An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey

Matthew Baumgardner
Fall 2016
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 2

Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
History of Land Preservation in New Jersey........................................................................3
Results & Discussion....................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations........................................................................................................ 15
Improvement of the Highlands Development Credit Program and State TDR Program..................15
Promoting a Variety of Preservation Tools and Techniques.....................................................16
Promoting the Contiguous Attachment of Preserved Parcels...................................................17
The Ability to Adapt to Change....................................................................................... 18
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 18
References.................................................................................................................. 20

Introduction
In an ever-urbanizing world, where populations grow more and more every day, it can be difficult
to find a place that is not developed with asphalt and concrete. Even the small patches of green that do
exist are not guaranteed to be there forever. It may seem like there is no place that values natural
landscapes and resources, but that is the farthest thing from the truth. Land preservation is a way to
guarantee that land and its natural resources will be protected in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy.
Every state in the country practices some form of land preservation, but few are quite as good as New
Jersey. For over half a century, New Jersey has been a nationwide leader in conserving land for their
natural beauty and assets. This paper discusses a history of land preservation legislation in the state that
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 3

has allowed it to reach its current level. Additionally, the current trends in statewide land conservation
will be analyzed to determine the strengths and deficiencies of state practices. Recommendations will be
made to solve existing problems and suggestions will be made for issues that New Jersey can further
improve upon. Although the land preservation practices in the state of New Jersey are not perfect, they are
one of the leaders in the country and can act as a model for other states.

History of Land Preservation in New Jersey

New Jersey has a very full history of land preservation that dates back 121 years. There have been
many milestones to reach the level of dedicated preservation that the state practices today. The first of
those milestones came in 1895, when Branch Brook Park in Newark, NJ became the nations very first
county park. Eight years later, New Jersey established its first state historic site at the Indian King Tavern
Museum in Haddonfield (Ruga, 2009). Soon after in 1905, Bass River State Forest was declared the New
Jerseys first state forest (Bass River, 2016). In 1914, New Jersey established its first state park,
Swartswood State Park (Swartswood, 2016). These sites, parks, and forests were the first of what is now
over a million acres of preservation in a state that has proved how much it values open spaces.
Land preservation practices in New Jersey would change forever in 1961 when the first Green
Acres Bond Referendum was passed. This program seeks to conserve land with cultural, historic, and
natural value for the enjoyment of state residents (The Green Acres, 2016). This voter approved
referendum allocated $60,000,000 for the acquisition of open spaces. It also set in motion a trend of
unparalleled referenda approval by New Jersey voters, passing nine more bond issue referenda through
1995 (Ruga, 2009). Open space referenda in New Jersey will be discussed more later on. Since its first
appropriations of monies, the Green Acres Program has directly protected 650,000 acres of land. Citizens
have shown unwavering support for the program, approving a total of $3.3 billion since 1961 (The Green
Acres, 2016). It is easily the largest contributing program in the state for land preservation.
In 1968, the state legislature established the NJ Natural Lands Trust. The Trust is an independent
agency devoted to preserving lands in their natural states so that they may protect natural diversity,
educate the public, and be enjoyed by users. The main management goals for the Trust are directed
towards conservation of endangered species habitat and significant ecosystems. With that in mind,
recreation is still allowed, as long as it does have an impact on the ecosystem (Ruga, 2009).
The next major step in the way of open space preservation does not directly involve the
acquisition of land. In 1971, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, also known as PILOTs, was
implemented (Ruga, 2009). This program provides retroactive compensation for municipalities that have
acquired open land. It is intended to provide another form of income since the municipality has lost a
portion of their property tax revenue due to the land that was preserved. A few years later, in 1974, the
New Jersey Trails Act established the NJ Trails Council to create a plan for a State Trails System. The
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 4

Council acts as an advisory board to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and the Department
of Transportation. As of 2009, there were 600 miles of documented trails in the State Park System (Ruga,
2009).
The next major development in the land preservation history of the state came in 1979 with the
Pinelands Protection Act. With the recent legalization of gambling in Atlantic City, the Pinelands region
faced serious development pressures (Bachmann, 2015). The Pinelands National Reserve was actually
created by the US Congress in 1978, after then-Governor Brandan Byrne declared a moratorium on all
construction in the Pinelands. It was the first National Reserve in US history. Governor Byrne also
created the Pinelands Commission by executive order, which was tasked with drafting the Comprehensive
Management Plan (CMP) for the Reserve. The CMP states that any municipality that lies within the
Reserve borders must comply with the land use regulations set forth by the Commission (CMP Summary,
2016). Additionally, the Pinelands commission enacted the states first transfer of development rights
(TDR) program under the CMP known as the Pinelands Development Credit (PDC) Program. It allowed
municipalities to determine environmental standards for sending and receiving zones in compliance with
the CMP. The program is administered by both the Pinelands Commission and the PDC Bank. The sale of
credits operates on an open market system, so the price of a single credit can vary depending on the
climate of the market (LeJava, 2009). The PDC Program is the most successful TDR program in New
Jersey, and considered one of the most successful across the nation. It should serve as a model to regions
planning a TDR program of their own. But the PDC Program isnt the only tool built into the CMP to
control growth and promote preservation. The Pinelands Protection Act, along with federal legislation,
once and for all protect the 1.1-million-acre portion of southern New Jersey.
The Farmland Preservation Program, established in 1981, was the next significant platform that
arose in New Jersey. The program also created was the State Agriculture Development Committee
(SADC), under the Department of Agriculture, to administer the program. The initial bond issue provided
$50 million of funding for the purchase of development rights on parcels of farmland throughout the state
(Ruga, 2009). The program is based on the concept of removing development rights of farmland from
possession of the current, and subsequent, owners of the property, therefore perpetually preserving
farmland. Since its inception, the Farmland Preservation Program has protected over 222,000 million
acres of farmland costing upwards of $1.68 Billion (Summary, 2016). Additionally, Gottlieb et al. (2015)
have found that farmland preservation acts as a positive feedback loop. In other words, owners of
preserved farms of varying sizes and intensities continue to invest money in improving agricultural
productivity and conservation goals across the states. Specifically, profitably can increase between $266
and $453 per acre on preserved farmlands as opposed to than unpreserved farmlands. However, this trend
diminishes with larger, more commercial farms (Schilling et al., 2014). New Jersey has made its
dedication to protecting farmland clear by continually supporting other statewide farming initiatives, such
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 5

as the Right to Farm and Agricultural Mediation Programs. The success and prominence of these
programs help prove that New Jersey is at the vanguard of land preservation in the United States.
In 1989, state legislation made all municipalities within the state eligible to establish open space
taxes to dedicate a fund specifically for open space preservation. As of 2008, all 21 counties and 238 of
the 565 municipalities have taken advantage of this opportunity (Schmidt &Paulsen, 2009). These taxes
can vary in their structure from one municipality to another, but they all put the revenue towards
acquiring and maintaining open space within its borders.
1998 saw the next momentous piece of land preservation legislation with the Garden State
Preservation Trust Act. The act was overwhelmingly supported by 2/3 of voters in the state (Ruga, 2009).
It committed $98 million from sales tax revenue for a 30-year period, lasting through 2029. The Act was
structured into two phases. The first 10 years were dedicated to acquisition of preservation efforts along
with debt repayment for previously acquired parcels. The second 20 years, and the currently active phase,
is devoted solely to debt repayment (Understanding, 2016). The Garden State Preservation Trust revenue
can be applied and disbursed to all open space, farmland and historic land preservation efforts, including
the Green Acres Program and the Farmland Preservation Program. The passage of this act marks an
unprecedented level of support for open space protection, not only in New Jersey, but in the country. It
was the largest state level commitment to conservation for an area of New Jerseys size (Ruga, 2009).
Since its passage, preservation of all kinds have continued to increase notably each year.
The Garden State Greenways Project, began in 2001, was an effort that created a partnership
between the Green Acres Program, Rutgers University, and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation to
map all unpreserved lands in the state. Using GIS and remote sensing technology, the project mapped all
the remaining forests, grasslands, wetlands, agricultural soil, and beach dunes that had not yet been
protected by the state. The goal was to create a plan that not only encouraged the continued preservation
of land, but connected all future and existing open space. In order to do so, municipalities and non-profit
organizations were provided with various planning tools and assistance from program administrators
(Ruga, 2009). The products of the project were maps that delineated available lands that qualified for
protection, but have not been updated since 2006. Still, it was a massive effort that helped inform a
multitude of plans for the NJDEP, Department of Agriculture, and the State Trails Plan, among others.
Three years later, in 2004, came the formal protection of the Highlands area with the Highlands
Water Protection & Planning Act. This act resulted from continued pressure from the US Forest Service to
protect the natural water resources of northern New Jersey. The act did not pass as easily as other
environmental legislation in the state, but eventually did succeed. Similar to the Pinelands Commissions
CMP, the Highlands Council established the Regional Master Plan (RMP). The RMP designated two
zones within the Highlands borders; preservation zones and planning zones. However, in contrast to the
CMP, the RMP only mandates that municipalities in designated preservation zones must adhere to all
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 6

aspects of the RMP. Municipalities that fall within planning zones may comply with the RMP voluntarily.
The Highlands Council also established the Highland Development Credit Program, a TDR tool to help
preserve land in the area. Unfortunately, only 15 municipalities have undergone, or are currently
conducting, feasibility studies to become designated receiving zones. Even further, none have agreed to
become a formal receiving zone (Bachmann, 2015). The Current market for receiving zones is scarce at
best. Without a balanced participation from both sending and receiving zones, it is almost impossible to
have a successful TDR program.
Also in 2004, the state legislature passed the State Transfer of Development Rights Act. This
created the first comprehensive statewide TDR program capable of handling inter- and intra-municipal
transfers of rights. The first efforts for such a TDR program were actually pilot programs in Burlington
County municipalities. The Chesterfield Township and Lumberton Township TDR programs, began in
1989, acted as the basis for the 2004 act. In order for a municipality to successfully adopt a new TDR
ordinance, it must go through extensive planning measures, including adding such a program to their
master plan. They must designate sending and receiving zones, ensure receiving zones have, or will have,
necessary infrastructure, and conduct real estate market analyses, among other things. As of 2009, only
one municipality has adopted a TDR program since the laws passage (LeJava, 2009). However, this is
not the states only TDR program. As mentioned previously, the Pinelands Development Credit Program
and the Highlands Development Credit Program are other examples of similar programs in New Jersey
(Bachmann, 2009). The Pinelands Development Credit Program is highly regarded as one of the most
successful TDR programs in the country, while the HDC program and the statewide TDR program have
not been nearly as successful.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 7

Another noteworthy trend is New Jerseys record of accomplishment with open space referenda.
The first such ballot measure came in 1961 as the first bond issue for the Green Acres Program. Through
2009, there were 12 more questions regarding open space preservation on New Jersey ballots. Including
the very first one in 1961, New Jersey has approved all 13 referenda on open space that have appeared
(Heintzelman, et al., 2013). With this amazing trend of unwavering support for land preservation, it is no
wonder that New Jersey has been able to accomplish so much. For over 50 years, the state of New Jersey
has dedicated extraordinary amounts of time, effort, and money into ensuring that a significant percentage
of their land area remains undeveloped for enjoyment by future generations.

Results & Discussion

New Jersey has a variety of tools to
help them protect valuable lands. In order to
understand how to further improve those
tools so that the state may become more
efficient in their efforts, the current state of
land preservation trends were examined.
GIS data was used to divide land
preservation totals by the form, use, and
ownership of the land that the space is
protected for. In total, New Jersey has
successfully protected over 1.46 million
acres of land. That accounts for about 29%
percent of the total land area of the state.
Each type of land preservation was Figure 1: Separated land preservation types in New Jersey.
calculated to find the overall make up of
land protection by percentage. It is clear from Figure 2 that New Jersey values habitat protection a great
deal, as wildlife management areas (WMA) make up almost a quarter of all conserved land in the state.
WMAs are of the most strictly regulated protected areas that can be preserved. Since their primary use is
not for recreation, many activities are prohibited while other are allowed only during certain times or
under certain conditions (Wildlife, 2016). In fact, 99% coastal ecosystems in the state with more than 5
meters of vegetation growth for habitat purposes are located in areas that are protected in some way
(Kelly, 2014). The next largest portion of land preservation is conservation easements. This is a broad
category that includes PDRs, TDRs, direct purchase, or donations of development rights for a parcel of
land. However, in the case of New Jersey, about 54% of the conservation easements included in this
 An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 8

analysis are directly

related to the
Farmland
Preservation
Program. Further,
state protected land
accounts for 58% of
the total preserved
land in New Jersey.
This exemplifies
state leadership in
land conservation,
rather than federal,
county or municipal.
Figure 3: Land preservation with Pinelands and Highlands boundaries identified.

Figure 2: Percentages of total preserved acres by preservation type.

 An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 9

Upon a visual analysis, the spatial distribution of certain preservation types makes itself clear. For
example, wildlife management
areas are primarily located in the
southern half of the state. Much of

Figure 5: Percent of total land area that is preserved in each county.

this can be explained by the boundaries of the
Pinelands Reserve, shown in figure 3. While not
all the WMAs fall within these borders, it is a
significant explanatory factory. The Pinelands
Figure 4: Total acreage of preserved land in each county.
were preserved because of their natural
uniqueness, including the fact that they serve as habitat for many rare and important species. A significant
number of WMAs are also located in coastal regions of Cape May and Cumberland counties. Coastal
regions contain some of the most sensitive ecosystems in New Jersey and are major stopping points for
migratory birds, particularly in Cape May County. Equally, the western half of the state contains a great
deal of the most fertile soil in New Jersey. In fact, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties in the
southwest portion of the state contain the most agriculturally productive soils in the state (Schilling et al.,
2014). Thus, it makes perfect sense for a majority of conservation easements, and therefore farmland, to
be located as such.
The spatial distribution of land preservation was also examined by county. Since a noteworthy
amount of land protection in New Jersey takes place at the county and municipal level, this analysis
allows us to see which counties prioritize conservation. Figure 4 shows the total acreage of preserved land
by county whereas figure 5 shows the percent land area that is preserved in each county. Figure 6 shows
the total preserved land of each county against its percent preservation, as neither map is fully descriptive
10

significant portion of their land due in part to WMAs, as previously discussed. The Northwest counties of

also examine counties

by itself. A few things are immediately noticeable. First, Cape May and Cumberland counties preserved a

doubt due to the valuable resources of the Highlands region that they both lie within. Conversely, we can

counties. With New

protection, such as
with minimal land

Essex, and Union

Figure 7: Total acreage of each land preservation type in each county including totals and percent preservation of
Bergen, Hudson,
Warren and Passaic also example leadership in land conservation among state counties. This is in no

LandPreservationTotalsbyCounty(inAcres)
State
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey

Conservation Recreation State Private State State

County Total Acres Easement County/Municipal Area WMA Ownership Forest Historic
Atlantic 391,136 8,520 8,763 0 55,337 1,839 12,537 566
Bergen 157,994 351 10,524 0 240 816 1,967 7
Burlington 524,207 26,685 10,433 0 7,161 15,068 135,632 402
Camden 145,593 816 2,856 0 5,455 1 14,501 1
Cape May 182,633 3,482 4,603 0 35,958 3,548 16,984 0
Cumberland 321,642 24,755 2,618 0 71,928 29,183 4,035 0
Essex 82,885 286 6,777 0 0 411 0 2
Gloucester 215,618 11,355 5,446 0 9,218 708 0 0
Hudson 39,776 0 855 0 513 15 0 0
Hunterdon 280,123 29,203 14,205 5,884 5,932 4,602 0 0
Mercer 146,421 9,127 12,729 0 1,296 4,750 0 1
Middlesex 206,620 4,631 10,260 0 0 10 0 0
Monmouth 309,904 13,978 14,775 0 10,548 460 0 5
Morris 307,399 16,737 31,976 0 14,852 4,733 0 0
Ocean 485,571 8,936 14,160 0 73,367 9,320 19,009 0
Passaic 125,924 23,651 5,108 77 0 9,047 9,530 0

the county and the state.

Salem 222,546 30,700 1,092 0 18,922 5,667 0 2
Somerset 195,129 8,591 15,379 0 165 1,268 0 59
Sussex 343,447 26,490 2,700 2,983 21,944 4,547 15,959 0
Union 67,406 169 5,919 0 0 156 0 1
Warren 232,359 20,783 4,526 1,494 10,024 3,004 11,113 0
TOTAL 4,984,330 269,247 185,703 10,439 342,861 99,152 241,268 1,046
11

LandPreservationTotalsbyCounty(inAcres) cont.
PERCENT/
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey

Federal - Federal - Federal - PERCENT/ TOTAL

County State Natural AreaState Nature Preserve State Park Military F&W NPS TOTAL COUNTY LAND
Atlantic 0 6,050 15 0 21,127 0 114,753 29.3% 2.3%
Bergen 476 0 1,014 0 0 0 15,396 9.7% 0.3%
Burlington 3,293 4,204 1,753 28,209 2,392 0 235,232 44.9% 4.7%
Camden 0 518 0 0 0 0 24,148 16.6% 0.5%
Cape May 177 298 455 0 11,936 0 77,443 42.4% 1.6%
Cumberland 0 147 700 0 0 0 133,366 41.5% 2.7%
Essex 0 0 15 0 0 25 7,517 9.1% 0.2%
Gloucester 0 335 109 0 0 0 27,170 12.6% 0.5%
Hudson 35 0 1,238 0 0 0 2,656 6.7% 0.1%
Hunterdon 0 825 5,431 0 0 0 66,083 23.6% 1.3%
Mercer 0 1,326 2,585 0 0 0 31,814 21.7% 0.6%
Middlesex 370 144 3,423 0 0 0 18,836 9.1% 0.4%
Monmouth 0 185 5,907 10,388 0 1,562 57,806 18.7% 1.2%
Morris 1,015 896 8,955 5,639 7,137 1,507 93,448 30.4% 1.9%
Ocean 1,951 3,364 11,228 23,139 11,717 0 176,193 36.3% 3.5%
Passaic 4,124 20 13,287 0 0 0 64,844 51.5% 1.3%
Salem 393 402 2,171 837 5,252 0 65,438 29.4% 1.3%
Somerset 28 660 6,015 0 0 230 32,396 16.6% 0.6%
Sussex 2,746 2,819 35,153 0 5,124 23,577 144,041 41.9% 2.9%
Union 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,245 9.3% 0.1%
Warren 1,326 1,693 4,367 0 0 8,949 67,280 29.0% 1.3%
TOTAL 15,934 23,889 103,818 68,212 64,685 35,8501,462,105 29.3%
 An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 12

Figureby
Figure 8: Land preservation in Cape May County 9: type.
Land preservation in Burlington County by type.
York City in such close proximity, these counties have an extremely high population density because they
serve as urban and suburban centers for the
New York metropolitan area. As a result of
so much existing development, there is
little untouched land available for
preservation. A similar story can be told in
Camden and Gloucester counties; they
border Philadelphia to the west. Major
metropolitan areas like New York City and
Philadelphia have effects on land use past
the reaches of their city limits.
Consequently, the ever-expanding
populations of cities and urban areas are
competing for the same undeveloped lands
that preservationists are trying to protect.
A more in depth analysis of each
county was conducted as well. In this way,
Figure 10: Land preservation in Passaic County by type.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 13

it is possible to observe the spatial

distribution and preservation make up of
protected land by county. We will first
inspect some counties with the highest
percent preservation. Passaic, Burlington
and Cape May Counties have the three
highest percent preservations by land area,
respectively. Their preservation distribution
is shown in figures 8-10. Consistent with the
statewide data, the majority of land
protection comes from the state level.
County and municipal holdings make up 5-
8% in these counties. Each of these counties
lie in drastically different regions of the
state, yet exhibit the diverse valuable land
across New Jersey. Cape May County
exemplifies the sensitive habitats that exist Figure 11: Land preservation in Essex County by type.
in coastal regions, as mentioned earlier, by
its amount of wildlife management areas.
Since a small portion of the county is also
with the Pinelands, the expanses of New
Jerseys unique forest ecosystems are
preserved. A considerable portion of
Burlington County also lies within the
Pinelands Reserve, and is appropriately
preserved as state forest. Finally, Passaic
County, in the northern most reaches of the
state, contains 36% state forest and park
land. As part of the Highlands region, this is
a logical appointment of usage because it
allows for recreation as well as protection
for the most valuable resource from the
area; water.

Figure 12: Land Preservation in Union County by type.

An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 14

Despite these differing amounts of diverse preservation types, the one thing that each of these
counties has in common is variety. Each has at least eight different types of land conservation, Burlington
with as many as eleven. Having a multitude of forms of protection is imperative to being as effective and
efficient as possible when conserving land. It allows the land to serve different functions as needed and
satisfies an assorted range of users. Additionally, it allows for more funding opportunities as different
sources have different requirements in order to successfully receive and grant or loan. Diversity is an
important factor for success in many fields, land preservation included.
If we examine some of the counties with less land preservation percentage, we see the opposite of
what has taken place in the last three counties. Essex and Union Counties, shown in figures 11 & 12, have
a noticeably smaller variety of land preservation types. As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to protect
natural lands in closer proximity to metropolitan areas. There is little land available to preserve by the
state. However, efforts can still be made to preserve land at the county level. In both Essex and Union
Counties, about 8% of the total land area is protected open space owned by the county or a municipality.
They both rank in the top five of all counties in this regard. While it is difficult to find bounteous
untouched land in such densely populated and urbanized areas, it is still possible to protect what does
exist. Both Essex and Union Counties have taken the task of preserving land within their borders into
their own hands and it exemplifies their determination to follow in the states preservation footsteps
despite the added challenges.
 An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 15

What is significantly noticeable in every

county level map is the discontinuity of
parcels. With the exception of the Pinelands
Reserve and the Highlands region, most
protected parcels of land are small and not
connected to other parcels. A great example
of this is Warren County, shown in figure 13.
Protected lands make up 29% of the total
land area of the county, and it contains 10
different types of preservation. However,
with a simple visual inspection, it is obvious
how disconnected and separated most parcels
are. This is one of New Jerseys largest
problems in its land preservation efforts.
Discontinuous preservation lacks efficacy.
Parcels like wildlife management areas,
forests, and nature preserves are protected
Figure 13: Land preservation in Warren County by type.
with the goal of keeping habitats intact.
However, one of the most detrimental things for ecosystems and threatened and endangered species is
edge effects. Increased habitat edge is suitable to generalist species that out-compete niche species, which
are often the ones that end up on the threatened and endangered lists. Shifts in species diversity and
dominance alter the characteristics of an ecosystem. In addition, the temperature regulation properties of
forest interior are reduced since the overall area of forest interior declines as forest edge area increases
(Murcia, 1995). By preserving disjointed parcels of land, edge effects cannot be as successfully reduced
as possible. Therefore, it also takes away from the overall effectiveness of land conservation in general.
While there are exceptions to this within New Jersey, the generally discontinuous land preservation
practices that are taking place are decreasing its efficacy.

Recommendations
New Jerseys rich history of land preservation is abundantly clear. However, there is still room for
improvement. The following are some recommendations that could improve land preservation practices in
the state both in specific areas and overall.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 16

Improvement of the Highlands Development Credit Program and State TDR Program
New Jersey has one of the countrys most successful TDR programs in the Pineland Development
Credits Program. However, the other two programs, the Highlands Development Credit Program and the
State TDR Act, are failing to gain traction. Both were established in 2004, but more than two decades
after their more successful counterpart. Since both struggling programs vary in scale and regulation, they
require separate recommendations.
First, the Highlands Development Credit, or HDC, Program is extremely similar to the PDC
Program in that it is designed for a specific region with a heavy emphasis on areas designed for
preservation. Because of this, replicating the PDC Program is much easier for the HDC Program. The
main difference between the two lies in the respective management plans. The CMP for the Pinelands
Reserve requires that all municipalities within its boundaries must comply with the management plan. On
the other hand, the RMP for the Highlands requires only those areas specifically designated as
preservation zones must adhere to the management plan. The other designated planning zones can
voluntarily comply with the RMP. Further, the RMP does not designate explicit receiving zones for the
HDC Program; municipalities can volunteer for the position (Bachmann, 2015). While incentives do exist
to entice these municipalities to volunteer, they have been unsuccessful so far. It is recommended that the
Highlands Council refer to the Pinelands Commission and emulate the PDC Program, including
designating mandatory receiving zones as they see fit. This is not an easy task, as the RMP must therefore
be amended accordingly, but could greatly increase the effectiveness of the HDC Program.
Next is the statewide TDR program made possible by the TDR Act of 2004. It has been
minimally effective, with only one township successfully establishing a program in the five year period
after its conception. Much of this is due in part to a long and expensive application and approval process.
Municipalities must demonstrate their fitness for a program reporting by their projected population and
economic growth, designating sending and receiving zones, analyzing existing and potential
infrastructure, conduct a real estate market analysis, and revise its master plan to include the program,
among many other requirements. Additionally, if successful, each county or municipality is responsible
for establishing their own TDR bank to keep records of the transactions and moderating the purchase and
sale of rights and credits (LeJava, 2009). To attempt to resolve these problems a few recommendations are
made. The first is to streamline the application and review process. A simpler, more attractive process
could entice more municipalities that could be potential TDR markets. Secondly, the state must assist
municipalities by providing them with the necessary planning tools to accomplish the task of researching
and planning a TDR program (Realizing, 2010). Finally, a statewide TDR bank would be and easier entity
to manage TDR records. It would allow for consistency across all municipalities and make searching for
rights to purchase or locations to send development much easier.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 17

Promoting a Variety of Preservation Tools and Techniques

It is no doubt that New Jersey has a host of preservation techniques in used throughout the state
from zoning, to PDRs, to TDRs. Nevertheless, that does not reduce the importance of having a wide
range of tools at the ready. More important is to have tools that compliment and work well with each
other. There are still some tools that New Jersey has not used, but have proven to be successful elsewhere.
For example, Portland, OR has become a model for the use of urban growth boundaries. Although the
state of New Jersey does not have a major city on the level of New York City or Philadelphia, it still
handles their workers and patrons. Though it would prove to be a massive undertaking, New Jersey could
implement an urban growth boundary at an appropriate scale around some of the most urbanized parts of
the state. This technique would serve to direct growth in areas that are already developed, while keeping it
from encroaching on sensitive natural areas like the Pinelands and Highlands.
There are some more options available. Bengston et al. (2004) suggest the idea of vertical and
horizontal coordination. In vertical coordination, policies at different levels of government work to assist
and promote each other and avoid conflict. In horizontal coordination, neighboring municipalities and
counties work together to accomplish a common goal of preservation. While New Jersey clearly has
legislation that works to give local governments the freedom to operate how they wish, the state is also
famous for their home rule practices. All too often are municipalities in constant competition with each
other. It would be beneficial for New Jersey to diminish the effect that home rule has on land
preservation. Perlman (2016) offers a few ideas to do so. The first is to amend the state constitution
appropriately. However, this is an extreme and challenging solution to accomplish. The second method is
to provide financial incentives to municipalities that practice against home rule in some tangible fashion.
Nevertheless, this tactic will prove to be expensive if effective. The final recommendation the Perlman
gives is that of an administrative organization at the state level to work in assisting municipalities and
helping them work together. Home rule is a challenging obstacle to tackle, but the effectiveness of the
given suggestions cannot be known unless they are tried.
Additionally, there are creative solutions to help promote land preservation funding. One idea that
is suggested by Bengston et al. (2004) is the use of lottery proceeds. A lottery allows for a great deal of
funding if successful. Furthermore, since open space referenda are known to be extremely successful in
New Jersey, it could be used to implement such an innovative program. Many studies analyze the success
and failure of open space referenda. Typically, wealthier, more educating and fast growing municipalities
are more likely to hold and pass such referenda. Further, the type of funding proposed is a major factor in
a referendums passage. It is more likely to pass if funding is drawn from a bond issue or existing tax
rather than creating a new tax (Nelson et al., 2007). Knowing the properties of open space referenda can
improve the chances of one being passed. It allows the proposal to be framed in a desirable way for
voters.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 18

Promoting the Contiguous Attachment of Preserved Parcels

As mentioned previously, a major problem with New Jerseys preservation patterns is its
disconnected parcels of protected land. Such discontinuity between tracts of land is not healthy for the
very ecosystems and species that the preservation is so often trying to preserve. Therefore, steps must be
taken to increase connectivity of conserved lands. Since one of the major goals of the Garden State
Greenways Project was to promote connectivity, it should be revitalized or a new, similar project should
be developed. The distribution and amount of preserved lands has no doubt changed since the last time
the Garden State Greenways Project was updated in 2006. Also, considering the advancement of
geospatial analysis technologies, greater accuracy can be achieved than ever before.
Additionally, Lynch (2009) studies the efficiency of farmland preservation in Maryland counties.
One of the variables studied is that of contiguous preservation. Although the results did not show the
amount of influence that was expected, it still showed some improvement on land preservation efficiency.
One of the tools used by the counties studied is minimum lot sizes for preservation; at least 50 acres is
necessary. This promotes larger, more continuous tracts of preserved land to promote ecosystem services.
While this exact tool may not be applicable to New Jersey since so much land has already been preserved,
a modified version might be suitable. For example, requiring new preserved parcels to be connected to
previously protected lands can expand existing preserved lands. In turn, the average size of contiguous
land preservation would increase, thus reducing edge effects and cultivating ecosystem services. Almost a
third of the entire state of New Jersey has already been protected. It is time for the focus of statewide land
preservation efforts to shift away from quantity, and towards quality.

The Ability to Adapt to Change

The final recommendation that is made is that of flexibility. Bengston et al. (2004) identify one of
the reasons for a lack of evaluative reports on land use and growth management techniques is time.
Although land preservation has very tangible results that one can visually see grow in numbers, a specific
tool or technique will not show its full impacts right away. It takes years, even decades, to be able to fully
understand somethings impact. Therefore, it is important to be flexible when trends do change. Land use
patterns, interests, growth rates and other similar things can be projected, but are never certain. Trends
change quicker than new policies can be adopted and implemented. Being able to adapt to changes as
they appear is important in order to be successful at anything, including land preservation. In the future, it
may take a completely new and inventive technique to further land preservation goals, but there is no way
to know for certain what that is until it happens. That is why flexibility and open-mindedness is so
essential to long term success.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 19

Conclusion
New Jersey is without a doubt a nationwide leader in land preservation. It has set a high bar for
other states to match, especially ones of similar size. Since before the turn of the 20 th century, New Jersey
has been blazing a trail of land preservation. For over 50 years, the state has been actively pursuing new
and innovative ways to protect their natural resources for future generations. Decades of dedicated work
has ranked their preservation practices among the best in the country.
Upon examination of the spatial distribution and preservation make-up throughout the state, we
learned about the current condition and trends of land conservation. There are strengths and weaknesses
to New Jerseys land preservation build. Strengths include using a variety of preservation tools,
preserving land for a variety of different purposes and conserving land in every part of the state. While
the downfalls of the states practices may be few and far between, the most significant issue with the
current trends is that of discontinuity between parcels. This disconnect reduces the efficacy of land
preservation and contradicts many of its goals. Appropriate solutions are recommended to solve specific
and general problems, as well as goals that should be set for future practices. These recommendations
include improving state TDR programs, including the Highlands Development Credit Program, to more
closely resemble the successful Pinelands Development Credit Program where applicable. Another
recommendation is to create a comprehensive source of remaining available land in order to promote the
contiguous preservation of land. It allows for more effective and meaningful land conservation. The final
two suggestions are not solutions to a problem, but recommendations for the direction in which land
preservation should go in the future. The first of these is the promotion of a diversity of preservation tools
and techniques to use across the state that can be applied to a diverse range of users and purposes. The
second suggestion is that of flexibility among various government levels to adapt to future changes in
trends and practices.
New Jersey has already paved a unique path when it comes to land conservation. The pressures
of development and population growth in the state has been known for years now and actively combatted
with land protection. Even as one of the smallest states in the country, almost a third of all the land area is
preserved forever. New Jersey is truly an example for dedication and practice of land preservation for the
whole country to follow.
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 20

References
Bachmann, M. C. (2015). What the highland can learn from the pinelands: An assessment of two transfer
of development rights programs in new jersey (Rep. No. 704). Retrieved November 11, 2016,
from Seeton Hall Law website.
Bass River State Forest. (2016, November 14). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/bass.html
Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and
protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the united states. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 69(2), 271-286. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.007
CMP Summary. (2015). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from http://nj.gov/pinelands/cmp/summary/
Gottlieb, P. D., Schilling, B. J., Sullivan, K., Esseks, J. D., Lynch, L., & Duke, J. M. (2015). Are
preserved farms actively engaged in agriculture and conservation? Land use Policy, 45, 103-116.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.013
Heintzelman, M. D., Walsh, P. J., & Grzeskowiak, D. J. (2013). Explaining the appearance and success of
open space referenda. Ecological Economics, 95, 108-117. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.001
Kelly, J. F. (2014). Effects of human activities (raking, scraping, off-road vehicles) and natural resource
protections on the spatial distribution of beach vegetation and related shoreline features in new
jersey. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 18(4), 383-398. doi:10.1007/s11852-014-0324-1
LeJava, J. P., Esq. (2009). Transfer of Development Rights in New Jersey: A Background Paper (pp. 14-
29, Rep.).
Lynch, L. (2009). Land preservation programs achieve high levels of efficiency. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1368-1374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01349.x
Murcia, C. (1995). Edge effects in fragmented forests: Implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution, 10(2), 58-62. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88977-6
Nelson, E., Uwasu, M., & Polasky, S. (2007). Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and
support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the united states? Ecological
Economics, 62(3), 580-593. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.027
Perlman, B. J. (2016). The illusion of local control: The paradox of local government home rule. State
and Local Government Review, 48(3), 189-193. doi:10.1177/0160323X16667989
Realizing the Promise: Transfer of Development Rights in New Jersey (Rep.). (2010, August 11).
Retrieved November 30, 2016, from http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/TDR-
report-FINAL-081110.pdf
Ruga, E. (2009, April 15). The Accomplishments of State Preservation Programs (Rep.). Retrieved
An Evaluation of Land Preservation Practices in New Jersey 21

September 28, 2016, from

http://www.njconservation.org/pdf/GSPTAccomplishments04_15_09.pdf
Schilling, B. J., Attavanich, W., Sullivan, K. P., & Marxen, L. J. (2014). Measuring the effect of farmland
preservation on farm profitability. Land use Policy, 41, 84-96.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.019
Schmidt, S., & Paulsen, K. (2009). Is open-space preservation a form of exclusionary zoning?: The
evolution of municipal open-space policies in new jersey. Urban Affairs Review, 45(1), 92-118.
doi:10.1177/1078087408331122
Summary of Preserved Farmland (p. 1, Rep.). (2016). NJ.
Swartswood State Park. (2016, October 25). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/swartswood.html
The Green Acres Mission. (2016, January 5). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from
http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/mission.html
Understanding the $98 million constitutional dedication. (2016, March 29). Retrieved November 30,
2016, from http://www.state.nj.us/gspt/index.htm
Wildlife Management Area Regulations. (2016, July 15). Retrieved December 02, 2016, from
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/wmaregs.htm