The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

The Value of Direct-Sales Farms to Conservation in Thurston County, Washington

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng The Value of Direct-Sales Farms to Conservation in Thurston County, Washington

Date (dcterms:date)

2014

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Mounts, Cory E

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

THE VALUE OF DIRECT-SALES FARMS TO CONSERVATION IN
THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON

by
Cory E. Mounts

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June, 2014

©2014 by Cory E. Mounts. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Cory E. Mounts

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By

________________________
Dina Roberts, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Value of Direct-Sales Farms to Conservation in Thurston County, Washington
Cory E. Mounts
Previous research has identified challenges to preservation of both wildlife
habitat and agricultural lands. Additionally, studies have found some land uses are
superior to others in improving in-habitat wildlife population metrics by serving
as better matrix to support populations in agricultural matrices. Because not all
matrix is of equal value as wildlife habitat, research to determine which land uses
and users are best situated to help improve matrix function through purposeful
action on their private property is warranted. The purpose of this study is to utilize
surveys to determine if direct-sales farms are an appropriate focal point for matrix
improvement efforts. Direct-sales farmers responded to survey questions
regarding their environmental attitudes and habitat conservation actions, as well
as their willingness to partner with habitat conservation organizations. The results
show a highly concerned and engaged population of farmers. Many farms
reported already partnering with conservation organizations and almost all farms
reported incorporating some form of conservation action on their property. This
research is important for local planning purposes and may help to situate directsales farms in Thurston County as a focal point for collaborative efforts between
habitat conservation and farmland preservation organizations and government
initiatives. Future research could expand to include a spatial analysis of farm
location proximity to important habitat. Other follow up research could focus on
the effectiveness of this type of analysis in directing the prioritization of
cooperative conservation efforts in the matrix.

Table of Contents
1. Literature Review.................................................................................................1
Introduction ..................................................................................................1
Biodiversity Loss ........................................................................................1
The Matrix ..................................................................................................4
Agriculture ...................................................................................................6
Industrial vs Metropolitan agriculture .........................................................9
Thurston County Ecosystems ...................................................................12
Thurston County Agriculture ....................................................................13
Farmland Preservation ..............................................................................15
Evaluating Farm-Owner Conservation Attitudes and Actions .................20
Literature Cited .........................................................................................21

2. The Value of Direct-Sales Farms to Habitat Conservation in Thurston County,
Washington ...........................................................................................................26
Introduction ...............................................................................................26
Habitat Fragmentation and the Matrix ......................................................28
Study Area and Methods ...........................................................................31
Analysis .....................................................................................................35
Results .......................................................................................................36
Discussion .................................................................................................43
Conclusion ................................................................................................46
Literature Cited .........................................................................................47

Chapter 3: Research Significance and Future Directions .....................................50
Literature Cited .........................................................................................55

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Farmland Loss by State ........................................................................8
Figure 2.1. Conservation Actions .........................................................................40
Figure 2.2. Responsibility by Farm Type .............................................................42
Figure 2.3. Perceived Threats to Habitat ..............................................................42

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Conservation Action Themes ...............................................................38
Table 2.2. Likelihood to Partner with Conservation Organizations .....................38

v

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Dina Roberts, my thesis reader, for her insight,
direction, patience, and encouragement. I sincerely appreciate the farmers of
Thurston County who took the time to contribute to this research by responding to
my survey. I would like to thank all of the MES and MPA faculty that have made
this degree so engaging, challenging, and rewarding. It is from the many
perspectives of the program that I developed the idea for this thesis project. I
could not have completed this degree without financial support from The
Evergreen State College, Veteran’s Affairs, and the Financial Aid office. I would
like to acknowledge the sacrifices of my family throughout this process as well. In
particular I want to thank my wonderful wife Brenda Mounts who assisted me in
formatting and proof-reading, and has supported me in many ways. I am very
grateful to all who have supported me throughout this thesis process.

vi

Chapter 1: Literature Review
Introduction
Describing his idea of a “land ethic”, Aldo Leopold wrote that
"Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land" (Leopold, 1966).
Leopold was one of the most compelling and articulate proponents in the
formulation of the wilderness concept as a healthy community of organisms, as
opposed to a purely recreational place for human hunting and sport. Yet Leopold
eventually came to realize that, in addition to the critical importance of large
protected areas, conservation in human-dominated landscapes is essential as well.
He focused the last two decades of his life to conservation on small farmsteads,
considering it “the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without
spoiling it” (Leopold, 1992).
A central question of agroecology is how to reconcile increasing demands
for food production with conservation of increasingly at-risk wildlife species and
the critical habitats they rely on, while maintaining the economic viability of
farms. Loss trends in active farmland and habitat for wildlife has spawned efforts
at multiple levels to address both issues. The recent resurgence of small, directsales farms may be an opportunity for farmland to be part of the answer to address
disappearing wildlife habitat if farm owners are willing to take certain actions.
Global Biodiversity Loss
The Earth’s natural resources are vital to human health and well-being.
Biological diversity is recognized as a tremendous asset to human economic and
1

social development now and into the future (Pearce & Moran, 1994; Pimentel et
al., 1997). And yet, species extinctions rates continue to remain high, causing
many to declare this era the beginning of the sixth mass extinction event on Earth,
and it is largely due to human causes. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the
United Nations (UN) have both issued reports in recent years indicating the
seriousness of the issue. The WWF’s 2008 “Living Planet Report” found global
species populations had decreased by 30% since 1970 (Hails, Loh, & Humphrey,
2008). The extinction rate is at least 1000 times higher than normal background
rates. A survey of biologists in 1998 suggested that 70% believed at least one-fifth
of the world’s species would become extinct in the next century (American
Museum of Natural History, 1998).
Efforts to address the issue has reached international levels. In 1988 the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) began working to prepare an
international legal instrument to ensure conservation and sustainability of
biological diversity. By 1993 the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, having
168 signatory countries supporting it was ratified as the first major international
commitment to address biodiversity loss and human caused species extinctions.
These efforts continue, but in many ways have so far failed to meet their
objectives. In the 2002 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 191 of the
world’s governments pledged to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss
by 2010. The 3rd edition of the UN Global Biodiversity Outlook report from 2010
indicated that not a single government had met their biodiversity goals
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).
2

Biodiversity at the global scale has historically been measured primarily
by listing known species, and then calculating the rate at which they are expected
to go extinct. Newer measurements also include calculations of a species’ gene
pool size, number of species, and extent and quality of ecosystems (Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). The UN Global Biodiversity
Outlook report lists a number of indicators that biodiversity measures continue to
decline in each of those categories. On average, despite success in some instances,
species previously at risk of extinction are moving closer to extinction (Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). The assessed populations of
terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate species has declined by nearly one-third since
1970 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Although
there has been significant progress in slowing the rate of loss in some areas,
especially the Amazon rainforest, natural habitats continue to decline in extent
and quality in most parts of the world (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2010).
Human settlement and land use expansion are two primary drivers of
biodiversity loss (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010)
resulting in species relegated to a patchwork of remnant fragmented habitats.
Habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss have adverse effects on biodiversity,
and are recognized as the largest contributors to species’ population declines
(Wilcove, Rothstein, Dubow, Phillips, & Losos, 1998). Habitat loss is the overall
reduction in available habitat that supports the species present. Habitat
fragmentation occurs when portions of historic habitat range become
3

disconnected from each other through the incursion of human land uses. The
negative effects of increased fragmentation include restricted gene flow, reduced
population sizes, changes in species demographics, and ultimately increased
extirpation risk (Wiegand, Revilla, & Moloney, 2005).
A primary approach at the national and international level to address
threats to biological diversity has been to establish protected reserves where
human settlement, resource extraction, or other use is restricted or limited to some
degree. The importance of this approach is reflected in the relative success of
terrestrial protected area implementation worldwide. Over 100,000 distinct
protected reserves, comprising over 12% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface now
exist, most of those have been established in the last thirty years (Chape,
Harrison, Spalding, & Lysenko, 2005). While establishment of protected reserves
is one of the most important conservation strategies available, their effectiveness
in protecting biodiversity is highly variable depending on a wide range of factors
(Chape et al., 2005). Additionally, species range shift as a result of climate change
may complicate the effectiveness of stationary protected areas in the next century
and beyond (Loarie et al., 2009).
The Matrix
Traditional approaches to the study of fragmented habitat landscapes has
treated the matrix, or the space between ideal habitat patches, as uniform and
ecologically irrelevant (H. Ricketts, 2001; Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001). This
framework was influenced by two dominant paradigms: island biogeography and

4

metapopulation dynamics (Gilpin, 1991; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). Levins
coined the term “metapopulation”, by which he meant a “population of
populations” in a percentage of occupied habitat patches (Levins, 1969). With this
concept, he made the influential prediction that persistence of metapopulations
may be threatened by either an increase in local extinction or by a decrease in
colonization (Levins, 1969). This dovetailed nicely with a key concept in island
biogeography that assumed local extinctions and re-colonization from
neighboring island populations were unexceptional occurrences (MacArthur &
Wilson, 1967). Subsequent research tied increases in local extinctions to
decreases in patch size, and decreases in colonization to increased distance
between patches.
Because the study of spatially structured populations and communities in
fragmented habitats grew out of island biogeography, the matrix has been treated
as analogous to the ocean, and ideal patches of habitat to the islands (Vandermeer
& Carvajal, 2001). As such, connectivity measurements between remnant habitats
has often been modeled as a function of the distance between the fragments alone.
Recent research has shown that in addition to protected reserves and conservation
of high quality natural habitat, the matrix is also very important to in-habitat
biodiversity and species survivability (Donald & Evans, 2006; H. Ricketts, 2001;
Jules & Shahani, 2003; Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001). The matrix is now
understood to be variable in quality, affecting species ability to move between
habitat fragments and providing habitat itself for many species (Harvey et al.,
2008). The matrix represents a continuum of suitability from the ocean between
5

islands, in which none of the terrestrial island species that migrate could survive,
to continuous habitat, in which the matrix is indistinguishable from suitable
habitat (Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001). Most terrestrial matrix quality is
somewhere intermediate, representing some level of non-ideal habitat in which an
organism would not usually be faced with imminent death if found there.
Matrix quality is assessed by the degree to which it inhibits or facilitates a
species ability to survive, migrate, and reproduce. Matrix quality assessment is
species or taxa specific, as the specific characteristics of the matrix in any given
location will facilitate some species more than others. In general, more intense
land uses represent a more significant barrier, and significantly contribute to
increased risk of local population extinction (Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001).
Because land use decisions are understood to affect matrix quality, researchers are
now studying which land uses represent high quality matrix, provide habitat, and
which private land owners are committed to improving these functions through
conservation and restoration actions on their property. The matrix should be
considered an integral piece of the landscape level conservation puzzle
(H. Ricketts, 2001; Jules & Shahani, 2003).

Agriculture
The conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture has caused more
habitat loss than any other land use globally (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2010).
Habitat continues to be destroyed or degraded to make room for farmland in many
areas of the world, particularly in tropical regions. Because of population growth
6

trends, and increasing wealth in many parts of the world, prominent ecologist Dr.
G. David Tilman estimated in 2001 that we will likely need to convert an
additional 10 billion hectares of land to agricultural uses by 2050 (Tilman, 2001).
Agriculture accounts for a significant portion of the land use in the United
States. According to the “Major Uses of Land in the United States” report by the
United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Services division,
cropland comprises 19.5% (442 million acres) of U.S land use, and
pasture/rangeland accounting for another 25.9% (587 million acres) (Lubowski,
Vesterby, Bucholtz, Baez, & Roberts, 2006). Because agriculture is such a
significant land use, the role of agricultural impact in the matrix is of significant
interest to landscape level ecologists and conservation biologists (Brussaard et al.,
2010; Donald & Evans, 2006; Dudley, Baldock, Nasi, & Stolton, 2005).
In the United States, agricultural lands are disappearing instead of
expanding. The 2010 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resource Inventory reported that nearly 6.5 million hectares of prime cropland
have been lost since 1982 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013). These losses
are primarily attributable to the conversion of agricultural lands to higher intensity
land uses, especially residential development. Over 17 million hectares of land
have been developed in the United States in the last thirty years, representing a
58% increase in developed land over that timespan (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2013). This rapid rate of development, much of it occurring on
agricultural lands, is occurring throughout the nation (Figure 1) (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 2013).

7

Figure 1.1. Developed by the American Farmland Trust using the USDA Natural
Resource Inventory data, shows the distribution of farmland loss throughout the
United States between 1982 and 2010 (“American Farmland Trust,” 2014).

8

Industrial vs Metropolitan Agriculture
While farmland overall is being converted at high rates to other uses, there
are two sizes of farms that are increasing. When separated by size, only large
farms of 2000 or more acres, and small farms of less than 50 acres are showing
growth (Vilsack & Clark, 2007). This trend is indicative of a significant split
between two different kinds of agriculture; large-scale, industrialized agriculture
and small-scale agriculture predominantly in metropolitan areas. Increasingly, for
farms using conventional agricultural methods, profitability and long-term
survival are reliant on farm size, and the efficiency and economy of scale that
accompanies it (O’Hara & Stagl, 2001).
Industrialized agriculture, often referred to as conventional agriculture, is
a relatively new development in the human-food production dynamic. The Green
Revolution post-World War II developed a form of agriculture marked by
increased specialization, intensification, mechanization, and reliance on expert
knowledge (Brussaard et al., 2010). While this form of agriculture has been very
successful at producing more food on less acreage throughout the 20th century,
there are some serious concerns about this production system. While focused on
efficiency and reliability, it is a system that largely ignores environmental
impacts, devalues local knowledge and discourages crop diversification (O’Hara
& Stagl, 2001).
The negative environmental impacts of industrialized agriculture are
many. In the National Water Quality Inventory conducted in 2000 by the U.S.

9

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states reported that agricultural
nonpoint source pollution was the leading source of water quality impacts on
surveyed rivers and lakes, the second largest source of impairments to wetlands,
and a major contributor to contamination of surveyed estuaries and ground water
(U.S. EPA, 2000). Further, the same inputs of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical
fertilizers shown to degrade water quality contribute directly to unintended plant,
arthropod, and bird deaths. Additionally, the tendency towards large swaths of
monoculture, or single species crops, represents a serious challenge to
biodiversity, as a single species of plant is unlikely to provide the shelter or food
needed by all but a few species.
However, agriculture in metropolitan areas often differs significantly from
conventional agriculture. Metropolitan farms are limited in their ability to
increase in size due to the mixed use nature of the landscape around them. A farm
may be adjacent to light industry, residential zoning, or protected habitat areas or
parks. This limitation keeps farms small, combined with a lack of agriculture
specific infrastructure like processing and storage facilities, metropolitan farms
often grow specialized crops or value-added products like grass-fed beef, freerange pastured chicken eggs, or heirloom tomatoes that you can’t find in the
supermarket. Additionally, these products are often marketed directly to the
consumer through farmers’ markets, food co-ops, on-site farmstands and
community supported agriculture (CSA) arrangements where consumers invest in
the farm before the growing season in exchange for weekly deliveries of whatever
is ready for harvest for the duration of the growing season.
10

In contrast to large-scale, industrialized agriculture, small-scale, directsales farms may represent an opportunity for integration of conservation efforts
on agricultural land. In addition to the practice of growing diverse crops, which is
shown to increase habitat and improve biodiversity measures over monoculture
systems, owners of direct-sales farms may be more inclined to participate in
habitat conservation and restoration efforts on their land than conventional
agriculture farmers (O’Hara & Stagl, 2001).
Direct-sales farms are part of an agricultural counter-movement
dissatisfied with many of the problems associated with conventional agriculture,
including reliance on large corporations for expertise that simultaneously is meant
to ensure reliability and efficiency while devaluing localized, non-credentialed
knowledge. Industrialized agriculture relies on expert recommendations that exist
outside of place-specific contexts, serving to disassociate farmers from localized
cultural and environmental concerns. Small-scale, direct-sales agriculture is a
grass-roots effort to establish food systems that value local agricultural
knowledge, and serve to reintegrate local cultural and environmental concerns.
These farmers engage directly with their community through establishment of
food systems that are informed by, and in turn help inform, the social norms of
the local culture. Because of this dynamic, environmental awareness and action
may be more common on small family farms with direct-sales marketing
strategies. Some of that action takes the form of habitat conservation and
restoration programs. In the context of continued suburban sprawl, which is a
major contributor to habitat loss and high rates of farm acreage loss, coordination
11

of effort between organizations working to slow the rapid loss of farmland by
supporting small-scale farmers, and habitat conservation and restoration
organizations, may be mutually beneficial.
Thurston County Ecosystems
Thurston County is home to remnants of one of the most threatened
ecosystems in the country. It’s estimated that only 10% of the historic extent of
South Sound Prairies remain today, and only 3% is still primarily dominated by
native prairie plant species (Crawford & Hall, 1997). There are at least 18 plant
and animal species that may occur on lands in Thurston County, many of them
associated with prairie habitat, that are listed at the state or federal level as being
threatened or endangered. Thurston County is currently developing a Prairie
Habitat Conservation Plan to preserve the remaining prairie ecosystems these
species rely on (“Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan,” 2014).
Additionally, many of the rivers and streams are spawning grounds for federally
endangered salmon and steelhead populations.
Some of Thurston County’s species of concern have recently had status
changes with the federal government. The Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha taylori) was listed by the federal government as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act in 2013. Also in 2013 the Streaked Horned
Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) was listed as threatened. In 2014, four
subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher were listed as threatened; the Olympia
pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis), Roy Prairie pocket gopher (T. m.

12

glacialis), Tenino pocket gopher (T. m. tumuli), and Yelm pocket gopher (T. m.
yelmensis). And in 2013, the USFWS proposed to list the Oregon Spotted Frog
(Rana pretiosa) as a threatened species and to designate critical habitat.
Thurston County Agriculture
Thurston County is a metropolitan county located at the southern tip of the
Puget Sound, in Western Washington. The state capital, Olympia, in the northern
portion of Thurston County is also the southern edge of the Seattle-TacomaOlympia metropolitan area along the I-5 corridor. Agriculture in Thurston county,
as in many metropolitan counties, is comprised of generally smaller farms
integrated in a diverse landscape among other land uses, including some farms
within city limits (Castillo et al., 2013; J. R. Fisher, 2009). An estimated 50% of
Thurston County agricultural land either contains or is adjacent to wildlife habitat
(J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009).
Agriculture in metropolitan areas often lacks the ability to achieve
economy of scale sufficient to compete with large-scale conventional farms due to
the smaller size of producers and a relative lack of processing facilities.
Alternative marketing strategies and production of high-value, value-added, or
specialty crops help metropolitan agriculture remain economically viable
(Heimlich & Anderson, 2001). In Thurston County, farmer’s markets,
community-supported agriculture (CSA’s), food co-ops, and on-site farmstands
are popular marketing strategies.

13

Thurston County contains significant agricultural lands and local farm
economy with farmland dispersed throughout the county on a variety of soil types
(J. R. Fisher, 2009). Agricultural production importance to the County’s
economy. The total market value of agricultural production in Thurston County is
about $118 million from 1,288 farms, with crops accounting for approximately
42% of the total and livestock and poultry the remaining 58% (Vilsack & Clark,
2007). Thurston County ranks third among Western Washington counties in
certified organic agricultural land and in value of direct-sales organic goods (J.
Fisher & Mitchell, 2009).
Nationally, over 23 million acres of agricultural land have been lost to
urbanization and development since 1982 (Vilsack & Clark, 2007). Thurston
County agriculture faces development pressures as the county population
continues to grow. Thurston County’s farmland is rapidly disappearing. Between
2002 and 2007, the acreage of actively farmed land has dropped nearly in half from 74,420 acres to 38,718 acres (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009). Since the mid1950s, when Thurston County was primarily farmland, the County has lost over
75 percent of its working agricultural lands (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009). A
farmland inventory of Thurston County conducted by the non-profit South of the
Sound Community Farm Land Trust (SSCFLT) estimates that Thurston County
loses approximately 2000 acres of agricultural land per year, with the remaining
farmland at risk of being developed (J. R. Fisher, 2009).

14

Farmland Preservation
Because metropolitan agriculture is expected to represent a more
sustainable form of farming, and can provide some habitat and facilitate matrix
connectivity, farmland in Thurston County should be preserved. A number of
farmland preservation strategies have been implemented in Thurston County.
These efforts include attributing Long-Term Agriculture zoning designations,
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), Purchase of Development Rights (PDR),
Right to Farm Laws, Conservation Easements, and recently the non-profit South
of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust has purchased farmland for the
express purpose of keeping that land in agriculture in perpetuity. A number of
goals can be achieved through the use of these preservation strategies, including
the prevention of sprawl, maintenance of agricultural production, support of the
agriculture economy, protection of environmental services, and the maintenance
of a diverse landscape that includes rural scenery. Some combination of these
strategies is likely to provide more protection than any one strategy could alone
(Hellerstein et al., 2002).
Since the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, Thurston
County has zoned approximately 11,887 acres as Long Term Agriculture (J.
Fisher & Mitchell, 2009). Zoning as a farmland protection strategy has a number
of advantages. Zoning can quickly provide temporary protection from
development until more permanent preservation strategies can be implemented.
Zoning can also protect large, contiguous blocks of farmland to protect the
agriculture industry from regional or parcel fragmentation. Regional
15

fragmentation can result in an insufficient market for farm support operations and
facilities. Parcel fragmentation can result in a checkerboard distribution of
farmland, which may cause difficulties for farmers trying to achieve an efficient
scale of operation (Brabec & Smith, 2002).
However, a number of important negatives exist for zoning as a farmland
preservation technique. Challenges to the constitutionality of zoning from
property rights groups and property owners is a possibility. The Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution states that private property shall not “be taken for public
use, without just compensation”. Supreme Court rulings have interpreted this to
include instances when zoning leaves a property owner with no economically
viable use of their property then they should be compensated (Duke & Lynch,
2006). Because of this, attempts to implement farmland protections through
zoning in areas most threatened by development are met with resistance from
property owners who could stand to gain financially by developing or selling to
developers. This represents a serious impediment to implementation as it can
create a contentious political atmosphere between elected officials and their
constituents (Lopez, Adelaja, & Andrews, 1988). In Thurston County, some
property owners being considered for Long-Term Agricultural zoning have
argued that development is the only economically viable option due to the rocky,
shallow nature of the soils (J. R. Fisher, 2009).
In areas outside of agricultural zoning but not in urban growth areas, large
lot zoning is prevalent. This type of zoning allows development at rates of 1
house per 3 to 20 acres. While much of the area under this zoning scheme retains

16

a rural feel, large lot zoning use is primarily residential, consumes more of the
landscape, and can lead to significant farmland loss (Heimlich & Anderson,
2001). Not only can farmland loss occur directly through conversion to residential
use in large lot zoned areas, but indirectly as well as the success of working farms
can be impacted negatively by the loss of agricultural support structures
(Sokolow, 2006). Even though large lot zoning eats up large swaths of land for
residential use, since 1994 the average size of large lot development has increased
from predominantly 2 to 10 acres to 10 to 22 acres (Mariola, 2005). This trend
represents an escalation of farmland and habitat loss. Large lot development is
inefficient for both developers and farmland and habitat preservation, and should
be avoided. Compact development in urban center and very low density zoning in
rural areas best assures both development efficiency and farmland preservation
(Heimlich & Anderson, 2001). The Growth Management Act has attempted to
address this by encouraging higher density development within city limits and
urban growth boundaries, while simultaneously discouraging further development
in more rural areas.
Another approach to farmland preservation where development pressure
poses a risk is to develop Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) programs. A TDR program functions by transferring
the development rights associated with a property meant to be protected from
development to another area more suitable for development. A county will set up
a TDR program by defining sending zones, those areas where property owners
may choose to make available their development rights, and receiving zones, or
17

those areas where developers can apply those transferred development rights to
achieve a higher density development.
Thurston County adopted a TDR ordinance for farmland preservation in
1995 that designated land zoned Long Term Agricultural as the sending area. Two
residential areas were designated as the receiving area (J. R. Fisher, 2009). As of
2008, 35 development rights had been made available by property owners and 14
had been purchased by developers. This resulted in 70 acres being protected by
the TDR program to that point (Thurston County Planning Commission, 2008).
In addition to the TDR program, Thurston County is considering reimplementation of a PDR program to help protect those areas outside of the Long
Term Agricultural zone. The PDR program in Thurston County lay dormant after
940 acres were protected in the mid 1990’s. In a PDR program, government or
non-profit organizations purchase development rights from a property owner. The
property then loses the ability to develop their land in the future. The value of the
development right is determined by subtracting the value of the land if sold for
development from the value of the land if sold for agricultural purposes.
A PDR program is often more effective than TDR because while desirable
farmland can be targeted for protection, participation by the land owner is entirely
voluntary. This helps avoid issues of uncompensated infringement on property
rights that zoning may involve, and it helps keep farmland affordable (J. R.
Fisher, 2009). The removal of development potential, which the property owners
is compensated for at the time of the development rights purchase, means future

18

sales of the property will be based on the agricultural value of the land only (Duke
& Lynch, 2006).
In addition to government initiatives to protect farmland, Thurston County
is home to the South of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust (SSCFLT). This
non-profit organization’s mission is to support Thurston County farmers, and to
permanently protect the County’s working farmland through a variety of means.
To support local farmers SSCFLT produces an annual map with contact
information for direct-sales farms to advertise in, they also own some farm
equipment that they have available for rent to local farmers at an affordable rate.
SSCFLT successfully protected their first farmland through the Community Farm
Land Trust model in 2013 with the collaborative purchase of the Scatter Creek
Farm and Conservancy in south Thurston County. In addition to the farmland
preservation organization SSCFLT, this farm is a collaboration between a local
farm (Kirsop Farm), a habitat conservation non-profit organization (The
Creekside Conservancy/Heernett Foundation), and another non-profit that serves
as a small-business incubator (Enterprise for Equity) that will help potential
farmers learn the business of farming. This multiple organization collaboratively
owned and operated farm represents a unique example of what a farm can be, and
should serve as a community asset economically, environmentally, and
educationally.

19

Evaluating Farm-Owner Conservation Attitudes and Actions
Because Thurston County is home to a number of species that have
recently been listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the County is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Many of the species of concern in Thurston County can occur on privately owned
lands. As the County continues to develop an HCP, information about the
potential cooperation of affected land-owners will be important for planners to
construct a balanced and effective plan.
For conservation planning to be effective, it must be based on information
derived from studies including the entire spectrum of land uses, from wilderness
areas to those where people live and work (Dale et al., 2000). Historically there
have been relatively few studies focused on settled areas, which indicates a gap in
knowledge for making recommendations on ways to mitigate the adverse effects
of development on native species (Miller & Hobbs, 2002). Recent research shows
that land-owner participation in environmental actions varies among a number of
demographic factors and motivations for action are often place-specific (Burton,
2014). Steg and Vlek, in their analysis of how best to encourage environmental
behavior, stress the importance of starting with a measurement of current
behaviors among the target population (Steg & Vlek, 2009). In chapter 2, I
combined the results and methods of previous research to develop a survey aimed
at revealing the conservation attitudes and actions of Thurston County Directsales farmers.

20

Sources Cited
American Farmland Trust. (2014). Retrieved May 31, 2014, from
http://www.farmland.org/
American Museum of Natural History. (1998). Biodiversity in the Next
Millennium. New York.
Brabec, E., & Smith, C. (2002). Agricultural land fragmentation: the spatial
effects of three land protection strategies in the eastern United States.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2–4), 255–268. doi:10.1016/S01692046(01)00225-0
Brussaard, L., Caron, P., Campbell, B., Lipper, L., Mainka, S., Rabbinge, R., …
Pulleman, M. (2010). Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food
security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 34–42.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.007
Burton, R. J. F. (2014). The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on
environmental behaviour: A review. Journal of Environmental
Management, 135, 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.005
Castillo, S. R., Winkle, C. R., Krauss, S., Turkewitz, A., Silva, C., & Heinemann,
E. S. (2013). Regulatory and other barriers to urban and peri-urban
agriculture: A case study of urban planners and urban farmers from the
greater Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems
& Community Development, 3(3), 155–166.
doi:10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.001
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., & Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent
and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global
biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 443–455.
Crawford, R. C., & Hall, H. (1997). Changes in the south Puget prairie landscape.
Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape.
The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA, 11–15.
Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R. A., Hobbs, N. T., Huntly, N., Naiman, R. J.,
… Valone, T. J. (2000). Ecological Principles and Guidelines for
Managing the use of Land. Ecological Applications, 10(3), 639–670.

21

Donald, P. F., & Evans, A. D. (2006). Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration:
the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 43(2), 209–218. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01146.x
Dudley, N., Baldock, D., Nasi, R., & Stolton, S. (2005). Measuring Biodiversity
and Sustainable Management in Forests and Agricultural Landscapes.
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 457–470.
Duke, J. M., & Lynch, L. (2006). Farmland Retention Techniques: Property
Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation. Land Economics, 82(2),
189–213. doi:10.3368/le.82.2.189
Fisher, J., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Thurston County Farmland Inventory. Retrieved
from http://www.communityfarmlandtrust.org/thurston-county-farmlandinventory.html
Fisher, J. R. (2009). Farmland preservation in Thurston County. The Evergreen
State College. Retrieved from
http://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Fisher
J%20MESThesis%202009.pdf
Gilpin, M. (1991). Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical
investigations. Academic Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xPtEY5N8agC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=gilpin+and+hanski&ots=zs_fASxulv&sig=ftv
sSL8VYGu0luYLdTK9JzIZjqg
Gliessman, S. R., & Rosemeyer, M. (2010). The conversion to sustainable
agriculture: principles, processes, and practices. CRC Press.
H. Ricketts, T. (2001). The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented
Landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1), 87–99.
doi:10.1086/an.2001.158.issue-1
Hails, C., Loh, J., & Humphrey, S. (2008). WWF: Living planet report 2008.
Aconda Verd WWF. ISBN.
Harvey, C. A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G., Finegan, B., Griffith, D.
M., … Wishnie, M. (2008). Integrating Agricultural Landscapes with
Biodiversity Conservation in the Mesoamerican Hotspot. Conservation
Biology, 22(1), 8–15. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x
Heimlich, R., & Anderson, W. (2001). Development at the Urban Fringe and
Beyond: Impacts on Agricultural and Rural Land (Agricultural Economic
Report No. 803) (p. 88). United States Department of Agriculture.
22

Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agriculturaleconomic-report/aer803.aspx#.UqEtF-K7bSk
Hellerstein, D. R., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Mullarkey,
D., … Barnard, C. (2002). Farmland protection: the role of public
preferences for rural amenities (Agricultural Economic Report No. 815).
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Washington,
DC. Retrieved from http://ers.usda.gov/media/458398/aer815_1_.pdf
Jules, E. S., & Shahani, P. (2003). A broader ecological context to habitat
fragmentation: Why matrix habitat is more important than we thought.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(3), 459–464.
Leopold, A. (1966). A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation
from Round River. Random House LLC.
Leopold, A. (1992). The River of the Mother of God: and other Essays by Aldo
Leopold. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Levins, R. (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental
heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the ESA, 15(3), 237–240.
Loarie, S. R., Duffy, P. B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., & Ackerly, D.
D. (2009). The velocity of climate change. Nature, 462(7276), 1052–1055.
doi:10.1038/nature08649
Lopez, R. A., Adelaja, A. O., & Andrews, M. S. (1988). The Effects of
Suburbanization on Agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 70(2), 346–358. doi:10.2307/1242075
Lubowski, R., Vesterby, M., Bucholtz, S., Baez, A., & Roberts, M. (2006). Major
Uses of Land in the United States (Economic Information Bulletin No.
EIB-14) (p. 54). USDA Economic Research Services. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-informationbulletin/eib14.aspx#.UwKBTIW9PSk
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton University Press.
Mariola, M. J. (2005). Losing ground: Farmland preservation, economic
utilitarianism, and the erosion of the agrarian ideal. Agriculture and
Human Values, 22(2), 209–223. doi:10.1007/s10460-004-8281-1
Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation Where People Live and Work.
Conservation Biology, 16(2), 330–337. doi:10.1046/j.15231739.2002.00420.x
23

O’Hara, S. U., & Stagl, S. (2001). Global Food Markets and Their Local
Alternatives: A Socio-Ecological Economic Perspective. Population &
Environment, 22(6), 533–554.
Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity.
Earthscan. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RdH6DRZY0KIC&oi=fnd
&pg=PR9&dq=biodiversity+economic+value&ots=7hahjmLRTP&sig=IO
2MpKyCJKLFac13xVqukStmoVQ
Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., Huang, R., Dwen, P., Flack, J., … Cliff,
B. (1997). Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity.
BioScience, 47(11), 747–757.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Global Biodiversity
Outlook 3. Montreal. Retrieved from www.cbd.int/GBO3
Sokolow, A. (2006). A national view of agricultural easement programs:
Easements and local planning (No. 3) (p. 88). American Farmland Trust.
Retrieved from
http://www.aftresearch.org/research/publications/detail.php?id=e2e10749f
40819bc96296ec77ac4e2eb
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
Thurston County Habitat Conservation Plan. (2014). Retrieved June 1, 2014, from
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/hcp/hcp-home.htm
Thurston County Planning Commission. (2008, July 2). Regular Meeting.
Retrieved from http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/perm
itting/planning%20commission/Minute s/2008/7-22008%20pc%20minutes.pdf
Tilman, D. (2001). Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental
Change. Science, 292(5515), 281 – 284.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). 2010 National Resources Inventory.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, and Center for
Survey Statistics and Methodology Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
U.S. EPA. (2000). National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress.
Environmental Protection Agency.

24

Vandermeer, J., & Carvajal, R. (2001). Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality
of the Matrix. The American Naturalist, 158(3), 211–220.
doi:10.1086/an.2001.158.issue-3
Vilsack, T., & Clark, C. Z. F. (2007). U.S. Census of Agriculture 2007. Retrieved
from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
Wiegand, T., Revilla, E., & Moloney, K. A. (2005). Effects of Habitat Loss and
Fragmentation on Population Dynamics. Conservation Biology, 19(1),
108–121. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00208.x
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998).
Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience,
48(8), 607–615. doi:10.2307/1313420

25

Chapter 2: The Value of Direct-Sales Farms to Habitat Conservation in
Thurston County, Washington

Introduction
A central question of agroecology is how to reconcile increasing demands
for food production with conservation of increasingly at-risk wildlife species and
the critical habitats they rely on, while maintaining the economic viability of
farms. Loss trends in active farmland and habitat for wildlife has spawned efforts
at multiple levels to address both issues. The recent resurgence of small, directsales farms may be an opportunity for farmland to be part of the answer to address
disappearing wildlife habitat if farm owners are willing to take certain actions.
This study is a preliminary attempt to infer the appropriateness of direct-sales
farms in Thurston County, Washington to accommodate wildlife on their private
operations through various habitat conservation and/or restoration actions.
The Earth is in the midst of an extinction crisis, with the rate of extinction
estimated to be between 1000 and 10000 times higher than the natural background
rate. Worldwide, habitat loss and degradation are recognized as the most
important causes of terrestrial biodiversity declines (Wilcove, Rothstein, Dubow,
Phillips, & Losos, 1998). Human land uses, including urbanization, industrialized
agriculture, and extractive industries all contribute to habitat loss and
fragmentation. Land use changes will continue to be the largest driver of
biodiversity loss over the next 100 years (Sala et al., 2000). With additional
pressures from climate change, remnant habitats and the ability of species to

26

move between them, are increasingly important (Cobben et al., 2012; Mantykapringle, Martin, & Rhodes, 2012).
Modern day conventional agriculture, typified by large monoculture crops
that often rely on chemical fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide inputs is regarded as
a major source of habitat loss (Maron & Fitzsimons, 2007). In fact, wordwide, the
clearing of habitat for conversion to agriculture has been identified as the largest
contributor to habitat loss from human activity. However, recent trends toward
small-scale, direct-sales farms, which market directly to consumers through
farmer’s markets, community-sponsored agricultural, or CSA’s, and on-site
farmstands, may open opportunities for integration of conservation efforts on
agricultural land. In addition to the practice of farming multiple crops in various
arrangements, which is shown to increase habitat and improve biodiversity
measures over monoculture systems (Donald & Evans, 2006), owners of directsales farms may be more inclined to participate in habitat conservation and
restoration efforts on their land than conventional agriculture farmers (O’Hara &
Stagl, 2001).
Direct-sales farms are part of an agricultural counter-movement
dissatisfied with many of the problems associated with conventional agriculture,
including reliance on large corporations for expertise that simultaneously is meant
to ensure reliability and efficiency while devaluing localized, “non-credentialed”
knowledge (O’Hara & Stagl, 2001). Industrialized agriculture relies on expert
recommendations that exist outside of place-specific contexts, serving to
disassociate farmers from localized cultural and environmental concerns. Small27

scale, direct-sales agriculture is a grass-roots effort to establish food systems that
value local agricultural knowledge, and serve to reintegrate local cultural and
environmental concerns. These farmers engage directly with their community
through establishment of food systems that are informed by, and in turn help
inform, the social norms of the local culture. Because of this dynamic,
environmental awareness and action may be more common on small family farms
with direct-sales marketing strategies. Some of that action takes the form of
habitat conservation and restoration programs. In the context of continued
suburban sprawl, which is a major contributor to habitat loss and high rates of
farm acreage loss, coordination of effort between organizations working to slow
the rapid loss of agricultural lands by supporting small-scale farmers, and habitat
conservation and restoration organizations, may be mutually beneficial.
For this research, I surveyed direct-sales farms in Thurston County,
Washington to address the following question: How much of an opportunity do
direct-sales farms represent to improve connectivity issues between remnant
habitat fragments? To answer the larger question, I addressed two sub-questions:
1)What types of conservation/restoration efforts are taking place already? 2)What
motivates farmers to undertake conservation/restoration efforts?
Habitat Fragmentation and the Matrix
Human population growth and settlement, and associated land use
changes, are associated with global scale habitat fragmentation, degradation, and
loss of most natural ecosystems (Sala et al., 2000; Wilcove et al., 1998).

28

Fragmentation and habitat loss have adverse effects on biodiversity, and are
recognized as the largest contributors to species’ population declines (Wilcove et
al., 1998). Habitat loss is fragmentation is the process by which larger swaths of a
continuous habitat become not only smaller, but portions of historic habitat range
also become disconnected from each other through the incursion of human land
uses. The negative effects of increased fragmentation include restricted gene flow,
reduced population sizes, changes in species demographics, and ultimately
increased extirpation risk (Wiegand, Revilla, & Moloney, 2005).
Two dominant paradigms inform the theoretical framework of fragmented
habitat research; island biogeography and metapopulation dynamics (Gilpin,
1991; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). Within this framework, landscapes are
typically split between habitat fragments and the space in between, or the
“matrix”. Historically, conservation biology and landscape ecology research often
focused on habitat fragments only, and the matrix treated as homogenous and not
important to the populations within the fragment. Because the study of habitat
fragmentation grew out of island biogeography, the matrix has been treated as
analogous to the ocean surrounding the island (H. Ricketts, 2001). As such,
connectivity measurements between remnant habitats have often been modeled as
a function of the distance between the fragments alone.
Terrestrial habitat fragments do not always act as oceanic islands, and the
matrix area does not uniformly inhibit connectivity. Different land uses in the
matrix affect species movement differently (Jules & Shahani, 2003). Therefore,
effective isolation of a habitat fragment will vary depending on the suitability of
29

the matrix as a pathway between habitat fragments and distance (H. Ricketts,
2001). Matrix quality is an important determinant of population dynamics and
community processes in fragmented landscapes (Jules & Shahani, 2003;
Vandermeer & Carvajal, 2001; Wiegand et al., 2005). As matrix quality increases,
so too does connectivity between patches of habitat. The ecological quality of the
surrounding matrix can be a major determinant of biodiversity dynamics within
habitat fragments (Jules & Shahani, 2003). Additionally, beyond serving as
merely a pathway between habitats, the matrix itself can be an important source of
habitat (Harvey et al., 2008).
Matrix quality can vary not only between land uses, but within categories
of land use as well. For instance, not all agriculture is the same. More intensive
forms of agriculture are shown to represent a degradation of matrix quality
(Donald & Evans, 2006; Harvey et al., 2008; Maron & Fitzsimons, 2007).
Additionally, matrix quality will be different for different species. In the
matrix/habitat paradigm, matrix is the space species must cross to migrate
between habitat fragments. Since different species move differently, and require
different landscape characteristics for successful migration, evaluation of matrix
quality will vary dependent on the species in question (Prevedello & Vieira,
2010).
My research is informed by this basic understanding of variable matrix
quality. If matrix quality is understood to be variable, and certain actions and
management decisions people make within the matrix affect matrix quality, the
basic question at issue is “Which land uses represent the best opportunity for in-

30

matrix conservation and restoration work”? I focus this research on direct-sales
agriculture in Thurston County for a number of reasons. First, agriculture is one
human endeavor at the nexus of human-nature interaction, how we farm says a lot
about how we value the environment. Direct-sales farms, by the very nature of
their business model and marketing strategies, are more directly accountable to,
and often better reflect, local cultural assumptions (Horrigan, Lawrence, &
Walker, 2002; O’Hara & Stagl, 2001). Third, Thurston County may continue to
experience loss of agricultural lands to development due to human population
growth and economic expansion (J. R. Fisher, 2009), so identifying the degree to
which our farms contribute to county and state conservation efforts may in turn
lead to decisions that further protect farmlands. And finally, many threatened and
endangered species occur on private lands and working with landowners,
particularly farmers, is an opportunity to expand protection efforts and include
more stakeholders in species and habitat conservation (Wilcove and Lee 2004).
Study Area and Methods
Thurston County
To understand the potential and current activities of direct-sales farms to
provide wildlife habitat, this study surveyed farmers and ranchers in Thurston
County, Washington State. Thurston County is a metropolitan county located at
the southern tip of the Puget Sound, in Western Washington. The state capital,
Olympia, in the northern portion of Thurston County is also the southern edge of
the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia metropolitan area along the I-5 corridor. Agriculture
in Thurston county, as in many metropolitan counties, is comprised of generally
31

smaller farms integrated in a diverse landscape among other land uses, including
some farms within city limits (Castillo et al., 2013; J. R. Fisher, 2009).
Agriculture in metropolitan areas often lacks the ability to achieve
economy of scale sufficient to compete with large-scale conventional farms due to
the smaller size of producers and a relative lack of processing facilities.
Alternative marketing strategies and production of high-value, value-added, or
specialty crops help metropolitan agriculture remain economically viable
(Heimlich & Anderson, 2001). In Thurston County, farmer’s markets,
community-supported agriculture (CSA’s), food co-ops, and on-site farmstands
are popular marketing strategies.
Thurston County contains significant agricultural lands and local farm
economy with farmland dispersed throughout the county on a variety of soil types
(J. R. Fisher, 2009). Thurston County ranks third among Western Washington
counties in certified organic agricultural land and in value of direct-sales organic
goods (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009). In 2007, Thurston County’s farms generated
an estimated $117 million in market value sales (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009).
Additionally, an estimated 50% of Thurston County agricultural land either
contains or is adjacent to wildlife habitat (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009).
Nationally, over 23 million acres of agricultural land have been lost to
urbanization and development since 1982 (Vilsack & Clark, 2007). Thurston
County agriculture faces development pressures as the county population
continues to grow. A farmland inventory of Thurston County conducted by the

32

non-profit South of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust (SSCFLT) estimates
that Thurston County loses approximately 2000 acres of agricultural land per
year, with the remaining farmland at risk of being developed (J. R. Fisher, 2009).
This trend of declining agricultural land due to urbanization mirrors in
some ways the decline in important habitat area. As with habitat conservation
efforts, a number of government and non-government entities have organized to
preserve farmland at the national, regional, state, and local levels. While the
motivation for these efforts vary among involved entities, many point to the
cultural and economic importance of active farmlands. But also, because of the
proximity of wildlife habitat and agricultural lands, there exists the potential for
farm owners to participate in conservation programs to maintain that habitat. This
situation indicates county preservation strategies should be beneficial to both
farmland and habitat for fish and other wildlife.
Methods
To infer the fitness of direct-sales farms as key to a more wildlife friendly
matrix, the survey assesses farm owners’ concern for the environment in general,
the likelihood they would participate in specific actions to improve or preserve
habitat, and actions they already undertake. Respondents also identified how long
they have been farming, whether or not farming was their primary occupation,
whether they considered their farm to be important as habitat for wildlife, and
whether they would consider partnering with non-profits to further enhance or
preserve habitat on their property.

33

The survey was sent to 37 farms identified as meeting the selection
criteria. Of these 37, 21 advertise primarily vegetable products, while 16 dealt
primarily in animal products including meat, dairy, eggs and fiber. A total of 21
participants completed the survey in March and April of 2014. This represented a
57% response rate. Response rates by farm type equaled 62% (n=13) of vegetable
farms and 50% (n=8) of animal farms. Survey participants were owners or
primary operators of farms in Thurston County listed in the 2013 Direct-Sales
Farm Directory produced by South of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust.
This population was selected to target farms actively pursuing a direct-sales
marketing strategy in Thurston County. Farms listed on the Thurston County
Direct-Sales Farm Map but not physically located within the county were
excluded. Surveys were created and managed through the web service Survey
Monkey (“SurveyMonkey,” 2014). The survey was sent four times via email
addresses and calls were made to farms to increase the response rate.
The survey included 12 questions, with the last one being an opportunity
for open comments. Initial questions were short answer questions. Questions 1
and 2 established the farmer’s experience and the longevity of their current farm
in years. Question 3 determined if the respondent considered farming their
primary occupation. Questions 4 and 5 asked respondents to characterize whether
or not they considered their farmland as important wildlife habitat and what types
of actions they do to maintain or enhance habitat on their property. Questions 6
and 7 asked respondents to rate on a Likert scale their level of concern for the
environment in general, and preservation of wildlife species, respectively.
34

Question 8 asked respondents to select from categories that they felt were most
responsible to address environmental issues from the individual to various levels
of government or non-profit organizations. Question 9 asked respondents to rate
their likelihood to participate on a scale that included; Unlikely, Unsure, Willing,
Likely, Already do, Not Applicable, in the following series of actions; Avoid
habitat destruction, Install nesting boxes for birds/bats, Install grassland/prairie
habitat, Install wooded or forested areas, Improve riparian areas with native
plants, include cover crops, and Limit application of pesticide and herbicide.
Question 10 respondents were asked to rate the level of threat from Unlikely,
Small, Moderate, Large, or Very Large the following categories of potential
threats; Loss of Farmland, Urbanization and Development, Pesticides and
herbicides, Monoculture cropping, Lack of conservation on private property, or
Lack of priority/efficiency by government agencies. Question 11 asks how likely
respondents would be to partner with conservation organizations to better protect
or enhance habitat on their farm. Question 12 was an open comment section for
respondents to add anything they felt relevant to the issue.
Analysis
The main purpose of the analysis was to identify subcategories within the
respondent population that could be better leveraged for conservation actions and
to identify the most appropriate categories of farm owners to target for
conservation action in the matrix. To accomplish this farm respondents were
categorized by products sold (vegetables or animal products), level of experience
farming, length of time farm had been in business, and size of farm in acreage.
35

Each of these various categorizations were compared to responses about
willingness to take certain actions, who is responsible for addressing
environmental problems, and likelihood to partner with conservation
organizations using chi-square, t-tests, one-way Anova, and logistic regression
analyses using JMP11 statistical analysis software (JMP, 2014). Open ended
responses were analyzed using NVivo10 qualitative data analysis software
(NVivo, 2014) to identify recurrent and central themes in the responses.
Results
Preliminary questions sought to establish the level of experience of the
farmer and the longevity of the current farm. Farmers average reported experience
was 18.55 years, with no significant difference (p = .9910) between farmers
growing vegetables (mean = 18.58 years +/- s.d. = 20.51) vs those in animal
husbandry (mean = 18.50 +/- s.d. = 11.86). As expected, some farmers had more
experience than on their current farm, and some had much less experience
compared to farm existence and may have inherited a long-standing family farm
operation. The average length of farm existence among all respondents was 28.9
years, with an average for vegetable farms equaling 13.33 (+/- s.d. = 11.82) years
and animal operations 52.25 (+/- s.d. = 64.40). This result was statistically
significant with a p-value of 0.05, however this difference may have been due in
large part to the presence of two beef farms in operation in excess of 150 years.
While there were few statistical differences between sub-categories of
respondents for most other measures, the results do paint a picture of a population

36

of land/business owners that are concerned about the environment and possess a
high level of commitment to taking action to address those concerns. The average
reported level of concern for the environment on a Likert scale, 10 being the most
concerned, was 9.05 (+/- s.d. = 0.37). Concern for wildlife specifically was only
slightly lower but still high with a mean of 8.42 (+/- s.d. = 1.42). In both measures
there were no significant differences between farm type (vegetable or animal). A
majority of Thurston County farm respondents report that they are already
engaging in most of the listed conservation actions in the survey, and a majority
of those not yet taking those actions responded that they were either likely or
willing to do so for all but two categories (Table 2.1). In addition to the high rates
of participation in specific actions, a majority of farms are already partnering with
conservation organizations or are willing to do so (Table 2.2).

37

Table 2.1 Responses from Thurston County direct-sales farms regarding their
likelihood to participate in specified conservation actions to enhance wildlife habitat
on their farm.

Already
Doing

Likely or Willing

Unsure,
Unwilling, or N/A

Limit herbicide/pesticide

90.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Include cover crops

52.2%

30.4%

17.4%

Improve riparian areas

52.4%

38.1%

9.5%

Plant or restore forest

52.4%

23.8%

23.8%

Plant or restore prairie

52.4%

14.3%

33.3%

Install bird/bat boxes

47.6%

47.6%

4.8%

Avoid habitat destruction

81.0%

19.0%

0.0%

Conservation Action

Table 2.2 Responses from Thurston County direct-sales farms regarding their
likelihood to partner with conservation organizations to enhance wildlife habitat on
their farm.

Already Do

Likely

Willing

Not Sure

Not Willing

61.9%

33.3%

4.8%

0%

0%

38

Quantitative analysis of responses to an open-ended question asking
respondents to identify specific habitat conservation actions taken on their farm
revealed a wide range of actions (Figure 2.1). The most common response, with
half of respondents, was maintenance of forested or wooded sections of their
property. The second most common response regarded water quality
considerations, including references to riparian buffer zones and wetland
enhancement actions. This result is particularly interesting, as it should be
expected that not all farms would have rivers or wetlands on their property. Over
25% of respondents referenced organic and pesticide free farming methods.
Incorporation of beneficial plants and hedgerows was also referenced by 25% of
respondents. Some respondents elaborated that these plants and hedgerows are for
the purpose of attracting beneficial insects and providing pollinator habitat. An
interesting result was that a quarter of all respondents referenced fencing
considerations, choosing to use fencing to keep specific species, like deer and
pocket gophers, out of key areas while leaving other areas of their farms
accessible. Other common themes were participation in conservation easements or
other program (20%), installation of bird or bee feeders and houses (20%),
composting and recycling practices (15%), incorporation of brush piles for
beneficial insect habitat (15%), and minimal or responsible logging practices
(10%).

39

Figure 2.1 – Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses to a question
asking respondents to detail specific conservation actions they are already
taking on their farms. Responses grouped by common themes to reveal the
most often referenced practice.

Conservation Actions
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Regarding perceptions of whom is most responsible for addressing
environmental issues; respondents were most likely to select Self/Individuals
(44%). The second most common answer was that a combination of federal, state,
and local governments, non-profit organizations, and individuals are most
responsible (28%). Local government (12%), State government (8%), Federal
Government (4%), and Non-profits (4%) were less likely to be selected. While the
results failed to show statistical significance (χ² = 2.823, p = 0.727), in an analysis
of response by farm type, animal husbandry farms tended to favor individual

40

responsibility to a greater degree (60%) than primarily vegetable farms (33.3%)
(Figure 2.2).
Perceptions of Threat to Wildlife
Combined categories of Loss of farmland, urbanization and development
were consider the highest threats to wildlife habitat in Thurston County with
90.5% of respondents rating the threat as “Very Large” or “Large”. Alone,
farmland loss was perceived as the slightly higher threat with 76.2% of
respondents rating it as a “Very Large” threat and 14.3% as “Large” compared to
urbanization and development which rated almost as threatening (71.4% Very
Large and 19.1% Large). Pesticide and herbicide use was also ranked as a highly
threatening practice with 71.5% selecting it as a Very Large or Large threat,
19.1% as a Moderate threat, and 9.5 % as a Small or Unlikely threat. Monoculture
cropping, lack of government priority or action, and lack of conservation on
private property were the least threatening options with similar rankings of 45 –
60% Very Large to Large, 30 – 40% Moderate, and 10 – 15% Small to Unlikely
threats (Figure 2.3).

41

Figure 2.2

Responsibility by Farm Type

Animals Husbandry

20%

Vegetables

60%

33.3%

0%

10%

10%

33.3%

20%

30%

40%

10%

6.7%6.7% 13.3% 6.7%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

All of the above

Self/Individuals

Federal Government

State Government

Local Government

Non-Profits

Figure 2.3

Perceived Threats to Habitat
Farmland loss

76%

Urbanization/development

71%

Pesticides/Herbicides
Monoculture cropping

14% 10%

43%
10%

29%

35%

Lack of gov't action/priority

20%

Lack of conservation on private property

19%

19%

10%

19%

9%

40%

30%

15%

35%

38%

15%

33%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Very Large

Large

Moderate

Small/Unlikely

42

Discussion
The results of the survey from this research reveal a high level of
dedication to wildlife habitat preservation by direct-sales farmers in Thurston
County, Washington. All participants in this study indicate high levels of concern
for the environment. A large majority feel that individuals, or a combination of
individuals with various levels of government and non-profit organizations, are
responsible for taking action to address these concerns. Moreover, respondents are
able to specify actions they are currently taking, and actions they would be willing
to take, to integrate habitat conservation and restoration on their property as part
of their commitment to farming sustainably. The survey participants’ levels of
concern and conservation action reported here supports previous research that
indicates small-scale, direct-sales farms are grounded in locally relevant cultural
knowledge that values the environment.
Overall results regarding willingness to take part in specific conservation
actions were better than expected. One expected difference can be seen if the
listed conservation actions are split between passive actions, like limiting
pesticide/herbicide applications or avoiding habitat destruction, vs more active
forms of conservation such as planting or restoring forest and prairie habitats,
improving riparian areas, and installing nest boxes for birds and bats. Expectedly,
vegetable farmers were more likely than livestock to incorporate cover crops (χ² =
10.28, p = 0.02). 83.3% of vegetable farms reported incorporating cover crops.
Cover crops are important to protect bare soil, especially post crop harvest.
Additionally they provide habitat and food for insects and small animals. Grazing
43

operations often utilize other methods, like rotating livestock through different
pastures, to ensure soil is not bared.
Citizens and county government of Thurston County show a commitment
to preservation of both wildlife habitat and working agricultural land. Thurston
County is home to a number conservation organizations and government
initiatives that work either to preserve farmlands or habitat. Some prominent
conservation organizations already engaging in conservation activites on private
farmland in Thurston County are The Nature Conservancy/Center for Natural
Lands Management, Creekside Conservancy/Heernett Foundation, The Thurston
Conservation District, South of the Sound Community Farm Land Trust,
Washington Tilth Producers, and Salmon Safe.
Thurston County continues to apply considerable ongoing effort to
balance environmental conservation goals with farmland preservation, economic
viability, and accommodation of growth and development in an equitable manner.
Since the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, Thurston County
has zoned approximately 11,887 acres as Long Term Agriculture (J. Fisher &
Mitchell, 2009). They have also commissioned studies to detail the feasibility of
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and have an ongoing Transfer of
Development Rights program. Promotion of agritourism, or any activity that
brings visitors to a farm or ranch, is key to facilitating economic viability of
metropolitan farms, helping to ensure their longevity, while contributing to a
deeper connection between populations and their local farmers (Mariola, 2005).
Thurston County established an Agritourism Overlay District in 2012, and the
44

Thurston County Bountiful Byway scenic route through the agritourism district in
2014.
Given the ongoing development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by
Thurston County as a result of the recent listing as threatened or endangered by
the USFWS of a number of south sound species, the investment in farmland
preservation by the county may pay off in cooperative land owner participation,
according to my research. However, a number of factors need to be considered or
studied further for successful HCP development and implementation. Research
shows that Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of certain species, and the
effect of that listing on the ability of farmers to effectively operate on their land,
sometimes creates an atmosphere of distrust, contention, and even backlash
against the species targeted for protection (Steg & Vlek, 2009).
Thurston County’s direct-sales farms have already taken concrete steps to
administer their lands responsibly for habitat and species preservation in a number
of ways. Government agencies and planners may rightly question whether
conservation actions on private property are planned, implemented, and executed
appropriately for target species of concern. These concerns should be allayed by
the high level of collaboration with conservation organizations. Additionally,
survey respondents mentioned participating in voluntary conservation programs
like the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Conservation Enhancement
Reserve Program (CREP), receipt of conservation grants from USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) to specifically accommodate Mazama
Pocket Gopher populations, and desire for participation in Purchase of
45

Development Rights (PDR) programs. Given the risk of alienation of a concerned,
engaged, and cooperative demographic, information about the environmental
attitudes and actions of land-owners, and farmers in particular, is critically
important for effective HCP planning and ESA species protection.
Conclusion
Thurston County direct-sales farms both reflect, and help shape, the values
of their community. My research indicates that these farms ought to be preserved
not only for their significant contribution to the local economy and their central
role in maintaining an agrarian identity that values local knowledge, but also their
serious commitment to environmental justice and habitat conservation. Directsales farm owners show a deep level of environmental concern, a willingness to
initiate action, and collaborate with conservation organizations. This land-owner
demographic should be considered a valuable asset to many of Thurston County’s
goals in the near and long-term future.
While my research did not reveal many statistically significant differences
between the various subcategories of the respondent pool, this indicates that
direct-sales farms as a group are equally committed to habitat conservation and
environmental goals, regardless of farm type, size, experience of the farmer, or
longevity of the farm. This supports research that concludes localized food
systems focus farmers on place-specific environmental and social norms (O’Hara
& Stagl, 2001).

46

Literature Cited

Castillo, S. R., Winkle, C. R., Krauss, S., Turkewitz, A., Silva, C., & Heinemann,
E. S. (2013). Regulatory and other barriers to urban and peri-urban
agriculture: A case study of urban planners and urban farmers from the
greater Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems
& Community Development, 3(3), 155–166.
doi:10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.001
Cobben, M. M. P., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., Hoekstra, R. F., Jochem, R., &
Smulders, M. J. M. (2012). Wrong place, wrong time: climate changeinduced range shift across fragmented habitat causes maladaptation and
declined population size in a modelled bird species. Global Change
Biology, 18(8), 2419–2428. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02711.x
Donald, P. F., & Evans, A. D. (2006). Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration:
the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 43(2), 209–218. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01146.x
Fisher, J., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Thurston County Farmland Inventory. Retrieved
from http://www.communityfarmlandtrust.org/thurston-county-farmlandinventory.html
Fisher, J. R. (2009). Farmland preservation in Thurston County. The Evergreen
State College. Retrieved from
http://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Fisher
J%20MESThesis%202009.pdf
Gilpin, M. (1991). Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical
investigations. Academic Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xPtEY5N8agC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=gilpin+and+hanski&ots=zs_fASxulv&sig=ftv
sSL8VYGu0luYLdTK9JzIZjqg
H. Ricketts, T. (2001). The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented
Landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1), 87–99.
doi:10.1086/an.2001.158.issue-1
Harvey, C. A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G., Finegan, B., Griffith, D.
M., … Wishnie, M. (2008). Integrating Agricultural Landscapes with
Biodiversity Conservation in the Mesoamerican Hotspot. Conservation
Biology, 22(1), 8–15. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x

47

Heimlich, R., & Anderson, W. (2001). Development at the Urban Fringe and
Beyond: Impacts on Agricultural and Rural Land (Agricultural Economic
Report No. 803) (p. 88). United States Department of Agriculture.
Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agriculturaleconomic-report/aer803.aspx#.UqEtF-K7bSk
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How Sustainable Agriculture
Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial
Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445–456.
JMP (Version 11). (2014). SAS. Retrieved from http://www.jmp.com/
Jules, E. S., & Shahani, P. (2003). A broader ecological context to habitat
fragmentation: Why matrix habitat is more important than we thought.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(3), 459–464.
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton University Press.
Mantyka-pringle, C. S., Martin, T. G., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). Interactions
between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 18(4), 1239–1252.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x
Mariola, M. J. (2005). Losing ground: Farmland preservation, economic
utilitarianism, and the erosion of the agrarian ideal. Agriculture and
Human Values, 22(2), 209–223. doi:10.1007/s10460-004-8281-1
Maron, M., & Fitzsimons, J. A. (2007). Agricultural intensification and loss of
matrix habitat over 23 years in the West Wimmera, south-eastern
Australia. Biological Conservation, 135(4), 587–593.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.051
NVivo (Version 10). (2014). QSR International. Retrieved from
http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx
O’Hara, S. U., & Stagl, S. (2001). Global Food Markets and Their Local
Alternatives: A Socio-Ecological Economic Perspective. Population &
Environment, 22(6), 533–554.
Prevedello, J. A., & Vieira, M. V. (2010). Does the type of matrix matter? A
quantitative review of the evidence. Biodiversity & Conservation, 19(5),
1205–1223. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9750-z
Sala, O. E., Chapin, F. S., Armesto, J. J., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., HuberSanwald, E., … Wall, D. H. (2000). Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the
48

Year 2100. Science, 287(5459), 1770–1774.
doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
SurveyMonkey. (2014). Retrieved May 18, 2014, from
https://www.surveymonkey.com/
Vandermeer, J., & Carvajal, R. (2001). Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality
of the Matrix. The American Naturalist, 158(3), 211–220.
doi:10.1086/an.2001.158.issue-3
Vilsack, T., & Clark, C. Z. F. (2007). U.S. Census of Agriculture 2007. Retrieved
from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
Wiegand, T., Revilla, E., & Moloney, K. A. (2005). Effects of Habitat Loss and
Fragmentation on Population Dynamics. Conservation Biology, 19(1),
108–121. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00208.x
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998).
Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience,
48(8), 607–615. doi:10.2307/1313420

49

Chapter 3: Research Significance and Future Directions
Interdisciplinarity
Agriculture stands at the nexus of human-nature interactions. The way we
farm reveals something about the way we value nature. And our environmental
values should inform our food productions system. My thesis explored the
conservation attitudes and actions of direct-sales farmers in Thurston County,
Washington. This research project is applicable to those concerned about habitat
conservation, sustainable agriculture, local economies, and land-use planning.
Chapter One reviewed the academic literature from a number of disciplines
pertaining to the need for the integration of habitats and human land use. Research
from biology detailed the seriousness of the current biodiversity loss rate.
Conservation biology and landscape ecology detailed the patch/matrix landscape
model. Research in these fields dealing with spatially represented species and
biotic communities revealed how important matrix quality is to in-habitat
population metrics and connectivity between remnant habitat patches. These
findings led me to search for a particular land-owner demographic to study
conservation attitudes and actions.
Research from agroecology and economics indicates that farmers
operating in metropolitan and peri-urban areas are often smaller and may be more
likely to utilize a direct-sales marketing model, often as a conscious effort to serve
as an alternative to global food productions systems. Borrowing from
environmental psychology and economics, agroecologists also predicted direct-

50

sales farmers would be more strongly tied to the culture of their consumers, are
more apt to value local knowledge, social justice, and the environment. As a result
of this multi-disciplinary literature, I concluded an evaluation of environmental
values and actions among Thurston County’s direct-sales farmers was warranted.
Further Research
A number of opportunities exist to build upon the results of my research.
Thurston County is home to a number of species of concern that rely on particular
habitats to survive. My research revealed local farm owners are conservation
minded, and should be considered a key land-owner demographic for habitat
conservation/farmland preservation initiatives and organizations. However, my
research failed to find statistical differences among the sample population that
would allow a prioritization of conservation action based on the factors I
measured. A spatial analysis could allow a tailored conservation approach
according to adjacent or proximal habitat to farm locations. Spatial analysis of
Thurston County’s farmland already exists (J. Fisher & Mitchell, 2009; J. R.
Fisher, 2009), as does spatial analysis of the County’s historic prairie (Crawford
& Hall, 1997). Thurston county farmland and historic prairie do coincide, an
exploration of the degree to which this occurs, in addition to wetlands, salmonidbearing streams, and other critical habitat areas would be beneficial. This analysis
would help to prioritize conservation projects on private property, and assist
government agencies, planners, and non-profit organizations to better allocate
resources to achieve conservation objectives.

51

Any discussion of conservation would be incomplete without the mention
of climate change. Temporal analysis incorporating climate change, in addition to
spatial data, would aid conservation planning efforts going forward into the
future. Research suggests species ranges will shift and biotic community
composition may change (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Opdam & Wascher, 2004).
These factors, in concert with degraded and fragmented habitat, will pose
increased extirpation risks for many species. One way to mitigate the climate
change risks to species is to facilitate connectivity between habitats. A spatial
analysis combined with temporal climate change data could facilitate county and
statewide spatial landscape level conservation planning.
While my research shows Thurston County farmers to be environmentally
aware, engaged, and active, the results also showed a population concerned about
farmland loss and continued economic viability in the face of development
pressures and stringent environmental regulations. The recent listing of Thurston
County species as federally threatened or endangered brings this particular aspect
to the fore of County planning efforts. As Thurston County develops its Habitat
Conservation Plan to enforce these ESA regulations on the County’s residents,
further research on the economic impact of these listings should be conducted.
This study’s results show this land owner demographic to be highly concerned
and open to collaborative conservation actions. Thurston County should consider
this segment of private land owners an asset to ESA implementation and look for
ways to achieve an integrated species and farmland preservation approach. The
County cannot rely on these land owners cooperation if they are no longer
52

economically viable enough to continue owning the land. ESA implementation
through the HCP should proceed with this in mind.
My research integrated two problems, habitat conservation and farmland
preservation, and attempted to identify one particular form of human activity that
may address both. This research may fall under the broad heading of “sustainable
agriculture”, but to understand what a sustainable form of agriculture looks like
requires integration of multiple fields of research. Because sustainability is itself a
concept defined by multiple disciplines, including economics, ecology, social
justice, and policy, research about the sustainability of anything is often
necessarily multi- or interdisciplinary. My particular research focused primarily
on agriculture that utilizes a specific marketing strategy, direct to consumer sales,
and so operates within a particular set of economic constraints. Because of the
direct-sales marketing strategy, which operates in contrast to the industrial food
system that severs cultural and environmental ties in favor of efficiency, I
assumed the subjects of my research would be likely to have social and
environmental concerns that may manifest in actions that have to be balanced
against the economic viability of the business, and more broadly the preservation
of farmland in Thurston County. Necessarily then, my research integrated
ecological concerns with economic ones in an attempt to inform policies and
actions that serve to benefit the agendas of conservationists and farmland
preservation efforts through mutual collaboration on our county’s direct-sales
farms.

53

My research results confirmed my assumptions, and should serve to place
direct-sales farms as a focal point of collaborative habitat conservation and
farmland preservation efforts in Thurston County. There exists a number of
complicating factors, including newly listed threatened and endangered species
under the ESA, farmland remains under threat of development in many places,
and as always a limited amount of resources with which to balance many
objectives. However, with considerable government interest, the presence of
multiple conservation and farmland preservation non-profits, a vibrant direct-sales
economy, and as my research shows, an environmentally concerned population of
farm owners willing to take responsibility and enact effective, collaborative
conservation action on their properties, Thurston County is well positioned to
succeed in expanding synergistic efforts to achieve a variety of stated goals.

54

Literature Cited
Crawford, R. C., & Hall, H. (1997). Changes in the south Puget prairie landscape.
Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape.
The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA, 11–15.
Fisher, J., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Thurston County Farmland Inventory. Retrieved
from http://www.communityfarmlandtrust.org/thurston-county-farmlandinventory.html
Fisher, J. R. (2009). Farmland preservation in Thurston County. The Evergreen
State College. Retrieved from
http://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Fisher
J%20MESThesis%202009.pdf
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of
climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological
Conservation, 142(1), 14–32.
Opdam, P., & Wascher, D. (2004). Climate change meets habitat fragmentation:
linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and
conservation. Biological Conservation, 117(3), 285–297.

55

Appendices
Survey Questions
1. How long have you been farming?

2. How long has your current farm been in business?

3. Is farming your primary occupation?

4. Do you think of your farm as important habitat for wildlife?

5. Are there actions you take specifically to enhance or protect wildlife
habitat on your farm? If so, what are they?

6. Please rate on a scale from 1-10, how concerned are you about the
environment?
1 (least
concerned)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 (most
concerned)

7. Please rate on a scale from 1-10, how concerned are you about the
preservation of wildlife species?
1 (least
concerned)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 (most
concerned)

8. Who do you believe is most responsible to address environmental
issues?
□
□
□
□
□
□

Self/Individual
Local/City/County Government
State Government
Federal Government Agencies
Non-Profit Organizations
All of the above

56

9. Do you already, or would you consider, incorporating the following
habitat conservations actions?
Unlikely

Not
Sure

Willing

Likely

Already
Do

N/A

Avoid habitat
destruction
Install nest boxes
for birds/bats
Introduce
grassland/prairie
habitat
Install wooded or
forested areas
Improve riparian
areas
Include cover crops
limit application of
herbicides/pesticides

10. How large of a threat do you consider the following to wildlife habitat
in Thurston County?
Unlikely

Small

Moderate

Large

Very
Large

Farmland loss
Urbanization and
development
Pesticides and
Herbicides
Monoculture
cropping
Lack of
conservation on
private property
Lack of priority or
efficiency by
government
agencies

57

11. How likely would you be to partner with conservation organizations
to enhance or preserve habitat on your farm?
□
□
□
□
□

Already do
Likely
Willing
Depends
Unlikely

12. Is there anything else you would like to address regarding this issue?

58

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Mounts_CMESthesis2014.pdf