 3.6 0.0 12.7 5.5 0.0 55 ( i l l ) Forestry 0.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 (iv) Dairy - Beef 18.9 26.5 39.4 0.0 • 5.3 7.6 1.5 0.8 132 (v) Livestock 15.4 32.7 34.6 0.0 3.8 11.5 0.0 1.9 52 (vi) Mixed Farm 10.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 ( v i i ) Hay - Fodder 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 6 ( v i i i ) Hobby Farm 20.0 26.6 36.2 2.2 2.1 7.4 3.2 1.1 94 e. PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUES (i) Rose Greatly 17.0 33.0 37.5 1.1 2.3 5.7 3.4 0.0 88 ( i i ) Rose S l i g h t l y 20.7 39.7 32.8 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 58 ( i i i ) Stable 23.2 29.5 31.4 2.4 3.4 8:2 1.0 1.0 207 (iv) Down S l i g h t l y 6.0 20.0 48.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 0.0 50 (v) Down Greatly - 7.8 18.1 50.0 0.0 3.4 14.7 4.0 1.7 116 f. ATTEMPTS TO VARY A.L.R. DESIGNATION (i) Land Included i n A.L.R. 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 •• 0.0 0.0 4 ( i i ) Land Excluded 14.3 9.5 57.1 0.0 10.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 21 ( i i i ) Subdivided 2.0 21.6 . 60.8 0.0 3.9 7.8 3.9 0.0 51 (iv) Change Zoning 19.0 9.5 38.1 0.0 9.5 14.3 9.5 0.0 21 (v) Other Attempts 11.8 5.9 29.4 0.0 17.6 29.4 5.9 0.0 17 £. RESULTS OF ATTEMPT TO VARY , LAND USE DESIGNATION (i) Successful Exclusion 5.3 15.8 73.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 ( i i ) Unsuccessful Subdivision 8.2 16.4 41.0 0.0 6.7 18.0 8.2 1.6 61 or Exclusion ( i i i ) Successful Inclusion 9.7 6.5 61.3 0.0 12.9 9.7 0.0 0.0 31 (iv) Awaiting Results 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 56 TABLE 7 (CONT'D) SUPPORT ; OPPOSITION % % Z % % HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED % QUALIFIED % - VERY X NUMBER FACTOR FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST OTHER OF CASES 2. REGIONAL POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND INITIAL REACTION TO A.L.R. a. INITIAL REACTION TO LEGISLATION 3. (i) Complained in Writing or Signed Petitions 25.0 12.5 50.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 8 (ii) Actively Opposed A.L.R. 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 (i i i ) Protested With Other Farmers Against A.L.R. 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 (iv) Attended Meetings on A.L.R. 20.2 24.5 41.5 1.1 3.2 6.4 3.2 0.0 94 (v) Protested in Victoria 0.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3 0.0 7 (vi) Attended Discussions With Land Commission Or Regional Board 0.0 18.2 45.5 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 11 (vii) On A.L.R. Committee 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 b. REGIONAL POLITICAL AFFILIATION (i) Strong NDP Region 15.2 34.8 37.0 0.0 2.2 8.7 0.0 2.2 46 (ii) NDP Region 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 (i i i ) Weak NDP/Weak Socred 17.8' 28.4 38.5 1.8 4.6 4.6 2.8 1.8 109 (iv) Socred Region 12.9 21.6 49.0 2.6 3.6 7.7 1.5 1.0 194 (v) Strong Socred Region 22.2 30.3 30.3 0.0 4.1 8.3 3.2 0.9 218 VIABLE FARM OPERATION a. SIZE OF OPERATION (i) 0 - 5 Acres 23.3 34.0 28.2 1.9 1.0 5.8 9.9 1.0 103 (ii) 5-20 Acres 14.5 28.2 38.5 2.6 4.3 6.8 2.6 2.6 117 (i i i ) 20 - 50 Acres 22.4 23.9 32.8 1.5 1.5 13.4 3.0 1.5 67 (iv) 50 - 100 Acres 15.5 24.1 39.7 1.7 8.6 5.2 3.4 1.7 58 (v) 100 - 200 Acres 18.1 31.9 37.5 1.4 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 72 (vi) 200 - 500 Acres 14.1 23.9 50.7 0.0 1.4 8.5 0.0 1.4 71 (vii) 500 - 1000 Acres 14.6 17.1 48.8 0.0 7.3 9.8 2.4 0.0 41 (viii) 1000 - 2000 Acres 15.8 36.8 42.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 (ix) Over 2000 Acres 0.0 22.2 55.6 0.0 11.1 11.1 . 0.0 0.0 9 b. CLASS OF LAND (i) Class 1 25.8 62.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 (ii) Class 2 15.9 36.6 35.4 0.0 2.4 6.1 2.4 1.2 81 (i i i ) Class 3 21.2 26.8 35.9 1.0 5.1 6.1 3.0 1.0 196 (iv) Class 4 17.6 21.3 41.2 2.2 4.4 8.1 2.9 2.2 133 (v) Class 5 10.7 30.4 46.4 1.8 0.0 8.9 0.0 1.8 55 (vi) Class 6 12.2 32.7 36.7 4.1 6.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 49 (vii) Class 7 16.7 33.3 ' 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 6 [viii) Mixed Classes 13.3 10.0 60.0 0.0 3.3 10.0 3.3 0.0 30 c. CONDITION OF PROPERTY (i) Very Good 25.0 20.2 41.7 1.2 3.6 7.1 1.2 0.0 84 (ii) Good 20.3 27.3 41.3 2.1 2.8 3.5 2.1 0.7 143 ( i i i ) Average 14.9 27.1 39.8 0.6 3.9 8.8 3.3 1.7 181 (iv) Poor 20.0 35.0 22.5 0.0 7.5 12.5 2.5 0.0 40 (v) Very Poor 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 33.3 .0.0 0.0 3 57 TABLE 7 (CONT'D) -SUPPORT -OPPOSITION-FACTOR % HIGHLY FAVOURABLE % IN FAVOUR % QUALIFIED IN FAVOUR % NEUTRAL % QUALIFIED AGAINST % AGAINST % VERY AGAINST % OTHER NUMBER OF CASE d- CONDITION OF FARM BUILDINGS ( i Very Good 16.9 27.1 45.8 1.7 3.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 59 ( i i Good 21.2 24.2 43.4 1.0 4.0 5.1 1.0 0.0 99 ( i i i Average 16.4 30.0 35.5 0.0 2.6 8.6 3.0 2.0 152 (iv Poor 23.3 16.3 34.9 2.3 9.3 11.6 2.3 0.0 43 (v Very Poor 14.3 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 7 je. YEARS OPERATING UNIT (i) Less Than 2 Years 20.9 23.6 39.0 0.8 3.5 9.1 2.0 1.2 254 ( i i ) 2 - 5 Years 16.7 37.5 27.8 1.4 5.6 5.6 4.2 1.4 72 ( i i i ) 6 - 1 0 Years 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 (iv) More Than 10 Years 17.2 32.2 40.2 2.3 1.1 5.7 1.1 0.0 87 (v) Other 12.4 25.5 43.1 2.6 5.2 6.5 2.6 2.0 153 f. OCCUPATION (i) Managerial 28.6 25.7 25.7 2.9 11.4 2.9 0.0 2.9 35 ( i i ) Science/Engineering 18.2 36.4 31.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 9.1 0.0 22 ( i i i ) Medical/Health 25.0 16.7 41.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 12 (iv) C l e r i c a l 26.7 13.3 53.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 15 (v) Sales 19.4 29.0 32.3 3.2 9.7 3.2 3.2 0.0 31 (vi) Services 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 (vii ) Farmer 15.8 26.1 43.2 0.4 4.3 8.5 1.3 0.4 234 ( v i i i ) Processing 12.2 26.7 40.0 4.4 1.1 11.1 2.2 2.2 90 (ix) Transportation Operator 15.2 36.4 36.4 0.0 3.0 6.1 3.0 0.0 33 £• AGE OF OWNER (i) Less Than 30 17.6 41.2 29.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 17 ( i i ) 3 1 - 4 0 16.0 32.0 42.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 100 ( i i i ) 41 - 50 17.6 27.5 31.7 2.8 4.9 11.3 2.8 1.4 142 (iv) 51 - 60 17.8 24.9 45.0 0.0 4.1 6.5 1.2 0.6 169 (v) 61 - 70 21.3 22.7 34.7 2.7 1.3 13.3 2.7 1.3 75 (vi) 71 - 80 19.4 25.8 45.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 3.2 31 ( v i i ) Greater Than 80 10.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10 h. CHILDREN ON PROPERTY (i) Children 17.7 25.2 40.2 1.0 4.2 7.5 2.7 1.5 480 ( i i ) No Children 30.8 38.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 26 jL. LEVEL OF EDUCATION (i) None 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 3 ( i i ) Primary 14.2 30.1 31.0 0.9 4.4 13.3 3.5 2.7 113 ( i i i ) High School 16.9 28.9 40.1 2.1 3.2 7.0 1.1 0.7 286 (iv) University 25.0 17.3 46.2 0.0 3.8 1.9 3.8 1.9 52 (v) Post Graduate 0.0 30.8 61.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 13 (vi) Technical 19.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 21 ( v i i ) A g r i c u l t u r a l 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 ( v i i i ) Other 21.3 21.3 37.3 2.7 6.7 8.0 2.7 0.0 75 1- FUTURE ATTITUDE TOWARD A.L R. (i) Ineffective 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 (ii) Stay i n Different Form 4.2 20.4 66.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.0 24 ( i i i ) Depends on P o l i t i c s 30.6 27.8 19.4 2.8 2.8 16.7 0.0 0.0 36 58 TABLE 7 (CONT'D) -SUPPORT - -OPPOSITION-FACTOR % HIGHLY FAVOURABLE % IN FAVOUR % QUALIFIED IN FAVOUR % NEUTRAL % QUALIFIED AGAINST % AGAINST % VERY AGAINST % OTHER NUMBER OF CASES (iy) May Leave i n Long Range Due to Pressure 15.4 0.0 69.2 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.7 0.0 13 (v) Stay on Good Land 10.0 30.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 (vi) Here to Stay 19.4 29.9 39.9 2.0 2.3 4.3 1.1 1.1 351 ( v i i ) Passing Fad ' 9.3 14.0 30.2 2.3 9.3 25.6 7.0 2.3 43 ( v i i i ) Do Not Want It 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 6.7 20.0 26.7 6.7 15 4. URBANIZATION PRESSURE a.. ADJACENT LAND USE (i) Farm 18.0 30.0 36.9 1.7 3.9 7.7 0.9 0.9 233 ( i i ) Vacant 13.8 20.5 38.6 2.3 11.4 9.1 4.5 0.0 45 ( i i i ) Hobby Farm/Mixed Use 16.9 47.2 40.4 0.7 2.9 6.6 2.9 2.2 136 (iv) Residential 25.0 17.2 42.2 1.6 3.1 6.3 4.7 0.0 64 (v) Commercial/Industrial 28.6 14.3 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 b. REGIONAL GROWTH RATE (i) Less Than 15% 15.2 38.6 33.9 0.6 2.3 5.3 2.3 1.8 171 (Ii) 15 - 25% 19.4 26.0 35.5 2.5 6.6 6.6 2.1 1.2 242 ( i i i ) Greater Than 25% 16.9 16.9 49.4 1.3 1.3 11.0 2.6 0.6 154 c. ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE (i) Less Than 10% 15.5 38.5 34.5 1.0 2.5 6.0 1.0 1.0 200 ( i i ) 10 - 20% 20.1 22.6 34.6 2.5 8.8 7.5 2.5 1.3 159 ( i i i ) Greater Than 20% 17.3 20.2 46.2 1.4 1.4 8.7 3.4 1.4 208 MEDIAN 16.8 26.3 39.2 0.0 3.3 7.2 2.2 0.0 59 (iv) Measurement of Significance and Association Between Factors and  Landowners' Attitudes toward the A.L.R. a) Land Tenure and the E f f e c t s of L e g i s l a t i o n on Attitudes The f i r s t hypothesis asserts that support of the A.L.R. i s higher among owners of property outside the A.L.R. than among owners of property ins i d e the A.L.R. The r e s u l t s of the Kruskal-Wallis test i n Table A i n d i c a t e that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between A.L.R. j u r i s d i c t i o n over property and at t i t u d e toward the l e g i s l a t i o n i s not s i g n i f i c a n t with a value of 0.075. The Gamma value shows that only a weak negative association e x i s t s by the value of -0.13. Examination of Table 6 provides more information concerning the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n attitudes toward the A.L.R. of those with property i n the reserve and those outside. I t i s seen that property owners outside the A.L.R. are only s l i g h t l y more i n favour of the l e g i s l a t i o n than those within the confines of the A.L.R. (83.6% i n comparison to 88.9%). The median value of 83.6% given at the bottom of the "% support" column i n Table 6 indicates that the l e v e l of support associated with these two variables does not vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n comparison to the l e v e l of support of the A.L.R. found associated with the majority of f a c t o r s . Table 7 shows that there i s very l i t t l e d ifference between the le v e l s of support associated with t h i s v a r i a b l e even when these l e v e l s are disaggregated. When comparing values associated with " i n " and "out" of A.L.R. across the eight categories i t can be seen that the differences are only minimal. While i t can be seen i n t h i s comparison that the l e v e l of "Highly Favourable" support associated with "In A.L.R." i s lower than "Out A.L.R.," i t i s nevertheless above the median factor value at the bottom of 60 the column. This indicates that the "Highly Favourable" value of 17.5% of those "In A.L.R." cannot be considered particularly low. The first hypothesis states that the level of support of the A.L.R. is higher among owners of property outside the A.L.R. than among owners of property inside the A.L.R. On the basis of the foregoing analysis i t can be seen that no substantial differences exist between these attitudes associated with landowners inside the A.L.R. compared with the attitudes associated with those outside the A.L.R. The first hypothesis can therefore be rejected at the .05 level of significance. During the literature review i t was hypothesized that the level of support of the A.L.R. would be higher among those owners who purchased property than those who inherited property. No relationship was found to exist between method of property acquisition and attitudes toward the A.L.R. While i t is seen in Table 7 that those who purchased property displayed considerably higher levels of "Highly Favourable" attitudes than those who inherited property, this slight variance in attitude may be attributed to the samll total number of those who purchased property. It was hypothesized that the level of support towards the A.L.R. is higher among owners whose properties are actively used as farms than those whose properties are used for non-farm purposes. A significant relationship but very weak measure of association was found to exist between the dependent variable and the general land use of the property. Tables 6 and 7 show that positive attitudes towards the A.L.R. are in fact associated with properties used for non-farm purposes. Residential and commercial property owners show very similar levels of support and opposition towards the Reserves when compared to property owners utilizing their properties for farm purposes. However, there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t data to r e l a t e t h i s f i n d i n g to the e f f e c t s of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Credit Act and the Income Insurance Act which should benefit only those properties a c t i v e l y engaged i n farming a c t i v i t i e s . However, vacant properties do not adhere to the general patterns of support associated with other factors under the general land use category. The value l e v e l s of "Highly Favourable" and "In Favour" categories for vacant properties are below the median values corresponding to these two columns; correspondingly, values for "Against" and those "Very Against" are considerably higher than the median values. Further analysis was conducted to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between owners of vacant properties and attitudes towards the A.L.R. through the use of the Kolmogrov-Smirnov two-sample t e s t . The Kolmogrov-Smirnov procedure i s used to determine whether two populations are d i s t r i b u t e d i n s i m i l a r fashion. I t i s the appropriate a l t e r n a t i v e to the chi-square t e s t f o r two samples i f the data are continuously d i s t r i b u t e d , and i t may be used with smaller sample sizes than the chi-square test (Roscoe, 1975). This test was used to determine whether or not opinions offered by Farm-Ranch owners, vacant property owners and owners of other types of properties are d i s t r i b u t e d i n the same fashion. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized i n Table 8. The comparison of the cumulative frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s between Farm/Ranch owner opinions and vacant and other property owner opinions show that a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p does not e x i s t at the .05 l e v e l . However, the r e s u l t s of t h i s procedure do show that a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p does e x i s t between attitudes of vacant property owners and the dependent v a r i a b l e . TABLE .8 ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF OPINIONS TOWARD THE A.L.R. BY LAND USE SITUATION THROUGH THE USE OF THE KOLMOGROV-SMIRNOV TWO-SAMPLE TEST* OPINION OF ALR LAND USE SITUATION Farm/Ranch Vacant A l l Others A l l All-Vacant Farm/Ranch Cumulative Frequency Distribution (N = 362) Vacant and Other Cumulative Frequency Distribution (N = 198) Vacancy Cumulative Frequency Distribution (n = 33) All-Vacancy Frequency Distribution (n = 527) OPINIONS OFFERED BY LAND USE SITUATION FAVOURABLE IN FAVOUR 68 3 28 99 96 106 3 46 155 152 QUALIFIED IN FAVOUR 139 16 65 219 203 NEUTRAL 4 1 4 9 8 KOLMOGROV-SMIRNOV CALCULATION 18.78 15.74 48.07 40.61 kd = 7.46 x = 9.09 18.18 86.46 81.22 2.84 d. 66.69 87.57 f = 18.25 47.15 85.74 kd = 28.97 x 2 = 10.42 69.70 87.26 d.f = 2 QUALIFIED AGAINST 11 4 7 22 18 90.61 83.76 2 p .30 89.34 81.82 90.68 p < .01 AGAINST 27 4 11 42 38 98.07 96.95 93.94 97.91 VERY AGAINST 7 2 4 13 11 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ON *For discussion of rationale and calculation of the Kolmogrov-Smirnov Two-Sample Test see Roscoe (1975) pp. 276-280 . 63 The hypothesis concerning land use can be rejected, except however for those occurrences of vacant properties where levels of support were found to be substantially lower than in other land use categories. Perhaps the results reflect owners of vacant properties' feelings that their options for future land use have been greatly affected by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Similar feelings are not reflected in the opinions of those using their properties for other land use activities. Perhaps this may be explained through the argument that nonvacant properties land use decisions have, for the most part, already been made; therefore, the land use legislation is not perceived negatively. No significant relationships were found to exist between attitudes and farm type through the data analysis. However, an important finding based upon this factor is the level of support associated with hobby farms, a land use which has been described as !'an extension of urban develop-ment" (Pearson, N., 1972, p. 4), Hobby farmers as a group show slightly higher than median levels of support towards the A.L.R. and therefore should not be considered as a major source of opposition towards the legislation. Attempts were made in the research to quantify the effects of landowners' perceived changes in property value as a result of the implementation of the A.L.R. on their attitudes towards the A.L.R. in general. This analysis was conducted in response to the hypothesis that landowners within the A.L.R. perceive that the A.L.R. has produced a reduction in their property values, and those with this perception will be more opposed to the Agricultural Land Reserves. The results of enquiry which concerns attitudes and property values should be considered with a degree of reservation. Property values 64 often f l u c t u a t e i n response to market conditions which are external to a l e g i s l a t i o n such as the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. Discussion of the t h e o r e t i c a l e f f e c t s of r e s t r i c t i v e land use l e g i s l a t i o n i n Chapter II revealed that the implementation of the A.L.R. should have the e f f e c t of s u b s t a n t i a l l y reducing the value of affected properties. However, as summarized i n Table 9, perceptions of the e f f e c t s of the l e g i s l a t i o n on land values are mixed; the majority of property owners perceiving no change at a l l ; many, i n f a c t , perceived an increase i n property value due to the A.L.R. Therefore, the f i r s t portion of t h i s hypothesis does not s t r i c t l y hold true. A highly s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p as well as a moderate p o s i t i v e measure of association were found when landowners' perceptions of the e f f e c t s of the A.L.R. on property values were compared with t h e i r a ttitudes toward the A.L.R. Inspection of Table 6 and 7- shows that perception of a reduction i n land value due to the A.L.R. does have some e f f e c t i n reducing the o v e r a l l magnitude of support but only a minor r e l a t i o n s h i p with the d i r e c t i o n of the a t t i t u d e toward the l e g i s l a t i o n . Further analysis was conducted i n an attempt to explain the variance i n landowners' perception of changes i n land values. Association and s i g n i f i c a n c e were tested between perceptions of changes i n land values and urbanization pressure as based upon three measures: (1) adjacent property use; (2) growth within adjacent urban centres between 1971 and 1976; and (3) regional growth within each study area between 1971 and 1976. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between perceptions of changes i n property values and e i t h e r adjacent land use or regional growth between 1971 and 1976. However, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p and a moderate measure 65 TABLE 9 PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES OF LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE A.L.R. PERCEPTION OF CHANGE NUMBER OF IN VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. PERCENT PROPERTY OWNERS Rose Greatly 15.3 89 Rose S l i g h t l y 10.0 58 Stable 37.0 215 Went Down S l i g h t l y 9.0 52 Went Down Greatly 20.3 118 Other/Missing Data 8.4 49 TOTAL 100.0 581 66 of a ssociation were found to e x i s t between perceptions of change i n property values and growth rates between 1971 and 1976 of adjacent urban centres. Table 10 displays the r e l a t i o n s h i p between perceptions of change i n property values and growth rates of adjacent urban centres. In general, those who f e l t t h e i r property values f e l l showed the greatest tendency to be i n areas adjacent to urban centres experiencing high r e l a t i v e growth rates. Therefore, on the basis of perceived changes i n land values, the implementation of the A.L.R. d i d , i n the estimation of landowners, have the e f f e c t of reducing the property values of 29.3% of those with property i n designated Reserves. However, the e f f e c t s of t h i s reduction have had only l i m i t e d e f f e c t s on lowering the l e v e l of support toward the A.L.R. ( i n f a c t , only 21% of those who perceived reductions i n property value indicated opposition to the A.L.R.). Also, of those who reported reductions, many are located i n areas adjacent to urban centres experiencing high r e l a t i v e rates of growth (although the a b i l i t y to predict attitudes given knowledge of adjacent urban centre s i z e i s only moderate as indicated by a gamma value of 24.5). The hypothesis, therefore, i s rejected except i n those s i t u a t i o n s adjacent to urban centres experiencing rapid growth. The extent to which a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between urbanization pressure and attitudes toward the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves w i l l be pursued further i n Section (d) of t h i s chapter. It was hypothesized that landowners who have been prevented from excluding property from the A.L.R. or subdividing property w i l l have lowered l e v e l s of support toward the A.L.R. than landowners who have not pursued such actions. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to e x i s t between attempts to vary property designations or subdivide within the A.L.R. TABLE 10 EFFECTS OF ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH BETWEEN 1971 AND 1976 ON PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN PROPERTY ROSE ROSE DOWN DOWN VALUE DUE TO ALR GREATLY SLIGHTLY STABLE SLIGHTLY GREATLY RATE OF ADJACENT CENTRE GROWTH Less Than 10% 10%-20% More Than 20% 19.2 17.0 43.4 15.4 8.4 46.9 16.4 7.4 31.2 7.7 12.6 9.8 19.6 11.6 33.3 TOTAL PERCENT 100% 100% 100% NUMBER OF CASES 182 143 189 -^ 1 514 68 Similarly, no outstanding relationship was found to exist between the results of this attempt and attitudes towards the A.L.R. While the level of support associated with those who failed in their attempts to exclude or subdivide property is below median value, the majority (65.6%) of these landowners s t i l l indicate support toward the A.L.R. These results are important as they display relatively high support among a group of landowners who were originally thought to be highly opposed to a legislation which greatly restricted the "bundle of rights" associated with their property. This hypothesis can subsequently be rejected at the .05 level of significance. b) Factors Associated with the Initial Implementation of the  Legislation and Regional Political Affiliation In Chapter II the emotional response to the introduction of B i l l  42 was summarized. It is difficult to assess, on the basis of information contained within Vancouver's daily newspapers, the level of support which the public held toward the proposed Agricultural Land Reserves early in 1973. On the basis of newspaper articles alone during this time (which should only be considered as secondary evidence) i t is evident that there was considerable controversy surrounding the proposed legislation in 1973, and that public attitudes towards farmland preservation have become increasingly favourable. Hence, i t was hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between landowners who pursued a position of opposi-tion to the implementation of the Land Commission legislation in 1973 and their attitudes toward the A.L.R. in 1977. Contained within the data base are 127 respondents who took some form of action in response to the introduction of the legislation in 1973. 69 A significant relationship and a moderate measurement of association exists between this variable and attitudes toward the A.L.R. in 1978. Table 6 shows that of a l l those who took some formal action in response to the legislation in 1973, a l l groups except one (which has such a small sample size that i t can be highly suspected that the variance is due to sampling error) display relatively high levels of support toward the A.L.R. The most important finding concerning this factor concerns those who pursued a position of opposition toward the legislation in 1973 such as writing letters, signing petitions, or protesting at the Legislature in Victoria. The majority of those opposed to the legislation in some form in 1973 indicated in 1977 that they are at least "Qualified in favour," therefore, the hypothesis concerning the relationship between attitudes in 1973 and 1977 is rejected. The relationship between those who actively opposed the legislation in 1973 and their attitudes in 1977 is, for the most part, negative. This apparent swing in attitudes is further indicated through letters and articles which appeared in the Vancouver Sun under the title "Hands Off Farmland" (October 23, 1979). Numerous letters and articles appeared both in this issue and several following in response to the Environment and Land Use Committee's decision to release approximately 650 acres of land from the A.L.R. in the Fraser Valley. Although a secondary source of evidence, i t is evident from newspaper articles that public understanding and support of the concept of agricultural land preservation in British Columbia has grown from a prevailing attitude of controversy in 1973 to that of a "watch-dog" role in 1979. Evidence from this study, however, supports that a negative relationship does exist with respect to 70 landowners who pursued actions of opposition i n 1973 and attitudes towards the l e g i s l a t i o n half a decade l a t e r . In Chapter II i t was hypothesized that there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between regional patterns of support f o r the A.L.R. and N.D.P. votes by e l e c t o r a l r i d i n g i n past P r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s . In an attempt to measure a possible r e l a t i o n s h i p between p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n and a t t i t u d e toward the A.L.R., the 12 study regions were c l a s s i f i e d into a f i v e - l e v e l o r d i n a l scale according to the r e s u l t s of P r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n s between 1972 and 1979. The d e t a i l s of t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are i n Table H.. The s t a t i s t i c a l analysis shows that a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p does i n f a c t e x i s t between t h i s factor and attitudes toward the A.L.R. However, the association i s very weak i n d i c a t i n g that the a b i l i t y to predict the l e v e l of support of the A.L.R. given knowledge of regional e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s i s p r a c t i c a l l y nonexistent. In f a c t , Table 1 shows that the percentage of these landowners i n "Strong Socred Regions" i n d i c a t i n g "Highly favourable" attitudes i s 7% higher than the corresponding category of those i n regions displaying f i r m NDP a f f i l i a t i o n . This r e l a t i o n s h i p was further examined at a more rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l through the use of a 2 x 2 matrix. The o r i g i n a l matrix used to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p of e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s and attitudes toward the A.L.R. contained many c e l l s with low expected frequencies. There i s a d i s t i n c t tendency f o r tests to be too l i b e r a l ( r e s u l t i n g i n the r e j e c t i o n of too many true hypotheses) i f expected frequencies are too low (Roscoe, 1975). The 2 x 2 matrix used i n the examination of attitudes associated with strong S o c i a l Credit regions and strong N.D.P. regions i s shown below. 71 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES OF STRONG N.D.P. REGIONS VERSUS STRONG SOCIAL CREDIT REGIONS Highly Favourable Other A t t i t u d e s T o t a l Toward A.L.R. Toward A.L.R. Strong N.D.P. Region 7 38 45 Strong S o c i a l Credit Region 48 168 216 Tota l 55 206 261 The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not s i g n i f i c a n t with a Chi-Square value of 0.995. However, the association i s r e a l and opposite i n d i r e c t i o n to that of the hypothesis with a value of -0.22. Therefore, on a crude l e v e l of regional analysis, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between e l e c t i o n performance and attitudes toward the A.L.R. does not e x i s t . However, a moderate and negative association e x i s t s . The implications of t h i s f i n d i n g w i l l be discussed i n the conclusions. c) Factors Associated with Viable Farm Operations Attitudes toward the A.L.R. were examined to assess the hypothesis that a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the A.L.R. i s associated with: higher property s o i l c a p a b i l i t y ; larger property s i z e ; better condition of farm property and buildings; farming as an exclusive or primary occupation; younger-aged property owners; the presence of chi l d r e n on farms; higher l e v e l s of formal education of property owners; and, a higher awareness of the importance of a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation. Very l i t t l e variance i n att i t u d e of. the A.L.R. can be accounted f o r by these v a r i a b l e s . In f a c t , of the ten variables examined under t h i s heading only two f a c t o r s — t h e TABLE 11 REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO RESULTS OF 1972, 1975 AND 1979 BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS STUDY REGION ELECTORAL DISTRICT PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS 1972 1975 1979 Saanich Saanich and the Islands PC SC SC Surrey 1 Surrey NDP SC NDP/SC Vedder Smlthers Chilliwack/Central Fraser Valley Skeena/Omineca SC NDP SC SC SC NDP/SC Prince George 2 Fort George NDP SC SC Peace North Peace River SC SC SC Cariboo Cariboo NDP SC SC Kamloops Kamloops NDP SC SC Coldstream 3 Shuswap NDP SC SC Kelowna North Okanagan/South Okanagan SC SC SC Grand Forks Boundary-Similkameen SC SC SC Creston Nelson-Creston NDP NDP NDP KEY TO POLITICAL PARTY NAMES NDP—New Democratic Party PC—Progressive Conservative Party SC—Social Credit Party Sur rey became a two-seat electoral district in 1979. 2Fort George electoral district was split into two districts for the 1979 Provincial election, Prince George North and Prince George South. The Prince George study region is within the Prince George South electoral district. 3Shuswap electoral district was renamed to Shuswap-Revelstoke in 1979. 73 TABLE 11(CONTINUED) REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO RESULTS OF 1972, 1975 AND 1979 BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS 1. STRONG NDP REGIONS Creston 2. NDP REGIONS 3. WEAK NDP/WEAK SOCIAL CREDIT REGIONS Surrey Smithers 4. SOCIAL CREDIT REGIONS Saanich Prince George Cariboo Kamloops Coldstream 5. STRONG SOCIAL CREDIT REGIONS Vedder Peace Kelowna Grand Forks 74 occurrence of children and future attitudes toward the A.L.R. had significant relationships with the dependent variable. It should be noted that landowner occupation was restructed into an ordinal scale for statistical examination. However, a significant relationship was not found and the association was very weak and negative. The results of this analysis may be seen in Appendix 19. Properties without children on them tended to display higher levels of support than these with,* children..' However, it is likely that the differences in these levels is due to sampling error resulting from the small sample size associated with children. The difference between these two groups is not substantial; most categories of support associated with children on property showed very close approximation to the median value. Landowners' opinion of the future of the A.L.R. was used as an indicator of the perception of the importance of future agricultural land preservation. Table 12 displays attitudes of the future of the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserves by those with properties within the jurisdiction of the Reserve. The most important observation in this table is that the majority of respondents perceive the legislation to be permanent. The categories of opinion of the future of the A.L.R. were aggregated into 3 groupings in order that an ordinal scale could be obtained. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 13. A significant relationship and moderate level of association were found to exist between these two variables. The Gamma value of 31% was the highest level of association found in a l l factors tested. In general, those with positive attitudes towards the future of the A.L.R. also tended to support favourable current attitudes; conversely, the level of support associated with those 75 TABLE 12 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE FUTURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVES OF LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE RESERVE Here to Stay 66.6% Passing Fad 7.4% Depends on P o l i t i c s 6.5% W i l l Stay but i n Revised Form 4.6% Do Not Want I t 2.6% May Leave i n Long Run 2.2% W i l l Stay on Good Land 1.7% Does Not Matter 0.4% Response Not Available 7.9% TOTAL 100.0% (581 Respondents) TABLE 13 ATTITUDES OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST Permanent May Stay Doesn't Matter/ Fad/Negative Attitude Median Value of A l l Factors (from Table B) 19.6 18.0 6.9 16.2 30.3 27.0 10.3 26.3 40.3 41.4 34.5 39.2 2.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 2.3 3.6 10.3 3.3 4.3 7.2 24.1 7.2 1.2 1.8 12.1 2.2 TOTAL PERCENT 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL NUMBER 347 111 58 Significance = 0.000 Gamma = 0.31461 77 who view the future of the A.L.R. negatively i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y below the median l e v e l f o r support categories and above median values f o r opposition categories. I t i s evident, therefore, that landowners' perception of the permanence or s o l i d a r i t y of the A.L.R. as a long-term a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation p o l i c y i s strongly r e l a t e d to present attitudes of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. On the basis of th i s analysis the hypothesis that a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the A.L.R. i s associated with higher awareness of the importance of a g r i c u l t u r a l land preservation cannot be rejected. In general, factors considered under the heading of v i a b l e farm operation displayed l i t t l e causal r e l a t i o n s h i p with attitudes of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Aside from the fa c t o r concerning future attitudes toward the A.L.R., the hypothesis can be rejected on the basis that only an extremely l i m i t e d amount of variance existed between fa c t o r categories i n respect to t h e i r e f f e c t s on attitudes toward the A.L.R. The issue of future attitudes w i l l receive further discussion i n the following chapter. d) Factors Associated with Urbanization Pressure Three factors concerning urbanization pressure were assessed to determine i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p with a t t i t u d e s of A.L.R. support existed; these are: (1) urban a c t i v i t i e s on adjacent properties, (2) rates of regional population growth within each study region, and (3) rates of urban centre population growth within each study region. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to e x i s t between landowners' attitudes about the A.L.R. and a c t i v i t i e s on adjacent properties which are 78 i n d i c a t i v e of urbanization pressure. Even those adjacent land uses such as r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , and hobby farms, which on the basis of the l i t e r a t u r e review were thought to be noncompatible adjacent land uses for farming, do not appear to have any substantial negative e f f e c t on landowners' a t t i t u d e s . However, those respondents with vacant properties adjacent did have below median l e v e l s of support. I t i s f e l t that vacant properties may be i n d i c a t o r s of speculation or i n s t a b i l i t y of future land use i n a region. In response to these assumptions, owner land use was compared to landowner occupation. Table 14 summarized the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two v a r i a b l e s . Farming i s the large s t category of employment o v e r a l l , and the l a r g e s t category for each land use except vacant. Vacant lands are predominantly held by respondents who indicated a nonfarming a c t i v i t y as t h e i r p r i n c i p a l occupation. The lower l e v e l of A.L.R. support associated with ownership of vacant lands appears to be explained by the fact that they are l a r g e l y owned by nonfarmers and therefore held f o r speculative i n t e r e s t s and not for farming purposes. Landowners adjacent to vacant properties, on the other hand, may foresee future land use i n s t a b i l i t y and speculative a c t i v i t y around them. Rates of regional population growth within each study region were measured for the five-year period p r i o r to the time of questionnaire admin-i s t r a t i o n as a crude i n d i c a t o r of regional development pressure i n each region. The ranking procedure used for t h i s process i s outlined i n Table 15. The rate of regional population growth was then cross tabulated against land-owners' a t t i t u d e s . The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e and a s s o c i a t i o n were both low. Also no strong trends are indicated i n Tables 6 and 7. On the basis of these r e s u l t s and the low measure of a s s o c i a t i o n . I t i s c l e a r that there TABLE 14 PROPERTY OWNER OCCUPATION COMPARED TO GENERAL LAND USE OCCUPATION SCIENCE/. TOTAL MANAGERIAL ENGINEER MEDICAL CLERICAL SALES SERVICES FARMING PROCESSING TRANSPORTATION NUMBER LAND USE Farm/Ranch 31.0 38.1 11.1 21.4 25.9 33.3 84.3 16.7 35.5 248 Residential 6.9 14.3 0.0 7.1 22.2 0.0 3.0 15.5 19.4 38 Commercial 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2 Hobby Farm 20.7 14.3 44.4 42.9 18.5 33.3 7.8 31.0 19.4 75 Other Land Use 3.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 7.4 33.3 3.9 2.4 3.2 17 Vacant 34.5 28.6 44.4 28.6 25.9 0.0 0.4 34.5 22.6 68 COLUMN % TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 COLUMN TOTAL 29 21 9 14 27 3 230 84 31 448 80 TABLE 15 STUDY REGION POPULATION GROWTH BY REGION: 1971-1976 REGION Saanich Surrey Vedder Smitbers Prince George Peace Cariboo Kamloops Coldstream Kelowna Grand Forks Creston REGIONAL GROWTH RATE PERCENT 1971-1976+ 11.4% 15.4% 16.4% 23.1% 12.4% 7.2% 21.4% 16.5% 38.7% 36.9% 29.8% 10.4% LOW GROWTH RATE LESS THAN 15% Saanich Prince George Peace Creston REGIONAL GROWTH RATE RANKING CRITERIA MODERATE GROWTH RATE 15% TO 25% Surrey Vedder Smithers Cariboo Kamloops HIGH GROWTH RATE GREATER THAN 20% Coldstream Kelowna Grand Forks + Source: Statistics Canada (1976). "Population: Geographic Distributions," 1976 Census of Canada. Catalogue 92-805, pp. 3-43-3-45. 81 TABLE 16 STUDY REGION POPULATION GROWTH BY ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE: 1971-1976 REGION Saanich Surrey Vedder Smithers Prince George Peace Cariboo Kamloops Coldstream Kelowna Grand Forks Creston ADJACENT URBAN CENTRES Sidney Langley Chilliwack Smithers Prince George Fort St. John 100 Mile House Kamloops Vernon Kelowna Grand Forks Creston URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE PERCENT 1971-1976 + 27.6 53.7 11.3 -2.1 17.6 7.2 21.4 16.5 20.4 22.8 -2.6 9.8 ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE RANKING CRITERIA LOW GROWTH RATE LESS THAN 10% Smithers Fort St. John Grand Forks Creston MODERATE GROWTH RATE 10% TO 20% Chilliwack Prince George Kamloops HIGH GROWTH RATE GREATER THAN 20% Sidney Langley Vernon Kelowna 100 Mile House + Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1976). "Population: Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n s , " 1976 Census of Canada. Catalogue 92-805, pp. 3-43 - 3-45. 82 is not a strong relationship between these two variables. A similar procedure was used to assess the effects of urban centre growth rates on attitudes within each study area. As with regional population growth rates, the assessment of the effects of urban centre growth rates was done by grouping the study areas into three ordinal categories. Different cutting points were used to divide the categories, so as to have relatively equal numbers of study areas in each category (the ranking procedure is shown in Table 16). What is found is a statistically significant but very modest correlation (a Gamma value of less than .15) with landowners' attitudes toward the A.L.R. It can therefore be concluded that a relationship does in fact exist between attitudes towards the A.L.R. and size of adjacent urban centres, but the ability to predict an attitude, given knowledge of the size of the adjacent urban centre is very weak. (v) Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to evaluate the relationships between various sets of factors and landowners' attitudes towards the Agricultural Land Reserves. This analysis was facilitated through the use of a measure of association, a test of significance, and tables which summarize the level of support and opposition associated with groups of landowners organized into categories based upon the factors. Analysis of the aggregated results of landowner attitudes showed that the majority of landowners displayed favourable attitudes of the Agricultural Land Reserves. The variance in response was limited. Few of the factors assessed in conjunction was the hypothesis 83 testing were found to have highly s i g n i f i c a n t and p r e d i c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the dependent v a r i a b l e . Lowered l e v e l s of A.L.R. support were found to be associated with vacant properties, however, the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y associated with t h i s factor i s minimal. While a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with modest association e x i s t s between landowners' perceived changes i n property value and the r e s u l t s of A.L.R. implementation only approximately 21% of those perceiving a reduction i n property value were also opposed to the A.L.R. While the presence of c h i l d r e n on properties did have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the dependent v a r i a b l e , the a s s o c i a t i o n was opposite i n d i r e c t i o n to that expected i n the hypothesis. Future a t t i t u d e s of the s t a b i l i t y of the A.L.R. have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the dependent v a r i a b l e and a p r e d i c t i v e value of over 30%; t h i s was the strongest r e l a t i o n s h i p found of a l l f a c t o r s tested. A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -ship was also found to e x i s t between the dependent v a r i a b l e and s i z e of adjacent urban centre, however, the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y associated with t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s weak. In general, r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggested by the l i t e r a t u r e were substantiated i n some cases and may w e l l e x i s t i n others; however, even with a .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l and a s u b s t a n t i a l sample siz e the t e s t of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e was found to be inconclusive i n most instances. Where r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found to be strong enough to be of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , the measure of a s s o c i a t i o n indicated t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to be so weak to have l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l value. The majority of a l l landowners i n the A.L.R., i n f a c t over 80% of them, support the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves, perhaps though with some reservation. Even a f t e r separating landowners into categories most l i k e l y to oppose the A.L.R. on the basis of the l i t e r a t u r e review, opinions of 84 support s t i l l prevailed at a substantially higher frequency than did opinions of opposition. The statistical search for variables distinguishing those who support the A.L.R. from those who oppose it did not result in the identification of factors associated with consistent recordings of negative attitudes. Of those who owned land within the jurisdiction of the A.L.R., there was by 1977 a general consensus supportive of the A.L.R. Although some minor divergences in opinion were found to exist, the major point is that those most directly affected are supportive of the Agricultural Land Reserves. 85 References Cited Babbie, E a r l R. (1975). The Practice of So c i a l Research. Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a . Blalock, Hubert M., J r . (1979). S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: Toronto. Hopkins, Kenneth D. and Gene V. Glass (1978) . Basic S t a t i s t i c s for the  Behavioral Sciences. P r e n t i c e - H a l l : New Jersey. Kirk, Roger E. (1968). Experimental Design Procedures for the S o c i a l  Sciences. Brooks/Cole: C a l i f o r n i a . Manning, Edward W. and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Environment Canada: Ottawa. Mueller, John H., K a r l F. Schuessler, and Herbert L. Costner (1970). S t a t i s t i c a l Reasoning i n Sociology. Houghton M i f f l i n : New York. Pearson, Norman (1972). "Fraser Valley—Rape I t or Preserve I t , " Land  Use i n the Fraser Valley—Whose Concern? Town and Country Motor Inn, Delta, B.C., October 18, 1972. Roscoe, John T. (1975) . Fundamental Research S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Behavioural Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York. Siegal, Sidney (1956). N'onparametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Behavioral  Sciences. McGraw-Hill: New York. S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1976). "Population: Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n s , " 1976 Census of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Catalogue 92-805, pp. 3-13 - 3-45. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES CITED Vancouver Sun. "Hands Off Farmland," October 23, 1979. 86 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 87 CONCLUSIONS The study has shown that the high level of support for the Agricultural Land Reserves exists, in general, even within populations disaggregated into sub-groups consisting of property owners suspected as being opposed to the land use control system. The remaining sections of the thesis are devoted to: (1) discussion of the direction of attitudes toward agricultural land preservation; (2) planning implications of the findings and associated recommendations when appropriate, and; (3) recommendations for future research concerning attitudes toward agricultural land use control. (i) The Direction of Attitudes Towards Agricultural Land Preservation An important finding of the study concerns the overwhelming level of support indicated by landowners directly affected by the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserves. In an aggregate analysis, i t was observed that over 80% of property owners with land in the A.L.R. were in support; while only approximately 14% opposed i t . Even more important, however, is the fact that these high levels of support were generally maintained even when the sample population was disaggregated into groups of landowners expected to oppose the A.L.R. These groups include those who use their property for non-farm purposes, those who have attempted to modify their land use designation, those who protested against the legislation in 1973, property holders with very small land units, those with Class 4, 5, and 6 soils, those whose properties are in poor condition, owners engaged in non-farm activities as their principle occupation, very old property owners, those without children, 88 and those landowners whose properties are within rapidly growing and urbanizing regions. Except for landholders of vacant properties, those who were unsuccessful at changing property zoning or subdividing property, and those who perceive the legislation to be a passing fad, support for the Agricultural Land Reserve was found to be high. The acceptance or rejection of policy alternatives is determined predominantly by the perceptions of the problems and the attitudes held by those directly affected by the policy (University of Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, 1977). The i n i t i a l rejection of the legislation and subsequent turnaround in attitudes as documented in the study are perhaps reflections of the education and awareness process to which the public was exposed through the introduction of the legislation. Prior to the implementation of the Land Commission Act, the general public was perhaps unaware of the severe and growing shortage of arable land in the Province. This was stated by William Lane, the First Chairman of the Land Commission, as: Ironically, the general furor which arose on the occasion of the introduction of B i l l 42 has served a very valuable role in making the public aware of a situation which had been countenanced almost unnoticed for decades. The fact that these measures coincided with a national and world food shortage together with a renewed concern for unplanned population growth has served agriculture very well (Lane, 1973 in Smith, 1975, p. 140). Lane's statement is indicative of the educational value often associated with policy implementation. Results from this study support this concept of education on policy needs through experience. A proportion of those who actively engaged in some form of opposition toward the legislation in 1973 indicated support five years later. It appears that 89 the realities associated with the introduction of the Land Commission Act resulted in a growth of public support due to the sound objectives emboddied within the legislation. Further evidence of this growth in public support of the legislation is cited by Gary Runka, a past Chairman of the Commission: There has been a fairly significant shift in public opinion since the Land Commission Act was passed. While farmers' organizations protested the legislation when it was introduced, they now, actively assist the Land Commission in its task. Where the general public was confused and skeptical about the program initially, we now have environmental groups, organized labor, and individual citizens voluntarily taking on a watchdog role against interactions of the Land  Commission Act. I am not suggesting that our problems are over, but an increased public awareness of the issues relating to agriculture is certainly encouraging (1977, p. 142). Throughout the 1970's the loss of farmland has gained new attention in North America (Piatt, 1977). Bosselman and Callies have summarized the attitudinal change towards land use control mechanisms which have emerged in the United States: Basically, we are drawing away from the 19th century idea that land's only function is to enable its owner to make money . . . The idea that land is a resource as well as a commodity may appear self evident but in the context of our traditions of land use regulation is a highly novel concept. Our existing systems of land use regulation were created by dealers in real estate interested in maximizing the value of land as a commodity . . . Numerous systems of local land use regulation are beginning to contain regulations that recognize land as a resource as well as a commodity (1972, pp. 316-17). This increased awareness and acceptance by the public of the importance associated with controlling the use of land is what Bosselman and Callies refer to as a "quiet revolution". The clearest evidence that there has been a change in the attitude toward land use control is ao (ii) Planning Implications of the Research Findings arid Associated  Recommendations The increased awareness of the importance of agricultural land protection and public receptiveness of public land use control programmes pose important planning implications. These may be examined first from the provincial and then the federal level. a) Strengthening of Provincial Agricultural Land Use Policy The overall conclusion derived from the study was the widespread support, even from groups initially suspected as being opposed to the legislation. On the basis of this encompassing support, i t is advised that policy analysts take advantage of this highly supportive climate of public opinion to strengthen the legislation. B i l l 38, the Land Commission Act, was passed by the Provincial Legislature in September of 1977, amending the original Land Commission Act. Perhaps the most controversial of the amendments was the addition of Section 9(8) which provided an additional avenue of appeal for exclusion of property from the A.L.R. Under the Act as originally passed, decisionmaking on applications from individual landowners to exclude land from an Agricultural Land Reserve was the sole responsibility of the Land Commission, with one avenue of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet. This appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee was available to a dissatisfied person only on obtaining Leave to Appeal from two members of the Commission. Under the amended Act, this provision remained in force but, where Leave to Appeal is not granted, there is now established an additional avenue of appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. Within 30 days of being denied Leave to Appeal by the Commission, the dissatisfied person may apply to the Minister of Environment for Leave to Appeal to the ELUC. If approved by the Minister, the appeal will be heard by the ELUC, at which time the applicant and the Commission may make 91 in the number of methods directed towards agricultural land preservation which have come into existence in North America during the past several decades (Roy, 1980, outlines such methods). A recent study concerning public attitudes on land use legislation found that the contemporary climate of public opinion is more open to innovation in land use policy than many would have expected (Brown and Coke, 1977). This American study concludes that public opinion of land legislation is not static. In general, growing imbalances within the socioeconomic system lead to the emergence of competing value systems, to the definition of new policy problems, and eventually to programmes designed to cope with the new problems. People now accept broader land use controls because they want to prevent further negative externalities associated with rapid development and the associated consequences of such on their lives (Brown and Coke, 1977) . This acceptance of land use controls illustrated by American authors also appears to be very evident in British Columbia as documented by this study. Among those who own land in the A.L.R. a general concensus of support was found. Minor divergences and differences in opinion was found, however, the major finding of the study is that those most directly effected are in favour of the A.L.R. While the B i l l used to implement the Agricultural Land Reserves was initially received as one of the most controversial in the history of the Province, landowners' opinions concerning agricultural land control only five years after implementation indicate widespread support. 92 representation, and the ELUC may then approve the application, with or without terms and conditions, or may refuse the application (Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, 1978, pp. 10-11). It can be argued that this new appeal process has allowed for the exclusion of land from the A.L.R. which may not have resulted prior to Act amendment. When the only route of appeal to ELUC was under Section 9(7), the Commission served as a screening process, therefore reducing the number of applications reaching Cabinet level. When the Commission itself had to approve Leaves to Appeal, only 25 percent were actually passed on to Cabinet. Now that a minister has that say, 81 percent of appeals are getting to Cabinet (Globe and Mail, October 19, 1980) . Table 17 summarizes the total number of applications made under Sections 9(7) and 9(8) of the Act and the acreage released through each respective avenue of appeal. It can be seen that 832 acres were released as a result of this additional avenue of appeal. The addition of Section 9(8) to the Agricultural Land Commission  Act has not only permitted additional exclusions of land from the reserve but i t has also put the Commission in a difficult position with ELUC in the appeal decision-making process. The new section of the Act now permits decisions to be made at the political level (through ELUC) which may conflict with those decisions based upon technical information by the Commission. This conflict between the political decision-making process and the Commission's role in the appeal process may have severe negative consequences to the future of the Agricultural Land Commission's successful operation. Baxter warned in 1974, before the introduction of Section 9(8) to the Act, of the possible demise of the Commission due to 93 TABLE 17 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL  UNDER SECTIONS 9(7) AND 9(8) OF  THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT SINCE 1977 NUMBER OF APPEALS ACREAGE EXCLUDED SECTION OF ACT BY YEAR BY YEAR USED IN APPEAL 1977 1978 TOTAL 1977 1978 TOTAL Section 9(7) 39 52 91 21 129 150 Section 9(8) 14 30 44 163 669 832 Source: P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (1980) A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Burnaby, B.C. Pp. 31-36. 94 political conflict based upon similar problems which the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board experience, Baxter states: Recalling that i t was the actions of a provincial Cabinet which resulted in the first major deviation from the Official Regional Plan, and which undermined the Plan's credibility, it is necessary to evaluate the position of the Commission with respect to the provincial government. It is important first to note that the provincial Cabinet may exclude land from a reserve without a public hearing, approval of the Commission or application from a local government. Accepting that the Cabinet has this power, in the context of the history of the Official Regional Plan, it is important that the provincial government does not do anything that will prejudice the objectives of the Commission. This includes not only adhering to the established reserve plans, but more importantly, acting in a manner which is supportive of the intent of the Land Commission Act (Baxter, 1974, pp. 25-26). A similar argument concerning the danger of Cabinet power infringing upon the objectives and decision of the iCommission was made by Gary Runka when he was Chairman of the Commission, in March of 1977: . . . any control mechanism needs to be basically apolitical. In British Columbia, the fact that the decision-making body is a commission, independent of government, is one of the reasons we have been successful thus far. Not only has the program survived a provincial election and a change of government, but i t has also experienced a turnover of commission members as well (Runka, 1977, p. 142). However, i t was only seven months after Runka made this statement that the appeal process became political with the introduction of Section 9(8) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The results of ELUC actions under Section 9(8) have lead to the decision to exclude properties from the A.L.R. which have frequently been the subject of public controversy. Perhaps foremost of such decisions involved the approval by ELUC to exclude 626 acres of Fraser Valley land 95 from the Agricultural Land Reserve, and application which was prevously refused twice by the Commission (Vancouver Sun, October 4, 1979). Approvals such as these where the Provincial Cabinet Committee contravenes a Commission's decision promote uncertainty in respect to the viability of the Agricultural Land Commission's future. To reiterate an observation of this study, one of the few factors which did have a relatively strong relationship with future attitudes toward the A.L.R. were landowners' opinions of the future of the Reserves. Landowners who perceived the future of the A.L.R. to be unstable also showed considerably lower levels of support. The danger exists that perceived instability of the A.L.R. produced by over-riding Commission decisions by ELUC may eventually erode the high level of support formed in the 1977 data base. In order that the future loss of agricultural land as well as possible perceived instability of the future of the agricultural land control in British Columbia i t is suggested that the route of appeal offered through Section 9(8) be removed from the appeal process. Appeal could s t i l l be facilitated through Section 9(7), however, the over-ruling of Commission decisions by a Provincial Government body as well as the associated perceived instability would be eliminated. The preceding discussion concerning public receptiveness to land use control legislation as well as the high level of support found by this study suggest that a restructuring of the appeal process would most likely be well received by the general public. Public perception of the future stability of the Agricultural Land Reserves is not only important for maintaining support of the policy 96 but i t is also important for minimizing problems within the reserves. If i t is well perceived that the Reserves are stable and land will not be easily excluded through the appeal process then perhaps speculative activity within the A.L.R. will reduce accordingly. If i t is seen over time that the A.L.R. is in fact stable, then land investors will look to non-agricultural areas for their operations. It is hoped that this would have the subsequent effect of reducing the level of opposition found to exist in association with vacant levels (presumed to indicate speculative activity) in the study. b) National Implementation of Provincial Agricultural  Land Preservation Policies The high level of support observed in the situation of landowners in British Columbia directly affected by the A.L.R. and the general increasing receptiveness of attitudes towards land use legislation are findings which may have important nation wide planning implications. While Canada comprises a massive land area with a relatively small population base, the country is in fact poorly endowed with arable land. The following describes this country's agricultural land supply situation: According to CLI data only 77 million ha (8 percent) of Canada's land is suitable for the production of field crops and an additional 42 million ha (nearly 5 percent) is suitable for pasture. This low proportion of agricultural land is due to climatic, topographic and soil restrictions. An estimated 35 percent of Canada's land area has climatic conditions that would permit some agricultural development but nearly two-thirds of this area is eliminated by soil and topographic factors (Nowland and McKeague, 1977, p. 114). The need to establish Canadian-wide agricultural land use protection policy has been outlined by several authors (Agricultural 97 Institute of Canada, 1975; Johnson, 1975; Nowland and McKeague, 1977; Runka, 1975). Canada is composed of thousands of local governments - each with their own goals of improving tax base, minimizing service costs, and maximizing local economic benefits (Runka, 1975) . It is unlikely that local governments will be able to protect a resource such as agricultural land because of development pressures and the political necessity of responding to local social and economic issues (Agricultural Institute of Canada, 1975). Canada's agricultural lands' future will depend upon an ability to develop methods of shared decision-making involving a l l levels of government (Runka, 1975) . Section 92(13) of the British North America Act specifically delegates power to the provinces for the control of property rights (Lane, 1979) and therefore the right to legislate for agricultural land protection. However, under the B.N.A. Act, the fact that "the Parliament of Canada 'may from time to time make laws in relationship to agriculture'" leaves room for some interpretation as to where the responsibility for agricultural land use lies (Runka, 1975, p. 15). However, it is apparent that the loss of prime agricultural land is not limited to any one province or region of Canada, rather i t is an issue of national concern. Hence, the preservation of agricultural land in Canada should be initiated as a Federal policy objective. However, i t must be recognized that Canada is composed of diverse socio-political and environmental systems and such legislation should be sensitive towards such diversity. The Agricultural Institute of Canada states that: A national position on preserving agricultural land must be developed. This should be followed by appropriate provincial action with each province creating the 98 regulatory systems and institutions to suit its own particular needs. Legislation will have to be custom-tailored to suit the social, economic, political and environmental conditions unique to each province (1975, p. 2). The prevailing climate of current debates concerning constitutional reform in Canada clearly indicates the desire of provincial governments to exercise the control over natural resources. As agricultural land is also an important and limited natural resource in this country, provincial avenues for its control must be contemplated. It is therefore suggested that Federal action be initiated to provide the provinces with the necessary resources for the establishment of agricultural land protection programs. This recommendation is based upon the high level of support found to exist towards agricultural land protection in British Columbia (and elsewhere in North America); the fact that the total Canadian supply of arable land is very limited; and, that there is growing concern by provincial governments over their role in resource management. When considering the population to land ratio in the long run on a global scale, i t is evident that i t is only a matter of time before the supply of agricultural resources will become a major concern even to such a land-rich country as Canada (Krueger, 1977) . The establishment of Canada-wide provincial agricultural land protection policies will ensure that not only British Columbia and Quebec, but the entire nation will be "keeping the options open" for its agricultural future. („iii) Recommendations for Future Research Concerning Attitudes Toward  Agricultural Land Use Control Several limitations exist within the data gained through the questionnaire as well as lack of data availability from sources external 99 to the questionnaire. These limitations reduce the scope of enquiry into the relationship between factors and attitudes towards the A.L.R. The following discussion outlines areas of data limitations encompassed in this study and possible areas of future research based upon the availability of this data. A variable for which no data existed concerns the distance from properties to the centre of adjacent urban centres. While data concerning the size of these centres was easily obtainable and entered into the SPSS program, i t was not available for distance. If such data were available (preferrably in travel time form to provide an indicator of property accessibility from the urban centre) i t is felt that results obtained in analysis would better reflect adjacent urbanization pressure and its effects upon attitudes. Data concerning landowners' perceptions of the existing agricultural land base in British Columbia, the use of this land for non-agricultural purposes, and the rate of loss of land by C.C.I, class prior to 1973 was not obtained in the Environment Canada questionnaire. Had such data been compiled, analysis could have been conducted assessing the relationship between attitudes of the A.L.R. and landowners' perception of the extent of the agricultural land supply in British Columbia. At this point it is hypothesized that while the general level of support of the A.L.R. by landowners is observed to very high in British Columbia, that such support is based upon only partial understanding of the true extent of the agricultural land supply problem which exists in the province. An important observation made during the course of the research 100 which merits further i n v e s t i g a t i o n concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p which was found to ex i s t between past e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s and attitudes toward the A.L.R. A r e a l , though weak association was found to ex i s t at the r i d i n g l e v e l , opposite i n d i r e c t i o n to the obvious hypothesis stated i n the study. Table 13 showed that the percentage of respondents i n d i c a t i n g "Highly Favorable" attitudes toward the A.L.R. was a c t u a l l y higher i n strong S o c i a l Credit ridings than i n strong N.D.P. r i d i n g s . A possible hypothesis f o r future research i s : "These respondents who are presumably N.D.P. i n p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n are more supportive of the A.L.R. than those who are presumably Soc i a l Credit. Those favourable towards the A.L.R. are more strongly favourable i n a Soc i a l Credit environment than a N.D.P. environment. The second e f f e c t being stronger than the f i r s t . " The basis for t h i s second point concerns the s o c i a l psychological phenomenon of being i n a perceived minority. Often i n such a s i t u a t i o n , there i s a tendency to stand even firmer behind an issue which one believes than when i n a s i t u a t i o n of a majority. One of the most basic issues discussed i n Chapter II concerning the e f f e c t s of the implementation of land use control was the expected decrease i n land value associated with such l e g i s l a t i o n s . To r e i t e r a t e , the fewer r i g h t s associated with ownership of property then, i n general, the le s s value i t has. However, what was found i s that approximately 25% of owners stated t h e i r properties rose i n value, 37% f e l t the values remained stable, and only 29% a c t u a l l y perceived t h e i r land values to have f a l l e n as a r e s u l t of the A.L.R. I t was also found that many of those who perceived a f a l l i n property value also l i v e adjacent to growing urban centres. An explanation offered for the perceived increase i n 101 property values by many landowners is that, once the effects of adjacent urban land markets are removed, i t is conjectured that the designation of the A.L.R. has directed attention towards a previously l i t t l e known land market - that being the agricultural land market. The A.L.R. designation process has served to identify a resource which is very limited in supply in British Columbia. It is hypothesized that the market has responded to this identification process by assigning greater value to such properties. Just as i t is possible through urban zoning to affect markets for various types of urban land uses by controlling the amount of land designated for specific uses, i t is felt that the A.L.R. process may have helped to identify a specific type of rural land use for which there is a market perceived upon its limited natural availability. Unlike city land however, i t is not possible to create more agricultural land merely through designation. Important future research surrounds the issue of whether or not agricultural land did increase in monetary value in British Columbia as a direct result of its identification as a scarce resource. Future research concerning attitudes towards land use legislation may become an ever increasing component of the planning monitoring process. As attitudes in a society frequently change, i t is important that planners be aware of the underlying processes responsible for guiding the direction of these changes. If land use control policies such as the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserves are to be continually successful, it is important that planners are aware of the underlying factors behind the attitudes of those affected by such policy. The strengths of future policies are often built upon the foundations laid by policy analysts of today. 102 References Cited A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada (1975). "A Land Use P o l i c y for Canada," Agr o l o g i s t . Vol. 4/4. (Autumn, 1975). pp. 22-25. Baxter, David (1974). "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - A Review," Report Number 8, Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Bosselman, Fred and David C o l l i e s (1972) . The Quiet Revolution In Land Use Control. Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, D.C Brown, Steven R. and James Coke (1977) . "Public Opinion and Land Use Regulations," Urban and Regional Development Series Number 1, Academy for Contemporary Problems, Columbia, Ohio. Johnson, W.E. (1975). " P r i n c i p l e s of Planning," A g r o l o g i s t . V o l. 4/4. (Autumn, 1975). pp. 15-17. Kinnear, Axel C. (1980). "Address to the B.C. F r u i t Growers Association Annual Convention," January 23, 1980. Krueger, Ralph R. (1977). "The Preservation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Canada," i n Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. Methuen: Toronto, pp. 119-131. Lane, William T. (1974) . "The Emergence of a Counter-Theme: Some Recent Developments i n Canadian Land Use P o l i c y " i n Canadian-American  Relations i n The West. Gerard F. Rutan, Ed., Northwest S c i e n t i f i c Association, Western Washington State U n i v e r s i t y , August, 1974. Lane, William T. (1979). Selected Readings i n Law f o r Local Public Administrators. Compiled and Edited for the School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Manning, Edward W and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact Analysis Environment Canada: Ottawa. Nowland, J.L. and J.A. McKeague (1977). "Canada's Limited A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Resource," Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. R. Krueg and B. M i t c h e l l (ed.) Toronto: Methuen, Pearson, Norman (1972). "Fraser Valley - Rape i t or Preserve i t , ? " Land Use i n the Fraser Valley - Whose Concern? Proceedings of the seminar on Land Use i n the Fraser Valley, Centre for Continuing Education and Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r a l Sciences, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia s Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 103 P i a t t , Rutherford H. (1977). "The Loss of Farmland: Evolution of Public Response," The American Geographical Journal. Vol. 67, Number 1. (January, 1977). pp. 93-101. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1977). A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. S.B.C. Chapter 46, January 20, 1978. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1973). Land Commission Act. S.B.C. Chapter 46, September 1, 1973. P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (1978) . Annual Report: Year  Ended March 31, 1978. Burnaby, B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission (1980). " A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve S t a t i s t i c s , " Burnaby, B.C. Roy, Denis A. (1980). An Analysis of Techniques to Preserve A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Runka, Gary (1975). " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Rights: Who Has The 'Responsibility?" Agrologist. V o l . 4/4 . (Autumn, 1975). pp. 19-21. Runka, Gary (.1977). " B r i t i s h Columbia's A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Preservation Program," i n Land Use: Tough Choices i n Todays World. S o i l Conservation Society of America, Proceedings of the National Symposium, March 21-24, 1978, Omaha, Nebraska. Smith, Barry (1975) . The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, The Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. University of Vermont, A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Station (1977). Attitudes  Toward Preserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Vermont. Miscellaneous Pu b l i c a t i o n 93, August, 1977. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES "Fotheringham," Vancouver Sun, March 17, 1973. "Land Commission Put i n D i f f i c u l t P o s i t i o n , " Vancouver Sun, October 4, 1979, " P o l i t i c a l Loophole Hastening Demise of Precious Famland Supply i n B.C." The Globe arid Mail, Toronto, Ontario, October 19, 1979. 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada (1975). "A Land Use P o l i c y f o r Canada," Agrologist. V o l. 4/4, (Autumn, 1975). pp. 22-25. Babbie, E a r l R. (1975). The Practice of So c i a l Research. Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a . Bancroft, Robert L., Robert 0. S i n c l a i r and Raymond H. Tremblay (1977). "Attitudes Toward Preserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Vermont," A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont. Miscellaneous P u b l i c a t i o n 93, August, 1977. Baxter, David (1974) . "The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - A Review", Report No. 8, A p r i l 1, 1979. Urban Land Economics, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Beaub ien, Charles and Ruth Taboenik (1977). "The B.C. Land Commission Act", People and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land. Science Council of Canada, pp. 50-52. Berry, D., E. Leonardo and K. B i e r i (1976). The Farmer's Response to Urbanization: A Study of the Middle A t l a n t i c States. Regional Science I n s t i t u t e Discussion Paper Series No. 92. Phi l a d e l p h i a . Blalock, Hubert M. J r . (1979). S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill: Toronto. Bosselman, Fred, and David C a l l i e s (1972) . The Quiet Revolution i n Land Use Control, Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, D.C. B r i t i s h Columbia, Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat (1976) . A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Capability i n B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a , B.C., September, 1976. B r i t i s h Columbia, L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Select Standing Committee on Agriculture (1978). Inventory Of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Brown, Stephen R. and James Coke (.1977). Public Opinion On Land Use  Regulations. Urban and Regional Development Series No. 1, Academy for Contemporary Problems, Columbus, Ohio. January, 1977. Brown, Tommy L., and Daniel Thompson (1976). "Changes i n Posting and Landowner Attitudes i n New York State; 1963-73", New York Fi s h  and Game Journal. V ol. 23, No. 2. pp. 121-Bryant, C.R. and L.H. Russwurm (1979). "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on A g r i c u l t u r e : A Synthesis", Plan Canada. Vol. 19/2 (June, 1979) . pp. 122-139. 105 Bursa, Marjorie (1975). "The Politics of Land Use", Agrologist. Vol. 4/4 (Autumn, 1974). pp. 27-28. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1977) . Canada's Food Land Resource. Commercial Letter, Issue No. 3, 1977. Toronto. Central Fraser Valley Regional District Planning Department (1972). Regional Farmland Study. Report Prepared by E.L. Lee, Regional Planner. September, 1972. Clawson, Marion (1972). "The Scrambled Pattern of Suburban Land Conversion", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 27, No. 5 (July-Aug. 1972). pp. 148-151. Community Planning Association of Canada (1974). Battle for Land. Ottawa: Wombat Associates. Costner, Herbert (1965) . "Criteria for Measures of Association", American Sociological Review. Vol. 30, No. 3 (June 1965). pp. 341-351, Coughlin, Robert E., David Berry and K. Bieri (1977). Saving the Garden:  The Preservation of Farmland and Other Environmentally Valuable  Land. Regional Science Research Institute: Philadelphia, PA. Davis, Craig H. and William E. Rees (1977) . "Agriculture and Uncertainty: Keeping the Options Open", School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. July 26, 1977. Dick, Brian R. (1977). Agricultural Land Loss in New Brunswick. M.A. Thesis School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Environment Canada, Lands Directorate (1976) . Land Use Programs in Canada: British Columbia. Prepared by E. Neville Ward, Land Use Planning Branch: Ottawa. Foerstal, Hans-Joachim (1964). The Effectiveness of Land Use Controls in Curbing Urban Sprawl. A Case Study in Richmond, B.C. M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Freeman, Linton (1968). Elementary Applied Statistics. John Wiley: New York. Fumalle, Michael J. (1975). Public Policy and the Preservation of Agricultural Land in the Southern Okanagan Valley. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. Goodall, B. (1970) . "Some Effects of Legislation on Land Values", Regional Studies. Vol. 4, pp. 11-23. 106 Goodman, Leo A. (1968). "The Analysis of C r o s s - C l a s s i f i e d Data: Independence, Quasi-Independence, and Interactions i n Contingency Tables With or Without Missing E n t r i e s " , Journal of the American  S t a t i s t i c a l Association. V o l . 63, No. 324 (Dec. 1968). pp. 1091-1131. Healy, Robert G. and James L. Short (1979). "Rural Land: Market Trends and Planning Implications", APA Journal, July, 1979. pp. 305-317 Holisko, Gary (1978). An Examination of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land-Use i n the Naramata Area, B.C. Honours Essay, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. Hopkins, Kenneth D. and Gene V. Glass (.1978) . Basic S t a t i s t i c s f o r the  Behavioural Sciences. P r e n t i c e - H a l l : New Jersey. Huclcvale, Marnie (1975). "Keeping the Options Open", Land. V o l . 1, No. 1 (Sept. 1975). pp. 14-15. Kaiser, Edward J . and S h i r l e y F. Weiss (1970). "Public P o l i c y and the Residential Development Process", Journal of Lhe American  I n s t i t u t e of Planners. V o l . 36, No. 1 (Jan. 1970). pp. 30-38. Katz, Daniel (1960). "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes", i n Public Opinion and Communication Bernard Berelson and Morris Janovitz, Eds. Collier-Macmillan: London, pp. 51-64. Keene, John C. (1.977) . "The Effectiveness of D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment for Preserving Farmland", Urban Law Annual. Vol. 14. pp. 11-56. Kinnear, Axel C. (1980). "Address to the B.C F r u i t Growers Association Annual Convention" January 23, 19.80. Kirk, Roger E. (1968). Experiment Design: Procedures f o r the Behavioural Sciences. Brooks-Cole: Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a . Krueger, Ralph R. (1977). "The Preservation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Canada", i n Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. Ralph R. Krueger and Bruce M i t c h e l l ^ Eds. Methuen: Toronto, pp. 119-131. Krueger, Ralph. R. and Bruce M i t c h e l l , Eds. (1977). "Introduction to Chapter Nine", Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. Methuen: Toronto, pp. 104-1038. Lane, William T. (1979) , Selected Readings i n Law for Local Public Administrators. Compiled and Edited f or the School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Lane, William T. (1974). "The Emergence of a Counter-Theme: Some Recent Developments i n Canadian Land Use P o l i c y " , i n Canadian-American  Relations in the West. Gerald F. Rutan, Ed., Northwest S c i e n t i f i c Association, Western Washington State University, Bellingham, Wa. 107 Linowes, Robert R. and D.T. Allensworth (1973) . The Politics of Land Use. Praeger: New York. Low, T.W. (1973). "B.C. and B i l l 42", Agrologist. Vol. 2, No. 4 (July-Aug. 1973). pp. 16^17. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. "What Price Suburbia?" in Urban Problems. R.C. Bryfogle and R.R. Krueger, Eds. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975. McGuaig, Jim (1980). Environment Canada. Personal Communication, March 14, 1980. Maguire, Robert K. (1977). The British Columbia Land Commission Act and  Its Effects on the Development Process. Honours Essay, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. Malzahn, Manfred (1979). "B.C.'s Green Acres", Urban Reader. Vol. 7, No. 5-6. pp. 14-19. Manning, Edward W. and Sandra S. Eddy (1978). The Agricultural Land Reserves of British Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Environment Canada: Ottawa. Manning, E.W. and J.D. McCuaig (1977). Agricultural Land and Urban Centres. Fisheries and Environment Canada, Lands Directorate. McKeage, J.A. (1975). "Canadian Inventory: How Much Land Do We Have?" Agrologist. Vol. 4/4 (Autumn, 1975). pp. 10-12. McKeen, Kenneth J. (1978), The Validity of Citizen Attitudes as Conveyed to Politicians and Planners Through Participation arid Representation. M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Mueller, John H., Karl F. Schuessler and Herbert L. Costner (1970. Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. Houghton Miffun: New York. Noble, Henry F. (1962) . "Trends in Farm Abandonment", Canadian Journal  of Agricultural Economics. Vol. X, No. 1. Nowland, J.L. and J.A. McKeague (1977). "Canada's Limited Agricultural Land Resource", in Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. R. Krueger and B. Mitchell, Eds. Methuen: Toronto, Olsen, Tracey (1980). Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Personal Communication April 21, 1980. Pearson, G.G. CL975). "Preservation of Agricultural Land: Rationale and Legislation - The B.C. Experience", Canadian Journal of Agri- cultural Economics. 1975, C.A.E.S. Workshop Proceedings, Banff, Alberta, pp. 64-73. 108 Pearson, Norman (1973A). Agriculture and Land Planning. Plant Research Institute Seminar, Canadian Department of Agriculture, January 12, 1973. Pearson, Norman (1973B) . "Preserving Good Farmland", Agrologist. Vol. 2/4 (July-August 1973). pp. 5-8. Pearson, Norman (1972). "Fraser Valley - Rape i t or Preserve it?" Land  Use iii the Fraser Valley - Whose Concern? Proceedings of the Seminar on Land Use in the Fraser Valley, Centre for Continuing Education and Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Piatt, Rutherford H. (1977). "The Loss of Farmland: Evolution of Public Response", The American Geographical Society. Vol. 67, No. 1 (January 1977). pp. 93-101. Province of British Columbia, Select Standing Committee on Agriculture (1978) Inventory Of Agricultural Land Reserves. Victoria, B.C. Province of British Columbia (1977). Agricultural Land Commission Act. S.B.C. Chapter 46, 1977. Queen's Printer: Victoria, B.C. Province of British Columbia (1973). Land Commission Act. S.B.C. Chapter 46, 1973. Queen's Printer: Victoria, B.C. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture (1979) . B.C. Land Inventory Report Volumes 1-2. Talisman Projects: Vancouver, B.C. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (1979) . Annual Report: Year  Ended March 31, 1979. Burnaby, B.C. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (1978A). "Agricultural Land Reserve Statistics", Burnaby, B.C. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (1978B) . Annual Report: Year  Ended March 31, 1978. Burnaby, B.C. Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (1977) . The Agricultural Land  Commission: Protecting B.C.'s Farmland. Burnaby, B.C. Provincial Land Commission (1975) . Keeping the Options Open. Burnaby, B.C. Qadeer, Mohammad A. (1979). "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning in Canadad", Plan Canada. Vol. 19-2 (June 1979). pp. 106-121. Rawson, Mary (1976). I l l Fares the Land. MacMillan: Canada. Reilly, William.K., Ed. (1973). The Use of Land: A Citizens Policy  Guide to Urban Growth. Thomas Y. Crowell Company: New York. 109 Richards, N.R. and J.A. Lare (1975). "Land Use: Defining the Problem", Agrologist, Vol. 4/4 (Autumn 1976). p. 9. Richardson, Boyce (1973). The Future of Canadian Cities. New Press: Toronto. Rodd, R.S. and W. Van Vuuren (1975). "A New Methodology in Countryside Planning',', Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Proceedings of the. 1975 Workshop of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Banff, Alberta. (March 1975). pp. 109-140. Ros coe, John T. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, Roy, Denis A. (1980) . Art Analysis Of Techniques to Preserve Agricultural  Land. M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Runka, Gary (1978). "The B.C. Land Commission", in Arable Land: The  Appropriate Use Of a Scarce Resource. The Centre for Human Settlements, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Runka, Gary (1977). "British Columbia's Agricultural Land Preservation Program", Land Use: Tough Choices In Today's World. Soil Conservation Society of America, Proceedings of the National Symposium, March 21-24, 1977, Omaha, Nebraska. Runka, Gary (.1975), "Jurisdictional Rights: Who has the Responsibility?" Agrologist. Vol. 4/4. (Autumn, 1975). pp. 19-21. Siegal, Sidney (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural  Sciences. McGraw-Hill; New York. Smith, Barry (.1975) . The British Columbia Land Commission Act - 1973. M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Statistics Canada (1976) . "Population: Geographic Distributions", 1976  Census of Canada. Catalogue 92-805. Timmons, J.F. and J.M. Cormack (1971). "Managing Natural Resources Through Land Tenure Structures", Journal Of Water and Soil Conservation. Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1971). pp. 4-10. Toner, W. (1979). "Zoning Alone Won't Save Our Farmland", Planning. Vol. 45, No. 1 (January 1979). pp. 13-14. Toner, W. (1978).„ Saving Farms and Farmlands: A Community Guide. American Society of Planning Officials Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 333. University of Vermont (1977). 110 Westover, Dennis M. (1979) . Examination of Urban Sprawl Characteristics  and the Role of Soil Quality in Peripheral Land Use Changes - Greater Vancouver. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Soil Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. White, Gilbert F. (1966^  . "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes", Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. Harry J a r r e t t , Ed. Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, pp. 105-127. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES "Barrett Hits Land Bank Issue in Wowing Canadian Club", Vancouver Sun, October 26, 1979. "Bennett Demands Election on Land Act - 'No House Safe, No Business Safe"1 Vancouver Sun, March 3, 1973. "Block B.C. Act, Lang is Urged by Diefenbaker", Toronto Globe and Mail, March 9, 1973. ^Developers Chief Land Act Foes',', Vancouver Sun, March 23, 1973. "8 Groups Protest Gov't Land Policy", Vancouver Sun, October 22, 1979. "Farmers Reject Salvation", Letters to the Editor, Vancouver Sun, May 17, 1973, "Farms Freeze Sparks Vote", Vancouver Sun, February 3, 1973. "Farm Land Frozen", Vancouver Province, December 23, 1972. "Fotheringham"^' Vancouver Sun, May 17, 1973. "Hands Off Farmland", Vancouver Sun, October 23, 1979. "Land Act Violates B i l l of Rights',', Vancouver Sun, Feb. 23, 1973. "Land B i l l Opponents Ask Queen for Help", Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1973. "Land Commission Put in Difficult Position", Vancouver Sun, October 4, 1979. "NDP Halts Rezoning of Farms", Vancouver Sun, November 30, 1972. "Political Loophole Hastening Demise of Precious Farmland Supply in B.C.", The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Ontario. "Protesting Landowners in Ugly Mood", Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1973. "Stupich Defends Land B i l l - Denies Caucus Disunity", Vancouver Sun "Subdividing of Farms Opposed", Vancouver Province, November 30, 1972. I l l "This Province is Not Your Land", Varied liver Sun, March 3, 1973. "2,500 Rally in Victoria to Protest NDP Land B i l l " , Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1973. "Warren Opens B.C. Crusade", Vancouver Sun, March 5, 1973. . 112 APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE UTILIZED IN DATA COLLECTION BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA SOURCE: Manning, E.W. and J.D. McCuaig (1977). A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land arid Urban Centres. F i s h e r i e s and Environment Canada, Land Directorate, pp. 132-143. 113 P-ERITISH"[COLUMBIA AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE -• IMPACT. STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE • PART ONE: Questionnaire I d en t i f i c a t i o n To be completed, where poss ib le , p r i o r to interv iew. 1. Questionnaire Number: (#) (.1-5) 2 . Person(s) interv iewed: (./) S ingle owner Jo i n t family owner(s) Jo in t owner(s) P r i n c i pa l user (not owner) Other _ ^ specify_ 3. Sex of respondent (V) -*• Male Female 4. Date of in terv iew: Month_ Day 5. In terv iewer ' s name 6. Locat ion of interv iew 7. Locat ion of property sampled_ (7-11) B (12-13) SPECIAL' COMMENTS (points to be noted in analys i s of t h i s questionnaire) V 114 PART TWO: Property and Tenure 8. Using a i r photos or maps, please ou t l i ne and l i s t below: a. Property you own in the area: (for holdings with many proper t ie s , simply record t o t a l s ) Parcel . Acres Acqu i s i t i on year Leased to others A Yes TI No F l D Yes n NO n C Yes n NO n D Yes Q No • , (17-21) (Total property owned (acres)) | I I I I I Total property leased to others (acres)-b. Property you lease from others in the area (22-26) Parcel Acres Nature of lease Term of lease 1 2 3 4 Total property leased from others (acres)-9. How were the propert ies you own acquired? (Sequence as 8a) Parcel Purchased [J) Inherited (•/) Other (speci fy) (^) (27-31) m m n n JZL X I n X L n JZL 10. pp Not Ask This Question - ca l cu la te a f t e r interview Total management unit (owned + leased in — leased out) : (acres) ^7) L-> f I M l Indicate here i f property i s communal or " a l t e r n a t i v e -,p ' ' ' 1 1 l i f e s t y l e " (J\ 11. Do you own any other property elsewhere? - • Yes Q N o Please l i s t the use, s i ze and locat ion of these propert ies . Primary use Size Location Note: For large holdings (land developers) j u s t summarize holdings. (45-44) 12. How much land did you own in th i s area in 1972? (acres) > [ | | | 1 I 13. Interviewer comments on specia l or d i f f i c u l t tenure s i t ua t i on s . 32) a 39) 115 DAQT Tuner. Respondent information Preamble: 1 would l i k e to now ask you a few questions about your se l f fo r background before we go on to discuss your use of the . property and your ideas about Ag r i cu l tu ra l Land Reserves. 14. Are you marr ied, separated, d ivorced, married? widowed, or have you ever been (45-49). Married -Separated -Divorced ~-Wi dewed -*• (J) (A ~* K * (4 Never married |Go to 16(W| 15. Do you have any chi ldren?(«3j~] Yes j~[No > Please t e l l me t l i e i r sex, ages, and whether or not they are l i v i n g with you. Sex (M, F) Age (Yrs.) Resident?(,/) 16. Does anyone (else) res ide with you? fj^es [~lNo Who? Relat ives Boarders Other ( spec i fy ) -17. 18. What i s the year of your b i r th? -(51-53) -*>(</)_ -»(y)tZ ~ (54-55) What i s the highest leve l of school or co l lege you have completed? (56-63) None — Primary school High school — Univers i ty Postgraduate * Technical school > Ag r i cu l t u r a l c o l l e g e * Other ( spec i fy) • 19. What i s your primary occupation?_ Please give me some de t a i l s about your work. (Type of f i r m , Type of work e tc . ) 50) (64-66) 20. How long have you been involved in th i s occupation (years)-21. Do you have any secondary occupations? ( • Y E S IHNO GO to Q24l L-»What are your, secondary occupations? 1. (67-68)! 22. What % of your time do you devote to your secondary occupation(s)_ (69-77) 1 (78-SO) inTi ) C a r d 2 :. Ti-sT 116 23. How long have you been involved in these secondary occupations? (7-12) 1 . (years) ' 1 2. (years) 3. (years) 24. |Ask only if presently married") Is your spouse employed? [~H Yes Q i o j_ What is his/her occupation? 25. Do any family or relations work on this unit? F>es Q l o Who are these? (13-15) Are they paid? p j Y e s r j ' ° What kind of work do they do?_ 26. Do you employ anyone else on this unit? FjYes Q l o — » l Go to 20 | 27. 1. Full time (18^20) 2. Part time (regularly) (J)— 3. Part time (seasonally) (Jh How many people 1. Full Time (?) 2. Part time (regularly) (=) 3. Part time (seasonally) (*)~ l»What do these employees do? 1. Full time 2. Part-time (regular-) 3. Seasonal (21-26) PART FOUR: Land-Use Information 28.Preamble: I would now like to turn to the use of this management unit. How many residences are there on the unit? Who occupies these residences? None One (^ ) l More than one (vOJ (36-38) 29. Do you reside full-time on this unit? (>/) • No Ores —•• On average, hew many days per week do you live on the unit (Days)-—»Where (else) do you live (40) 30. I'lease indicate which of the following uses applies to your property: more than one may be selected in which c.)'•<•> all uvliott.od suctions are to be asked. , n 'n 1 (27-35) U (41)-• 1. r.irii' or r.ini h r,i. to 31 1 mi".: i y Ln to 31 3, Res i donor On ! y Cn to 43 4. C.oiniierc i.i 1 1.0 Lo 39 5. Vacant (no use) Go to 40 •<V) •(</) .(/) . ( / ) H I 117 31 tifl^^l^.^S^t,!^^'^ Please l i s t in the following table the acreage and approximate 1976 production of your land under the various uses given. Did you have any land under: F i e l d Crops: Vegetables: Small f r u i t s : Tree f r u i t s : Forestry: Type. Type_ Type_ Type_ Type_ Acreage_ Acreage_ Acreage_ Acreage_ Acreage _ Production Production Production Production_ Production Fallow: Improved pasture: Unimproved pasture: -Scrubland, Bush or Unproductive fores t : Acreage Acreage Acreage - » Acreage_ 32. Do you have any l i ves tock ? (/) O e s Q ^ o Please note on the l i s t below the average and maximum numbers on the unit in 1970, and a rough estimate of sales in 197b. • • Average Number Maximum Number Sales 1976 Beef C a t t l e Poultry ( layers) ( b r o i l e r s ) (turkeys) Piqs . ? Sheep Horses Dairy C a t t l e Other (specify) (17) • (48) (49) (50) (52-55) (56-57) (58) 59) (CO-63)' IQI i t Do you (65) have a milk quota? (/) N o Q Yes[_l (68;_71) 33. How long have you been operating on this unit? Less than 2 years (yj |—] 2 - 5 years (y) |™J 6 - 1 0 years (y) |~j Longer than 10 yrs(y) |"'~] 34. How long have you been operating in this_area? (72-75) j Less than 2 years (j) I...J 2 - 5 years (J) I.J 6 - 1 0 years {J) L J Longer than 10 years (.•/) L.I (66-67) 118 35. Were you a property owner elsewhere before obtaining this land? (-0 i J e s O Qjo (V) L-*Can you give me some details? (76-77) 36. Does the use of your land differ substantially from most other properties in the area? |~JYes(./) Q ' l o M How so? 37. What is the approximate value per acre of your unit?_ 38. Do you use any crown land or open range? What sort of leasing arrangement do you have? With what department is this arrangement? (acres) How much land is used? Where is this land? (78-79) (80) Card 3 (1-5) 6) .,: i & (9-12) - > r r m |Go to Q 43 | .39. COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES What are the commercial uses for your property, and how much area is occupied by each activity? Commercial Use Details Acres {7;8) H ! (16-17) 1 Go to Q "43 | VACANT. •pKOHtiCflES" 40. a). What was the use of the land prior to being vacant? (7) (18-22) Vacant Farm and Forest Residence Commercial Don't know b) How long has this l.and been vacant? (Years)-41. Why is-thin-land vacant?; (23-24) 119 "42 43. Do. you•• intend to personally l ive on the property in the future? (26-28) Yes (/) No (•/) Undecided (/) Please indicate which of the following reasons for owning land are important to you in the ownership of this unit, both now, and when you f i r s t acquired the property. Rank them from 1 (most important) down to and including any reason which you consider significant. They need not a l l be ranked. At f i r s t Now (29^35) (36-42-) Livelihood « Recreation .—• Investment Residence/Shelter Reti rement Desire to own land • Other (Please specify)* L 7 44^  Comments and details on problems in part four. Part Five: Changes in Land Use 45. Have you bought, sold, leased, or otherwise changed the effective size of your unit since December 1972? Yes (J) • No- K ) • I How many acres?: Bought (acres)-^ Sold (acres) Leased from others (acres)-Leased to others (acres)— Other (acres) (43-57) specify Why did you make these changes?_ (58-59) 46. Have you substantially changed either the nature or extent of your act iv i t ies on this unit since December 1972? Yes (•) • No (./) • 3 (60-61) How did you change?_ Why did you make these changes?_ (62-63) 120 PART SIX:^9J j ,cuUu_ra1 land Reserves 477" I s your property wi th in an A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve? (64-67) Yes (Jh no (•/)-Par t ly (-0——• — • - Qon't know (/)—* Please ind ica te how much i s ALR (acres) ^6^70^) 48. Did you pa r t i c ipa t e in any forums or discussions when, ALR zoning was f i r s t proposed? Yes No {J) [j] Why not? How? 49. Has there been any c o n f l i c t between any land uses or users i n t h i s area? Specify:_ . — 50. Do you consider your land to be ( p o t e n t i a l l y ) (74-77) Good for ag r i cu l t u r e » (</) I I Fai r for ag r i cu l tu re > [S) Poor for ag r i cu l tu re »• (J) With no a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y —> (J) 51. Do you think that you are making the best use of the natural capac i ty of the land? (78) Yes ( / ) • N o U / Q Why do you say this?_ Have you any plans to a l t e r your use? 52 Have you attempted to have any l and : | / / 7 " 1 0 ^ inc luded .—• - » excluded *• y> subdivided— • \ J > changed in use zoning (•/) Why? . What was the outcome? 121 53. Do you feel that your zoning was warranted? (13) Y e s t / O N o W • Why? 54. Do you feel that the ALR legislation is here to stay, just a passing fad, or what? (15-17) Here to stay (-/) Passing fad (J) Other (specify) (j) 55. Has being in or near on ALR: a. prevented you from doing anything you might otherwise have done? rjYes-' Qjoy' w What? How? b. caused you to make any changes? rjfes</ •N° V I ^What? > How? c. had any effect upon your future plans? O e s ^ Q j o ' _ How so? d. had any effect upon your present use of your property? e s ' QloV. How so? e. affected your investment of capital in equipment, buildings, land etc.? 122 f. a f fected the value of your land?(^J QYes QNo • Held pr ices stable —* Up or down? Q up Q down - * By how much? Q a l i t t l e [ ] a great deal g. caused any other changes for e i t he r you or th i s area? L^es O p What changes? -*• How so? 56. If the A.L.R. Leg i s l a t i on were to be removed, would th i s a f f e c t : ^ ) a. your future plans: How so? 5? • Y es Q j o b. your present use of your land? QYes [~\ No . How so? c . your investment? [ J re s f [No I . How so? d. your land values? [^J/es f jNo I ^ How so? e. loca l land values? [ ^ e s Quo How so? ;  t re57. In general, what i s your opinion of the A.L.R. zoning? PART SEVEN: The Future 58. Within the next f i v e years, do you an t i c i pa te : a. expanding or contract ing your holdings? No r— expanding {•/)-1— contract ing {J)~ ^ By how much sel 1 ing out {•/)— —> b". Making major changes or improvements in the use of your land? Y e s { j ) p N o ( y ) n What sort of improvements? (40-42) 123 i 59. When you leave th i s land do you expect to pass i t on to f am i l y , s e l l i t , or what? (45^48) . ..pass i t on ' to f am i l y ' ( / ) s e l l i t (•)• don ' t know {/) —• — other ( spec i fy) (./) 60. Genera l ly , what do you see as the long-term future for your property in t h i s area? (49-51) 124 PART EIGHJj _Visuals_and Interviewer Comments (to be completed.after leav ing the respondent]"! i — i 1 1 [ Questionnaire # I I 1 I I 61. Key: 1. Very good 2. Good 3. Average 4. Poor • 5. Very poor a. Condit ion of: House t _ Farm bui Id i ngs Property _ Machinery etc . L b. General prosper i ty of the unit 62. What i s the use of surrounding properties?_ How do these compare and re l a te to th i s property?_ 63. Is there any obvious signs of real estate a c t i v i t y or speculat ion in the area? r - j , e s j Describe: — 64. Comments on interv iew: COMPLETE AND ATTACH THIS PAGE TO EACH QUESTIONNAIRE AFTER INTERVIEW 125 APPENDIX 2 PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP WITH JURISDICTION OF A.L.R. VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP WITH JURISDICTION OF A.L.R. VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Property i n A.L.R. 17.7 27.7 39.2 1.6 3.9 7.5 2.3 100.0 559 Property Out of A.L.R. 22.6 29.2 38.7 2.8 1.9 2.8 1.9 100.0 106 ON 127 APPENDIX 3 METHOD OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. METHOD OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Inherit 17.0 27.3 40.6 1.3 4.3 6.9 2.6 100.0 465 Purchase 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 100.0 12 Other 19.3 31.3 32.5 3.6 2.4 10.8 0.0 100.0. 83 1Z9 APPENDIX 4 GENERAL LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. GENERAL LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT ' NUMBER Farm/Ranch 18.8 29.3 38.4 1.1 3.0 7.5 1.9 100.0 362 Forestry 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 Residential 20.5 33.3 35.9 2.6 1.3 3.8 2.6 100.0 78 Commercial 12.5 37.5 37.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 Vacant 9.1 9.1 48.5 3.0 12.1 12.1 6.1 100.0 33 Other Land Use 14.3 20.8 42.9 2.6 6.5 10.4 2.6 100.0 77 o 131 APPENDIX 5 FARM. TYPE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. FARM TYPE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Crops-Vegetables 33.3 22.2 27.8 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 100.0 18 Berries-Fruit 14.5 30.9 32.7 3.6 0.0 20.6 5.5 100.0 55 Forestry 0.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4 Dairy-Beef 19.1 26.7 39.7 0.0 5.3 7.6 1.5 100.0 131 Livestock 15.7 33.3 35.3 0.0 3.9 11.8 0.0 100.0 51 Mixed Farm 10.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10 Hay-Fodder 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 100.0 6 Hobby Farm 21.5 26.9 36.6 2.2 2.2 7.5 3.2 100.0 93 133 APPENDIX 6 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. IMPLEMENTATION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. IMPLEMENTATION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Rose Greatly 17.0 33.0 37.5 1.1 2.3 5.7 3.4 100.0 88 Rose Slightly 21.1 40.4 33.3 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 57 Stable 23.4 29.8 31.7 2.4 3.4 8.3 1.0 100.0 205 Down Slightly 6.0 20.0 48.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 100.0 50 Down Greatly 7.9 18.4 50.9 0.0 3.5 14.9 4.4 100.0 114 135 APPENDIX 7 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. VERSUS REGIONAL RATE OF GROWTH PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. VERSUS REGIONAL RATE OF GROWTH LESS THAN 15% TO 25% GREATER THAN TOTAL TOTAL 15% INCREASE INCREASE 25% INCREASE PERCENT NUMBER Rose Greatly 34.1 35.2 30.7 100.0 88 Rose Slightly 45.6 33.3 21.1 100.0 57 Stable 26.3 49.8 23.9 100.0 205 Down Slightly 20.0 48.0 32.0 100.0 50 Down Greatly 29.8 39.5 30.7 100.0 114 137 APPENDIX 8 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. VERSUS ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE RATE OF GROWTH PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LAND VALUE DUE TO A.L.R. VERSUS ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE RATE OF GROWTH LESS THAN 10% TO 20% GREATER THAN TOTAL TOTAL 10% INCREASE INCREASE 20% INCREASE PERCENT NUMBER Rose Greatly 39.8 25.0 35.2 100.0 88 £ 00 Rose Slightly 54.4 21.1 24.6 100.0 57 Stable 38.5 32.7 28.8 100.0 205 Down Slightly 28.0 28.0 44.0 100.0 50 Down Greatly 20.2 24.6 55.3 100.0 114 139 APPENDIX 9 ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Included 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 4 Excluded 15.0 10.0 60.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 100.0 20 Subdivided 2.0 21.6 60.8 0.0 3.9 7.8 3.9 100.0 51 Change Zoning 19.0 9.5 38.1 0.0 9.5 14.3 9.5 100.0 21 Other Attempts 11.8 5.9 29.4 0.0 17.6 29.4 5.9 100.0 17 -p-o 141 APPENDIX 10 RESULTS OF ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. RESULTS OF ATTEMPTS TO VARY LAND USE DESIGNATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Successful Exclusion 5.3 15.8 73.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 19 Unsuccessful Subdivision/ Exclusion 8.3 16.7 41.7 0.0 6.7 18.3- 8.3 100.0 60 Successful Inclusion 9.7 6.5 61.3 0.0 12.9 9.7 0.0 100.0 31 Awaiting Results 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 1 4 3 APPENDIX 11 INITIAL REACTION TO LEGISLATION IN 1973 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. INITIAL REACTION TO LEGISLATION IN 1973 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Attended Meetings 20.2 24.5 41.5 1.1 3.2 6.4 3.2 100.0 94 Complained in Writing/Signed Petitions 25.0 12.5 50.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 100.0 8 Actively Opposed A.L.R. 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 Discussed with Land Commission 0.0 18.2 45.5 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 100.0 11 Protested in Victoria 0.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3 100.0 7 With Farmers, Opposed to A.L.R. 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 On A.L.R. Committee 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 Unspecified 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 4> -P-145 APPENDIX 12 PAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS (1972, 1975, 1979) BY REGION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. PAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION RESULTS (1972, 1975, 1979) BY REGION VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Strong NDP Riding 15.6 35.6 37.8 0.0 2.2 8.9 0.0 100.0 45 Weak NDP Riding 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 — 0 Weak NDP/Weak Social Credit Riding 17.8 29.0 39.3 1.9 4.7 4.7 2.8 100.0 107 Weak Social Credit Riding 13.0 21.9 49.5 2.6 ' 3.6 7.8 1.6 100.0 192 Strong Social Credit Riding 22.2 30.6 30.6 0.9 4.2 8.3 3.2 100.0 216 147 APPENDIX 13 SIZE OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. SIZE OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT 0 to 5 Acres 23.5 34.3 28.4 2.0 1.0 5.9 4.9 100.0 5 to 20 Acres 14.9 28.9 39.5 2.6 4.4 7.0 2.6 100.0 20 to 50 Acres 22.7 24.2 33.3 1.5 1.5 13.6 3.0 100.0 50 to 100 Acres 15.8 24.6 40.4 1.8 8.8 5.3 3.5 100.0 100 to 200 Acres 18.1 31.9 37.5 1.4 5.6 5.6 0.0 100.0 200 to 500 Acres 14.3 24.3 51.4 0.0 1.4 8.6 0.0 100.0 500 to 1000 Acres 14.6 17.1 48.8 0.0 7.3 9.8 2.4 100.0 1000 to 2000 Acres 15.8 36.8 42.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Greater Than 2000 Acres 0.0 22.2 55.6 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 100.0 149 APPENDIX 14 PROPERTY SOIL CLASS VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. PROPERTY SOIL CLASS VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED • QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Class 1 25.0 62.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 Class 2 16.0 37.0 35.8 0.0 2.5 6.2 2.5 100.0 81 Class 3 21.4 27.0 36.2 1.0 5.1 6.1 3.1 100.0 196 Class 4 18.0 21.8 42.1 2.3 4.5 8.3 3.0 100.0 133 Class 5 10.9 30.9 47.3 1.8 0.0 9.1 0.0 100.0 55 Class 6 12.2 32.7 36.7 4.1 6.1 8.2 0.0 100.0 49 Class 7 16.7 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 100.0 6 Mixed Classes 13.3 10.0 60.0 0.0 3.3 10.0 3.3 100.0 30 151 APPENDIX 15 CONDITION OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. CONDITION OF PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor 25.0 20.4 15.2 20.0 33.3 20.2 27.5 27.5 35.0 0.0 41.7 41.5 40.4 22.5 33.3 1.2 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 2.8 3.9 7.5 0.0 7.1 3.5 9.0 12.5 33.3 1.2 2.1 3.4 2.5 0.0 TOTAL PERCENT 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL NUMBER 84 142 178 40 3 U l 153 APPENDIX 16 CONDITION OF FARM BUILDINGS VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. CONDITION OF FARM BUILDINGS VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor 16.9 21.2 16.8 23.3 14.3 27.1 24.2 31.5 16.3 42.9 45.8 43.4 36.2 34.9 28.6 1.7 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.4 4.0 2.7 9.3 0.0 5.1 5.1 8.7 11.6 14.3 0.0 1.0 4.0 2.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 59 99 149 43 7 -p-155 APPENDIX 17 YEARS OPERATING PROPERTY UNIT VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. YEARS OPERATING PROPERTY UNIT VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL Less Than 2 Years 2 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years More Than 10 Years Unspecified FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER 21.1 16.9 0.0 17.2 12.7 23.9 38.0 100.0 32.2 26.0 39.4 28.2 0.0 40.2 44.0 0.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.7 3.6 5.6 0.0 1.1 5.3 9.2 5.6 0.0 5.7 6.7 2.0 4.2 0.0 1.1 2.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 251 71 1 87 150 157 APPENDIX 18 PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Manager Science/ Engineering Medical/ Health Clerical Sales Services Farmer Processing Transportation 29.4 18.2 25.0 26.7 19.4 0.0 15.9 12.5 15.2 26.5 36.4 16.7 13.3 29.0 66.7 26.2 27.3 36.4 26.5 31.8 41.7 53.3 32.3 33.3 43.3 40.9 36.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.4 4.5 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 4.3 1.1 3.0 2.9 4.5 16.7 6.7 3.2 0.0 8.6 11.4 6.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.3 22.2 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 34 22 12 15 31 3 233 88 33 159 APPENDIX 19 OCCUPATION IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. OCCUPATION IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Farmer 15.9 26.2 43.3 0.4 4.3 8.6 1.3 100.0 233 £ o Non-farmer 19.3 29.0 36.1 2.2 3.7 6.5 3.1 100.0 321 161 APPENDIX 20 GENERAL OCCUPATION VERSUS GENERAL LAND USE GENERAL OCCUPATION VERSUS GENERAL LAND USE OTHER FARM/RANCH RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL HOBBY FARM VACANT LAND USE TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT NUMBER Manager Science/ Engineering Medical Clerical Sales Services Farmer Processing Transportation 31.0 38.1 11.1 21.4 25.9 33.3 84.3 16.7 35.5 6.9 14.3 0.0 7.1 22.2 0.0 3.0 15.5 19.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 20.7 14.3 44.4 42.9 18.5 33.3 7.8 31.0 19.4 34.5 28.6 44.4 28.6 25.9 0.0 0.4 34.5 22.6 3.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 7.4 33.3 3.9 2.4 3.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 29 21 9 14 27 3 230 84 31 ho 163 APPENDIX 21 AGE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. AGE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Less than 31 11.1 44.4 22.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 100.0 9 31 to 40 20.0 26.7 46.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 100.0 30 41 to 50 21.6 23.0 35.1 2.7 1.4 13.5 2.7 100.0 74 51 to 60 17.9 25.0 45.2 0.0 4.2 6.5 1.2 100.0 168 61 to 70 17.9 27.9 32.1 2.9 5.0 11.4 2.9 100.0 140 71 to 80 16.0 32.0 42.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 100.0 100 Greater than 80 17.6 41.2 29.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.9 100.0 17 165 APPENDIX 22 CHILDREN ON PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. CHILDREN ON PROPERTY VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER i — 1 Children 18.0 25.6 40.8 1.1 4.2 7.6 2.7 100.0 473 c£ No Children 30.8 38.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 100.0 26 167 APPENDIX 23 LEVEL OF EDUCATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. LEVEL OF EDUCATION VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT NUMBER None Primary High School University Post Graduate Technical Agricultural Other 0.0 14.5 17.0 25.5 0.0 19.0 33.3 21.3 100.0 30.9 29.1 17.6 30.8 28.6 33.3 21.3 0.0 31.8 40.4 47.1 61.5 42.9 33.3 37.3 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 4.5 3.2 3.9 0.0 4.8 0.0 6.7 0.0 13.6 7.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 3.6 1.1 3.9 7.7 4.8 0.0 2.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 110 282 51 13 21 6 75 ON CO 169 APPENDIX 24 ERCEPTTON OF FUTURE OF A . L . R . VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A . L . R . PERCEPTION OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Ineffective 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 Remain in Different Form 4.2 20.8 66.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 100.0 24 Depend on Politics 30.6 27.8 19.4 2.8 2.8 16.7 0.0 100.0 36 May Fail in Long Run 15.4 0.0 69.2 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.7 100.0 13 Will Stay on Good Land 10.0 30.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10 Here to Stay 19.6 30.3 40.3 2.0 2.3 4.3 1.2 100.0 347 Passing Fad 9.5 14.3 31.0 2.4 9.5 26.2 7.1 100.0 42 Do Not Want It 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 7.1 21.4 28.6 100.0 14 o 171 APPENDIX 2-5 ATTITUDES OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. -ATTITUDES OF FUTURE OF A.L.R. IN ORDINAL SCALE VERSUS ATTITUDES OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Permanent 19.6 30.3 40.3 2.0 2.3 4.3 1.2 100.0 347 May Stay 18.0 27.0 41.4 0.9 3.6 7.2 1.8 100.0 111 Doesn't Matter/Fad/ Negative 6.9 10.3 34.5 1.7 10.3 24.1 12.1 100.0 58 Attitude 173 APPENDIX 26 ADJACENT LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. ADJACENT LAND USE VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Farm 18.2 30.3 37.2 1.7 3.9 7.8 0.9 100.0 231 Residential 25.0 17.2 42.2 1.6 3.1 6.3 4.7 100.0 64 Vacant 13.6 20.5 38.6 2.3 11.4 9.1 4.5 100.0 44 Commercial/ Industrial 28.6 14.3 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 7 Mixed Farm/ Hobby Farm 17.3 27.8 41.4 0.8 3.0 6.8 3.0 100.0 133 175 APPENDIX 27 REGIONAL GROWTH RATE - 1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. REGIONAL GROWTH RATE--1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT NUMBER Less Than 15% Growth 15.5 39.3 34.5 0.6 2.4 5.4 2.4 100.0 168 15% to 25% Growth 19.7 26.4 36.0 2.5 6.7 6.7 2.1 100.0 239 Greater Than 25% Growth 17.0 17.0 49.7 1.3 1.3 11.1 2.6 100.0 153 177 APPENDIX 28 ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE - 1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R, ADJACENT URBAN CENTRE GROWTH RATE—1971 TO 1976 VERSUS ATTITUDE OF A.L.R. HIGHLY IN QUALIFIED QUALIFIED VERY TOTAL TOTAL FAVOURABLE FAVOUR IN FAVOUR NEUTRAL AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST PERCENT NUMBER Less Than 10% Growth 15.7 38.9 34.8 1.0 2.5 6.1 1.0 100.0 198 10% to 20% Growth 22.8 25.2 30.7 1.6 9.4 7.1 3.1 100.0 127 Greater Than 20% Growth 16.6 19.6 47.7 2.1 2.1 8.9 3.0 100.0 235 CO 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094900/manifest

Comment

Related Items