1

Building Bridges:

Community, Agriculture and the Environment

2004 Agricultural and Environmental Stewardship Survey

Results Report

Langley Environmental Partners Society

Prepared by Elaine Anderson, P. Ag.


Preface

This survey was made possible through the support of:

Agriculture Environment Partnership Initiative

Township of Langley Planning, Development & Stewardship Division

Langley Agricultural Advisory Committee

The survey was designed and analysed by Elaine Anderson(P.Ag.) with the assistance of the Langley Agricultural Advisory Committee. The project was overseen by Nichole Marples (Acting Executive Director, LEPS).

Special thanks to Greg Simmons for his diligence in developing the project proposal. Thanks also to the YEAH Crew, Melissa, Jerry and Nichole for helping to send out the survey and process the data.

This report is also available on-line at and

© Langley Environmental Partners Society

4700- 224 Street

LangleyBritish Columbia V3A 3Z8

March 2005

Table of Contents

1.0Introduction

1.1Background

1.2Purpose

2.0Project Description

2.1Context

2.2Process

3.0Sampling Method

4.0Results

5.0Discussion and Recommendations

5.1 Farming status

5.2 Diversity

5.3Likes and dislikes

5.4Stewardship

5.5Environmental Farm Plan Program

5.6Environmental issues

5.7Langley Sustainable Agriculture Network (LSAN)

6.0 Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix 1

1.0Introduction

This report outlines the background, purpose, method, and results of the “Building Bridges: Community, Agriculture, and the Environment” survey (BBCAE) conducted by the Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS) in the Township of Langley in 2004.

1.1Background

LEPS is a non-profit, partnership-driven organization which was founded in 1993 to achieve the mission of protecting and restoring the natural environment through education, cooperation and action.

Over the course of its ten year history, LEPS has worked extensively with the agricultural community of the Township of Langley to enhance environmental stewardship and foster sustainable agriculture. Through the course of LEPS’ work, they have recognized the need to move beyond an anecdotal understanding of agricultural practices and issues and undertake a more formal assessment of the status of agricultural stewardship in the community.

For the purposes of this report environmental stewardship is defined as:voluntarily carrying out activities that help to protect and conserve our natural resources (such as soil, water, plants, fish and wildlife); and agricultural stewardship is defined as:voluntarily carrying out activities on farms that help to protect and conserve our natural resources (such as soil, water, plants, fish and wildlife) while continuing to produce agricultural products.

This project will provide baseline data on agricultural and environmental issues and other issues identified by farmers and non-farmers. The project will provide information useful to the development of community-based processes to foster sustainable agriculture and resolve agricultural and environmental issues. It will complement LEPS’ work to develop a small lot sustainable agriculture network ( that will enable farmers to share information, problem-solve, combine resources and capital, and overcome limitations of infrastructure. The results will also assist LEPS in determining whether farmers are interested in receiving assistance from LEPS with on-farm agricultural stewardship work.

1.2Purpose

This survey was conducted by LEPS in 2004. The objectivesof the survey were to:

  • Gather baseline data from Langley Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) residents regarding their understanding of, and participation in, agricultural or environmental stewardship
  • Identify real or perceived environmental issues between agricultural and non-agricultural residents in the ALR
  • Identify potential community based processes for addressing these issues
  • Reduce conflict between agricultural and environmental interests by facilitating informed and reasoned resolution
  • Increase public awareness and support for local environmentally friendly agriculture
  • Identify residents willing to lease unused farmland

The survey provides information on the interest and involvement in environmental and agricultural stewardship in the Township of Langley. The survey results will be used by LEPS to create long term strategic plans for environmental and agricultural stewardship in Langley.

2.0Project Description

2.1Context

This section outlines the project scope and context.

According to the 2001 Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture, Langley has more farms than any other municipality in BC. There were 1,417 census farms in Langley in 2001, which represents 50% of all farms in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and 7% of all farms in BC. Langley generated $203.4 million in farm sales in 2001. This represents 29.1% of the total farm sales in the GVRD and 8.81% of provincial farm sales (Statistics Canada, 2001).

In 2001, the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) conducted a Land Use Inventory in the Township of Langley. The study area included all the land within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in Langley as well as land directly adjacent to the ALR. The parcel base surveyed for the Land Use Inventory was used as the basis of the survey.

The Land Use Inventory found that the ALR in Langley is characterized by a high percentage of small lot agriculture, sub-optimal or non-agricultural usage, with a large residential base.The LEPS survey sought to determine a more precise understanding of the challenges these realities present for sustainable agriculture.

According to the 2001 MAFF Land Use Inventory almost half (48.7%) of the lots in the ALR in Langley were 1.7 to 7.5 ha (4.2 to 18.5 acres) in size. A high percentage of small agricultural lots results in fragmentation of the agricultural landscape and can be an impediment to agricultural productivity.

This survey did not seek to scientifically test specific hypotheses, but there were a number of theories that the survey attempted to address. For example, the survey hypothesized that small lot farmers are typically not members of agricultural commodity groups, and may not have as much support as some of the larger commodity groups (e.g. dairy, poultry). It was also hypothesized that small lot farmers would have diverse interests, experience, and specialties producing a wide range of commodities using different production styles and marketing techniques. As a result, they may face challenges accessing technical information, including information on agricultural environmental issues and the resources or technology to address them.

The Land Use Inventory found that 43.2% (5,855 ha) of the parcels in the ALR in Langley were being used primarily for residential purposes. The LEPS survey asked residents to identify the size of their lot in order to get a sense of whether the responses reflected the findings of the Land Use Inventory (results are discussed in Chapter 5.0).

The high residential occupancy within the ALR can lead to conflict between farmers and non-farmers. This survey sought to determine the level, types, and possible solutions to conflict in and adjacent to the ALR.

Because of increased urban development and fewer non-ALR rural lots in Langley, often the only option for people desiring a country residence, or hobby farm, is to move to the ALR. Given the significant potential for escalating conflict between full-time farmers, non-farmers, and hobby farmers in the ALR, it is important to begin gathering information about rural conflicts, so that LEPS can be proactive in addressing current and future issues. The baseline information will be crucial in the future as LEPS develops community-based programs to resolve agricultural and environmental issues in a cooperative and consultative manner.

2.2Process

The MAFF Land Use Inventory database was used to identify approximately 2000 out of the 5322 parcels in, or adjacent to, the ALR. The actual method for selection is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.0. The surveys were sent out in late October 2004 with a requested return date of November 30.

The resulting draft report was presented to the Langley Agricultural Advisory Committee on February 24, 2005 for feedback. Feedback was included in the next draft of the report which was presented at a public open house held at the LEPS office on March 15, 2005. The open house was advertised on the LSAN website, as well as in local newspapers. Ten people attended the open house. The Open House provided the opportunity for residents to visit LEPS and discuss individual concerns. One success of the Open House occurred when a small lot producer began dialogue with a local home-delivery service, which led to an informal arrangement for local produce distribution.

The final report was also provided to Langley Township Council for their information.

3.0Sampling Method

This section describes the sampling method used to select properties to be surveyed. The MAFF Land Use Inventory database was used to identify approximately 2000 out of the 5303 parcels in, or adjacent to, the ALR. There are discrepancies between the number of parcels surveyed in the Land Use Inventory (recorded as 5322) and the number of parcels generated through the Land Use Inventory database. This may be due to factors such as:

  • changes in the landbase since 2001 (e.g. consolidation of lots)
  • duplication of property listings

Since this represents a very small difference (19 parcels) it should not influence the outcome of the survey.

Because the sample is highly heterogeneous with many different farm sizes and proportionally higher number of farms under ten acres (75%), a stratified sample appeared to be the best method of ensuring that a representative and proportionate number of farms was sampled in the population.The population was stratified according to parcel size (as explained below).

The list of properties surveyed for the MAFF Land Use Inventory property was generated according to area (from largest to smallest parcel). The properties were broken down into groups according to the categories used in the Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture. This was done in order to determine the approximate percentage of each group that should be surveyed.These categories and the number of parcels in each category are listed below.

Table 3.1Survey Sample Groups

Area / Number of parcels / Percent of total parcels / Percent per
2001 census / Sample
type / *Sample size
over 69 acres / 79 / 1.5 / 8 / 100% of those eligible / 56
10-69 acres / 1205 / 23 / 46 / 100% of those eligible / 1001
less than ten acres / 3976 / 75 / 46 / 24% of those eligible / 943
zero area (ineligible ) / 43 / 0.8 / N/A / 0 / 0
Total / 5303 / 100 / 2000

*The sample size is smaller than the number of parcels because not all of the parcels were eligible to be included in the survey. Reasons included:

  • incomplete address
  • numbered company
  • owned by District of Surrey, Township of Langley, GVRD or other government agency
  • BC gas utility

Because of the relatively small number of parcels over 69 acres, it was determined that all of the eligible properties in this group should be sampled in order to improve the probability of getting a reasonable number of surveys returned.

According to Statistics Canada the next group of properties represented 46% of the farms between 10-69 acres. It was determined that the number of actual properties generated through the Land Use Inventory was so close to the Statistics Canada percentage that all of the eligible properties from this group (1001) would be sampled. Since LEPS had intended to sample 2000 properties in total, and the Statistics Canada data indicated that almost half of the properties in Langley fell into this group (10-69 acres), the resulting sample appeared to be appropriate.

The final group of properties (less than ten acres) represented the largest group in the Land Use Inventory. Properties were randomly selected by choosing every fourth property starting at a random number generated through an online random number generator ( Not all of the properties selected were eligible for the survey (e.g. no civic address), so the process was repeated until 943 properties were selected. This number represented the balance of the 2000 surveys sent out by LEPS. Although the percentage of properties selected was lower than the total number indicated in the Statistics Canada data, it was determined that about half of the properties in this category were under one acre (e.g. utility corridors, residential properties) and were less likely to be farmed because of their small size. Consequently the number selected appeared to be reasonable for the purposes of this survey.

4.0Results

This section provides the summary of responses to the survey.In total,142 completed surveys were returned to LEPS. This represents a 7.1% return rate. The results are presented along with the questions that were asked in the same order in which they appeared in the questionnaire. The results are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.0. There is some inconsistency in the total numbers below because not all questions were answered by all of the respondents.

SECTION 1

FARMING STATUS: Questions is this section will help us to understand whether you are a farmer and what kind of farming you do.

  1. Do you live in the Agricultural Land Reserve?

Response / # of responses / % of responses
Yes / 135 / 95.07%
No / 4 / 2.82%
Don't know / 3 / 2.11%
Total / 142 / 100%
  1. What size is your lot?

Response / # of responses / % of responses
Less than 10 acres / 73 / 54.48%
Between 10-20 acres / 34 / 25.37%
More than 20 acres / 27 / 20.15%
Total / 134 / 100%
  1. Do you consider yourself a full-time or part-time farmer? (full-time=75% or more of your income comes from farming)

Response / # of responses / % of responses
Full time / 22 / 16.67%
Part time / 52 / 39.39%
*Not a farmer / 58 / 43.94%
Total / 132 / 100%

*Non-farmers were directed to skip Questions #4 – 15 and go to Question #16

  1. How long have you been farming?

Response / # of responses / % of responses
Less than 5 years / 13 / 17.57%
5 – 10 years / 12 / 16.22%
11 – 20 years / 13 / 17.57%
Over 20 years / 36 / 48.65%
Total / 74 / 100%
  1. Do you belong to any agricultural commodity groups?

Response / # of responses / % of responses
Yes / 34 / 46.58%
No / 39 / 53.42%
Total / 73 / 100%

Yes (please specify):

  • Chickens
  • Livestock
  • Canadian Hereford assoc.
  • Fraser Valley Organic producers assoc
  • Lower Mainland sheep producers assoc
  • One yes not specified
  • B.C. Landscape & Nursery association
  • Good Blueberries & Cottonwood
  • BCARA organic Cert. Body
  • B.C. egg producers, B.C. chicken market
  • United Flower Growers
  • Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
  • Farm Fresh Marketing Assoc.
  • B.C. Honey Producers Assoc.
  • F.V.P.F.A.
  • Broiler Grower
  • B.C. Raspberry Council
  • B.C. Blueberry Council
  • B.C. Chicken Growers
  • B.C. Blueberry
  • B.C. Hereford Association
  • B.C. Chicken growers association
  • B.C. Raspberries
  • F.V.F.D.M.A.
  • B.C. Turkey Grower’s Association
  • Freshwater aquaculture Association
  • Otter Coop
  • Christmas tree association
  • Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Assoc.
  • Strawberry Association
  • Raspberry Association
  • Blueberry Association
  • BC Institute of Agrologists
  • BC Mink Producers Assoc
  • BC Blueberry Council
  • BCNLA
  • CNTA
  • WSNLA
  • COPF
  • IPPS
  • BC Pork producers Association
  • BCARA
  • Beef Growers
  • Previously belonged to Fraser Valley Mushroom Growers
  1. What kind of agricultural products do you produce?

Response / # of *responses / % of responses
Livestock and livestock products / 45 / 42.45%
Crops / 31 / 29.25%
Horticultural / 15 / 14.15%
Other (specify below) / 15 / 14.15%
Total / 106 / 100%

*respondents were asked to indicate as many responses as applicable, therefore the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents

Other (please specify):

  • Renting grasslands to neighbours
  • Some Christmas trees
  • Registered welsh ponies
  • Horse boarding
  • Poultry
  • Breed Thoroughbred Horses
  • Vegetable transplants
  • Honey Bees
  • Herbs
  • Mink Fur
  • Raise Horses
  • Walnuts
  • Greenhouse
  • Cottonwood Trees
  • Horses
  • Christmas Trees
  • Aquaculture

  1. What are some of the things you like about farming in Langley?

Response / # of *responses / % of responses
Financial rewards / 9 / 7.38%
Quality of life / 63 / 51.64%
Community support / 10 / 8.20%
Good relations with local government / 8 / 6.56%
Good quality farmland / 22 / 18.03%
Other (specify below) / 10 / 8.20%
Total / 122 / 100%

*respondents were asked to indicate as many responses as applicable, therefore the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents

Other (please specify):

  • Gives purpose in life in retirement
  • Quality of food
  • Personal satisfaction
  • Location
  • Work all the hours you want
  • Good soil
  • Support from other organic producers
  • I don’t farm in Langley Yet
  • Where we happen to be
  • Contributing to food needs
  • Relations with local govt. very poor! Being in ALR we have no representation from local govt. “It’s not our concern!” is what we get
  • Contributing to food needs
  • Location (close to border, close to #1 Hwy)
  • Live in country but close to all services
  • Quiet life
  • Proximity to Markets
  • Rural and Urban interface
  1. What are some of the things you don't like about farming in Langley?

Response / # of *responses / % of responses
Poor financial returns / 32 / 34.41%
Conflicts with neighbours / 7 / 7.53%
Not enough community support / 11 / 11.83%
Poor quality farmland / 19 / 20.43%
Restrictive local government regulations (specify below) / 9 / 9.68%
Other (specify below) / 15 / 16.13%
Total / 93 / 100%

*respondents were asked to indicate as many responses as applicable, therefore the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents

Restrictive local government regulations (describe):

  • Cost of Land
  • $6,000 of bureaucracy to build a 30’x100’ plastic covered cold frame?
  • Overpriced farmland because it can be used as a building lot
  • Shared watershed with Murrayville well
  • No control over water use by agri-business in ALR
  • No Regulations! Provincial Governments Business
  • Rules discourage agriculture
  • Red-tape on farm processing
  • Noise bylaws & smell
  • Building permits and reg.
  • Langley has become more urbanized
  • Pressures of urban population expansion
  • More and more regulations
  • Mega operations are depleting the water supply and are endangering quality of well water – our street is very busy – lots of speeders 216th)
  • All of our creeks (Langley) are being allowed to overgrow. Our land floods all the time
  • Our land is not conducive to anything but sheep raising
  • Drainage municipality not cleaning ditches
  • Marketing board quotas!
  • Municipal water supply or lack there of

Other (please specify):

  • Too many neighbours don’t understand farming (part time, 5 acres, 2 steer)
  • Too many mushroom ‘so called’ farms
  • No support for local farm gate sales
  • Too much government (marketing board intervention)
  • Cost of land
  • Restricted to ALR, but is taxed as though the property were something other than agricultural land
  • Soil removal
  • Too many non-farmers moving in and dictating concerns. Farmers were here first – or lets get rid of the ALR
  • We should be free to have Farm Gate Sales of milk, cheese, and eggs

SECTION 2