<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kreitler, J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prioritizing farmland preservation cost-effectively for multiple objectives</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Soil and Water Conservation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">amenities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bay Delta bioregion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">California Legacy Project</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conservation planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost-effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">decision analysis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ecosystem services</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">farmland preservation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GIS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public preferences</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social welfare</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">urban growth boundary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">urban growth management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utility</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;Go to ISI&gt;://000242001800007</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">250-258</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American society derives many benefits from farmland and is often willing to pay to preserve it from urbanization. We present an innovative framework to support farmland preservation programs in prioritizing conservation investments. The framework considers the full range of social benefits of farmland and improves the application of decision analysis methods to the process. Key factors for ranking farms are: 1) social objectives and priorities 2) how much farmland value is expected to be lost to development if not preserved, 3) how much farmland value is already secured in the agricultural region; and 4) how much it will cost to secure the farm&#039;s benefits. The framework can be applied strategically over an entire region or to rank a set of applications from landowners. We demonstrate our framework using three criteria in the Bay Area/Delta bioregion of California, USA.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>