The author is Associate Planner, Open Space Division, Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Department. He has worked in both developing and industrialized countries.

Citation: This paper may be cited as: [Authors.] 2005. [Article title.] In Ted Trzyna, ed., The Urban Imperative. California Institute of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California.

Daniels and Bowers (1997) describe the crisis of urban farmland loss in the United States quite clearly: Most population growth in the U.S. is occurring in the urban fringe around cities, and suburban sprawl is now the largest threat to farmland. As U.S. cities expand into the countryside, the country loses over 400,000 ha of farmland each year. About a third of its prime farmland lies within or adjacent to metropolitan counties, which produce over half the country’s sales of farm products. Suburban sprawl is a particular threat to this prime farmland, which is relatively flat, well-drained, and easy to build on.

Loss of farmland robs communities of wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge zones, open view sheds, and historic landscapes, and has serious economic consequences. Nearly one in every ten jobs in the U.S. is connected to agriculture, and farm-related jobs contribute substantially to the local tax base and economic stability. Along with the economic consequences of farmland loss, urban dwellers become increasingly dependent on food grown elsewhere, and on the transport and business networks that bring food to town. In addition, the residential development that typically replaces farmland requires schools, police and fire protection, garbage removal, roads, and utilities that can be very costly for local governments and taxpayers.

In the U.S., many city, county, and state governments have responded to this crisis by establishing land-use regulations to protect farmland, channeling urban growth into more compact development and creating economic incentives for farming (Daniels and Bowers, 1997; Farmland Information Center, 2002). Government entities, private land trusts, and non-profit corporations have also initiated programs to purchase development rights from farm properties, sometimes transferring them to allow for more density in core urban areas. However, to succeed over the long run, these programs must preserve enough farmland to generate the level of economic activity required to sustain local farm businesses and keep farming profitable (Daniels and Bowers, 1997).

Albuquerque, the largest city in the state of New Mexico, is one of a very few cities in the U.S. that have chosen to preserve farmland by purchasing individual farms outright. The city has a population of 450,000; its metropolitan area has just over 700,000. Surrounding Albuquerque is mostly rural Bernalillo County, which has about 550,000 inhabitants (City of Albuquerque, 2003). Despite living in an urban area, Albuquerque residents enjoy buying milk from local dairy cows fed crops grown within the city; taking quiet walks through picturesque farmland; and hearing the cacophony of migratory geese, ducks, and cranes as they land by the hundreds each autumn to spend the winter foraging in farm fields within the city.

This paper presents a case study of the City of Albuquerque’s effort to buy, protect, and manage farmland as part of a "Major Public Open Space" network of urban protected areas, and the opportunities and challenges that have accompanied this approach. Since many protected area professionals may not be familiar with such urban farmland protection efforts, this paper will offer a glimpse into some details of establishing and managing such a program.

While many Eastern U.S. cities built European-style "greens" and park-like "commons" for their residents, many cities in the Western U.S. have grown more recently, in the midst of wilder, more rugged, and usually more arid landscapes, and have chosen to preserve these natural areas as their parklands (City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County 1999). Albuquerque lies within a rugged landscape with a unique cultural history. Native Puebloans and early Spanish settlers focused agricultural use around settlements within the floodplain of the Rio Grande, one of the major rivers of North America. The surrounding hills and mountains were left undeveloped and open for hunting, gathering, and extensive grazing. In the 1970s, these landscapes, along with a cottonwood (Populus) forest in the lowlands that border the river through the middle of the city, became the focal points of citizen efforts to preserve natural areas.

The 1975 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan (amended in 1991) serves to guide and establish the legal mandate for growth management and open space preservation. Citizens crafting the Comprehensive Plan identified more than 40,000 acres of rugged, natural landscapes and cultural sites to acquire as Major Public Open Space (MPOS). These MPOS properties were to be "used and maintained to retain their natural character to benefit people throughout the metropolitan area by conserving resources related to the natural environment, providing opportunities for outdoor education and recreation, or defining the boundaries of the urban environment" (City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 1991, 2).

Despite a general reluctance of citizens to create new taxes, Albuquerque voters have, in overwhelming numbers, twice approved measures to raise taxes temporarily to generate funds to acquire land for MPOS. In 1982, they approved a temporary sales tax to purchase the first MPOS parcels. In 1997, voters approved another temporary tax for open space acquisition, bringing total MPOS holdings to nearly 12,000 ha. Of this total, about 2,000 ha are owned by state and U.S. government entities and co-managed by the city as MPOS. The city’s Open Space Division began in 1984 with five employees, and now has about 44 permanent employees working in planning, management, maintenance, environmental education, law enforcement, and administration.

To create a more detailed mandate for Open Space acquisition and management, the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County adopted the Open Space Facility Plan in 1999. The Facility Plan defines management goals, objectives, policies, design guidelines. and open-space management categories. Most MPOS lands are considered Undeveloped Open Space Areas that protect natural resources and allow low-impact recreation. Some areas contain Developed Facilities and Trails to concentrate use in appropriate locations. Special Use Areas protect natural landscapes while requiring special management, such as an off-road vehicle park and an equestrian complex. Open Space Preserves protect natural or cultural resources that merit special protection, and only allow public visits with staff supervision.

The city government purchased its first farmland for MPOS in 1977, when it combined taxpayer-approved funds with U.S and state government budgetary allocations to acquire the Candelaria Farm Preserve. This culminated more than a decade of citizen activism to preserve land for open space, recreation, and nature study along the bottomland woods, or bosque, in Albuquerque’s urbanizing North Valley. Within this 70-ha preserve, about 16 ha are leased to the state government’s Rio Grande Nature Center State Park, which features interpretive facilities focusing on bosque, riparian. and pond ecosystems. To complement the wildlife viewing at the nature center, the remaining 40 ha of farmland was to be managed as an agricultural wildlife preserve, producing crops for commercial purposes, as well as forage crops for protected migratory waterfowl such as sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), and numerous duck species. Guided interpretive programs were to provide the only public access.

The city government did not purchase additional farmland for MPOS until 20 years later, when Albuquerque citizens approved the second temporary sales tax. Residential development threatened one of the largest remaining farms in Albuquerque, and citizen activism to protect the farm drove much of the public support for the tax increase. Funds from this source enabled acquisition of this 55-ha farm, now called Los Poblanos Fields, as well as three other agricultural properties: the 35-ha Hubbell Oxbow Farm, and the smaller Alamo Farm and Roberson Ranch.

Preserving farmland was not a goal of the Major Public Open Space (MPOS) program. As it was defined in the Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space Facility Plan contains no management category for farmland, and the management goals, objectives and policies in the Facility Plan are aimed more at protecting natural areas and archaeological sites than managing agricultural landscapes. However, despite the lack of a legal mandate, Albuquerque citizens, political leaders, city Open Space staff, and partner organizations saw many opportunities associated with acquiring farmland for MPOS. The land could be used to grow forage crops for migratory birds, as was the case at the Candelaria Farm Preserve. MPOS farms could enhance wildlife habitat by creating hedgerows and wetlands, and by encouraging wildlife-friendly farm practices. Tracks (dirt roads) through the farms could link to the regional trail network, offering recreational trail loops for city-dwellers who wanted to enjoy quiet walks or bicycle or ride by horseback through scenic agricultural lands. In addition, protected farmlands could frame the urban area, and preserve views of the rugged landscapes around the city. The Open Space Division and partner organizations could create educational programs about farm heritage and agricultural ecosystems. More recently, the Open Space farms have been seen as opportunities to promote water-conservation techniques, and for service groups to grow food in community gardens for local people in need.

But along with unique opportunities came special challenges.

One immediate challenge has been the question of who operates the farms. Other MPOS areas are natural landscapes that have required little management other than maintaining trails and visitor facilities. However, irrigated farmland requires active management on a daily basis. With 12,000 ha of land to manage, the Open Space Division has been capable of fully operating the farms, and has looked to the private sector to find farmers willing to do so.

At the Candelaria Farm Preserve, the first management system allowed private farmers paying a cash lease to grow alfalfa and other commercial crops on a large portion of the farm; Open Space Division staff then assumed the responsibility of growing wildlife forage crops on other fields. However, demands on staff soon forced the division to delegate responsibility for wildlife crops to the private farmers. The division has since developed an innovative series of annual Farm Operating Agreements. Rather than demanding payment in cash, these agreements grant private farmers the right to grow commercial crops for profit, in exchange for maintaining the property and growing wildlife forage crops on a specified area. While this system has successfully decreased demand on staff time, ensuring an adequate quantity of wildlife crops has often been a problem. Fluctuations in rainfall affect crop growth, years of repeated growth deplete soils, and crumbling irrigation ditches do not supply sufficient water. The lack of adequate wildlife crops has led to the dismissal of several farmers, and at least one costly legal battle. Staff now emphasizes the importance of ditch maintenance and bountiful wildlife crops in deciding whether to recommend renewal of a farmer’s operating Agreement.

The Open Space Division has instituted similar Farm Operating Agreements at Los Poblanos Fields, where the visiting public has expressed a strong interest in wildlife. However, staff has created different arrangements on other farms, to address different circumstances. In the past, Open Space staff have been able to manage the smaller Alamo Farm and Roberson Ranch themselves, growing crops exclusively for waterfowl. However, due to increasing demands on their time, staff is moving toward instituting Farm Operating Agreements at these small properties as well. There is less public interest in waterfowl at the Hubbell Oxbow Farm, so a private farmer manages this property though a cash lease with no requirement for wildlife crops. This is the easiest arrangement to administer, and creates a source of income for the city program.

The next most immediate management challenge has been the need to make costly renovations to vital farm infrastructure, and the question of who is responsible. Like most farms in the arid Rio Grande Valley, the Open Space farms are irrigated by a system of ditches, acequias, first built by early Spanish settlers. For farmers to irrigate fields efficiently, these ditches must be in good condition, and fields must be sloped uniformly away from them. Increasing competition for scarce water and a lingering drought make irrigation efficiency an urgent topic throughout the Southwestern U.S.

The old, earthen ditches at the Candelaria Farm allow substantial amounts of water to seep into the ground without reaching the crops. These ditches also attract vigorous growth of weeds that consume additional amounts of water, slow its delivery, and require constant mowing. The inadequate slope of many of the fields further slows the delivery of irrigation water, allows substantial amounts of water to seep past the root zone of crops, and results in weed outbreaks and irregular crop growth. These factors contribute to high labor costs, unnecessary water loss to seepage, and poor harvests. Over the years, improperly sloped fields and inoperable ditches have even led farmers to abandon fields which were then invaded weeds.

Re-leveling fields and ditches, and lining ditches with concrete, can save substantial amounts of water, reduce the time and costs involved in irrigating, and improve crop growth. Since fields and ditches are permanent infrastructure, their restoration has been seen as the responsibility of the city as the landowner. However, the Open Space Division has not had sufficient funds for such expensive restorations. To overcome this obstacle, staff has had to find farmers with the expertise, labor, capital, and equipment necessary to re-level fields and fix ditches as part of their normal operations. Staff has also had to find outside funding to subsidize the more costly ditch-lining work.

One local dairy farmer was willing to invest his labor and equipment in restoration, but only in exchange for a five-year operating agreement that would allow him to recover his investment. The Open Space Division agreed to this, and the farmer has since re-leveled every field and lined several ditches, bringing the whole farm into production for the first time in several years.

Based on success at Candelaria Farm, staff has invited the same dairy farmer to sign a Farm Operating agreement for a large portion of Los Poblanos Fields, and to level fields at the Alamo Farm and Roberson Ranch, in exchange for harvesting crops there. Field leveling has cut irrigation time by about half at these farms, while improving crop growth.

A continuing challenge is the difficulty of contributing funds for ditch lining. The U.S. Department of Agriculture originally provided partial funding for this work, but no longer funds such work on publicly owned land. There appear to be few sources of funding for farm improvements on Public Open Space.

Through participatory planning exercises, the public has expressed strong interest in improving habitat for wildlife on Albuquerque’s Open Space farms. Unlike improving habitat in wild areas, one challenge has been that habitat improvements on farmland must fit into the layout of the farm site and the schedule of farm operations. This requires careful coordination between parties, along with adaptive management and repeated refinements.

The wetland at the Candelaria Farm provides an example of meeting these challenges with mixed success. Ponds and wetlands were once prevalent in the floodplain along much of the Rio Grande, but dams have contained floods, levees have separated the river from the floodplain, and moist areas have been drained for agriculture and urban development. The Rio Grande Nature Center State Park, adjacent to the Candelaria Farm, built three ponds to provide critical aquatic habitat for native flora and fauna, especially resident and migratory waterfowl. In 2001, the Open Space Division secured financing from several U.S. government agencies to build a five-acre wetland that would complement the ponds by providing scarce shallow water and moist soil habitat, especially for shore and wading birds. The wetland contains a matrix of shallow and deepwater areas, and is filled from a well. The non-profit Friends of the Rio Grande Nature Center raised private funds, and together with the Open Space Division, organized over a hundred volunteers to plant the moist soil zones on the edge of the wetland with native vegetation.

In order to fit into the layout of the farm, the wetland was located at the downhill side of two irrigated fields, enabling those fields to continue to be irrigated from ditches on the uphill side. In addition, the wetland is surrounded by a berm (a strip of earth) to keep water from flooding adjacent cropland. Surrounding this berm, the farmer planted native grasses to provide additional native habitat, and serve as a non-mechanized buffer zone between the wetland and adjacent cropland. Scientists and volunteers from the Friends have since monitored changing environmental conditions at the wetland, and have assumed responsibility for circulating water to maintain water quality. Pipes through the berm enable circulating water to drain into small basins that are also being developed as native grasslands. To compensate the farmer for his efforts in establishing the grasslands, the Open Space Division considers them part of his required wildlife crop acreage.

This layout seems logical, maximizes the use of space, and integrates the interests and abilities of the different parties involved. The wetland has also succeeded in hosting a surprising abundance and diversity of animals: songbirds, raptors, some shore and wading birds, turtles, frogs, toads, salamanders, coyotes, and aquatic insects. However, the design has created some additional challenges, and a need for further refinements. The steeply sloped berms around the wetland provide a very narrow width of moist soil for wetland vegetation, resulting in lower-than-expected visitation by shore and wading birds. Neither the Open Space Division nor the Friends group have had the resources required to expand the moist soils zones, and are looking for the funds needed. In addition, the layout of the wetland within a larger cropping system has been especially successful in attracting Canada geese, hundreds of which now reside at the farm year-round. Although visitors and passersby enjoy seeing the large, raucous flocks, the geese eat a substantial amount of the farmer’s commercial alfalfa crop, considerably reducing his earnings. Open Space staff is now working with the Friends group and the farmer to find a mutually agreeable solution to the goose issue.

Fitting habitat management into the farm operations schedule has also been an ongoing challenge. For example, in order to establish more vigorous grasslands around the wetland, the farmer and the Open Space Division would like to plant additional native grass seeds. However, most native grasses only germinate in the cooler fall and spring seasons. Bird experts discourage such disturbance during the spring nesting season; however, irrigation water is often in short supply by fall, making it difficult to germinate the grasses. Next year, staff will experiment with other planting techniques and other plant varieties.

One lesson from this project is that creating wildlife habitat on farmland requires serious organizational investment at the beginning, and may require additional investment over the long-term. However, with many tasks and limited resources, staff needs to finish projects quickly and move on. Private farmers and volunteer groups are also limited in their ability to devote time to on-going experimentation. This level of ongoing, adaptive management is a considerable challenge for all those involved.

In preserving farmland as Public Open Space, the City of Albuquerque has an added challenge: balancing public service, recreation, and educational programs with agriculture and habitat protection. In addition, many local people have homes looking out at a farm, are directly affected by activities there, and have strong opinions about how farmland should be managed. Balancing multiple uses and diverse interests has required participatory, site-based planning, and constant oversight.

For example, Los Poblanos Fields is open to the public for walking and for riding bicycles and horses on dirt farm roads (tracks), and many local people enjoy the quiet, rural atmosphere of the farm. The public shares these roads with the farmer, requiring the public to be mindful of the farmer’s activities. The farmer must also be careful around visitors, drive farm equipment slowly, and minimize dust. To protect wildlife and the farmer’s crops, the public is prohibited from entering onto farm fields, and all dogs must be on leash. However, enforcement is minimal, so the Open Space Division depends largely on voluntary compliance. Further intensifying the human presence, the non-profit group that manages a portion of the farm hosts a variety of programs that benefit the public, including educational activities for schools, a community garden, and a corn maze for the public to visit each autumn.

Providing the public with the opportunity to participate in drafting a resource management plan to evaluate multiple uses and allocate appropriate times and sites for each of them seems to have created strong public support for the resulting balance of activities.

Albuquerque’s city government has acquired about 160 ha of farmland for Open Space, including some of the largest remaining farms within the urban area. Despite ongoing challenges, this effort has certainly succeeded in preserving farmland for agriculture, protecting scenic landscapes and cultural heritage, offering unique opportunities for public recreation and education, and providing wildlife with additional habitat. Four of the five farms were acquired partly because they were adjacent to other protected areas, so an additional benefit has been creating larger habitat blocks and corridors.

Farmland preservation advocates have learned that to succeed over the long run they must preserve enough agricultural land to retain agriculture-related businesses and sustain the regional farm economy (Daniels and Bowers, 1997). Boulder County, Colorado, is an example of a local government that has an explicit goal of preserving enough farmland to maintain viability of agriculture. Boulder County has worked with the neighboring cities of Louisville and Lafayette to acquire ten farms totaling 350 ha as part of an open space program to "ensure the continuation of agriculture in the local area" (Boulder County et al., 2003, 4). The Boulder County effort enjoys strong public support, and considerable taxpayer financing.

Whether Albuquerque’s farmland preservation efforts have helped support the region’s agricultural economy remains a critical question. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of keeping farmland in production within the designated rural area, through tax incentives, farmers markets, zoning for low-density housing, and voluntary preservation efforts such as easements, land banks, land trusts and agricultural districts (City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County 1991). Several of these programs have begun only recently, and their success has not yet been evaluated.

The Albuquerque Open Space program, however, is not part of any official farmland preservation effort. The Facility Plan that establishes the Open Space mandate does not even list preserving farmland specifically as a goal, or contain a category for farmland. And whereas the Comprehensive Plan only stresses the importance of farmland preservation in the rural area, the Open Space efforts have taken place in and around the urban area.

At this point, it would be difficult to assess whether the city and county have preserved enough farmland, through Open Space acquisition and other means, to sustain or even impact the region’s agricultural economy. Although this is beyond the mandate of the city Open Space Division, it is surely a challenge we will face. For if agriculture in the Albuquerque region becomes less viable, what will be the fate of the Open Space farms?

By merely acquiring farmland for Open Space, City of Albuquerque staff, elected officials, and citizens have already expressed vision beyond any legal mandate. If this vision can continue to expand, the Open Space farms may play a vital role in a larger farmland preservation program to sustain the agricultural economy. For example, the city has already begun efforts to test and demonstrate irrigation efficiency improvements, which could help sustain local farmers during droughts. In addition, educational activities at Open Space farms already reach thousands of local citizens each year, and could teach them about the importance of broader farmland preservation efforts. In the future, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the MPOS Facility Plan could provide a policy framework for a broad farmland preservation program, and include a Farmland category for MPOS.

The cost of protecting additional farmland will be another challenge. The agricultural district and easement programs recommended in the Comprehensive Plan could protect significant additional acreage of farmland at a lower cost to the public. The Open Space Division could participate in these programs, or raise additional funds to purchase additional farmland outright. But to succeed, aside from funding, the city and county will need to work together, see beyond their existing mandates, and reach across institutional boundaries to implement a cohesive program.

This paper does not advocate Albuquerque’s Open Space approach to urban farmland preservation as the most appropriate course of action for cities worldwide. Indeed, Albuquerque’s effort was more a product of citizen activism and the vision of staff and elected officials than strategic planning or institutional mandate.

Nevertheless, detailed examples have been given of the opportunities and challenges protected area agencies engaged in large cities may face if they choose to undertake such efforts.

Protecting urban farmland can reduce the need for governmental entities to invest in infrastructure for development while sustaining the incomes of local farmers and providing food for local people. Protected farm areas can also create unique opportunities to conserve habitat for wildlife and preserve scenic areas for the public, and opportunities to connect with their agricultural heritage.

The biggest challenge may be supporting the agricultural economy in and around cities, which lies beyond the reach of any single institution. However, this may also be the most significant opportunity. The importance of urban agriculture to food security is well known within the international development community. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2002), 200 million urban farmers grow food for 700 million people worldwide. Urban and periurban agriculture can contribute to food security by increasing the amount of food available and enhancing the freshness of perishable fruits and vegetables, while providing employment opportunities with low-entry barriers (FAO, 1999). However, the FAO (2002) predicts that over half of the world’s people will live in cities by 2005, and supplying the world’s city dwellers with affordable, safe food will "strain the food supply and distribution chain to the breaking point." This may be especially true in developing countries, where poverty rates in cities often exceed 50 percent. FAO urban food security specialist Olivio Argenti further predicts: "Urbanization is likely to eat up the productive land, pushing food production further and further away. This increases the cost of all activities associated with producing food and bringing it to cities, calling for massive investment" (FAO 2002).

How might the Albuquerque case be tailored to suit other cities? In particular, are there any elements of this case that might be applicable to urban protected area agencies in the developing world? Farmland acquisition and easement programs may be too costly: What are other options for preserving farmland? The community garden at Albuquerque’s Los Poblanos Fields provides food for local people in need, and the dairy farmer sells milk from cows fed alfalfa grown at the farm. Can protected farmlands in other cities play a role in urban food security?

Considering the difficulties already faced by conventional conservation initiatives, is it appropriate for protected area agencies to become involved in farmland preservation or food security, especially in cities, especially in developing countries? Given their food security needs, is it appropriate for local authorities in cities in the developing world to also manage farmland for educational, recreational, and environmental benefits? There are many questions to answer in evaluating the applicability of this case for other cities.

By beginning the discussion, perhaps additional cases will emerge, and exciting new approaches will be attempted.

Boulder County, City of Lafayette, and City of Louisville. 2003. Draft Jointly Owned Boulder County-Lafayette-Louisville Open Space Management Plan. http://www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace. Boulder, Colorado.

City of Albuquerque. Web site. http://www.cabq.gov. .

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 1991. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 1999. City of Albuquerque Major Public Open Space Facility Plan. Open Space Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Daniels, T. and Bowers, D. 1997. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmlands. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

FAO. 1999. Issues in urban agriculture. In: Agriculture 21. http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp2.htm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2002. Urban food security. In: Agriculture 21. http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0206sp2.htm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Farmland Information Center. 2002. Fact Sheet: The Farmland Protection Toolbox.  http://www.farmlandinfo.org

This paper copyright © 2004 International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Reproduction of this paper for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this paper for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder.

Web site hosted by InterEnvironment Institute, an IUCN member since 1980

www.InterEnvironment.org

Home page of this section of the Web site  /  Web site home page 

Copyright & caveats  /  Contact us

SEARCH InterEnvironment.org

The copyright notice applies to the entire contents of this Web site.