Agricultural Development and Environmental Research: American and Czechoslovak Perspectives: Proceedings of a Bilateral Workshop (1987)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Landscape Ecology in the Agricultural Fringe of Urban Areas DEAN S. RUGG University of Nebraska, Lincoln Ecology—a word symbolizing the unity of society and environ- ment with both positive and negative feedbacks—has become an important concept since the 1960s in dealing with environmental problems. Because the landscape obviously reflects these problems, a new discipline of landscape ecology has emerged to identify and apply concepts to environmental problems. Unfortunately, this dis- cipline almost ignores the city and its ecological aspects. In practical terms, the city itself is an ecosystem, open in nature with inputs and outputs of energy and materials. In fact, the city and its surrounding countryside should not be viewed as a dichotomy but as a single ecosystem in which both affect the other. In the fringe where city and country meet, agricultural activities are altered and, at the same time, new urban uses are spread out into rural territory. The rural/urban fringe becomes a problem area where impacts of society on the natural environment are especially evident in the landscape. These impacts depend on adjustments by rural residents, new urban dwellers, and public agencies. This paper describes and analyzes some of these impacts. The rural/urban fringe has changed in definition and extent. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the urban fringe is that portion of the urbanized area lying outside the central city. The rural/urban fringe, on the other hand, lies beyond the urbanized area and even beyond the boundaries of the Standard Metropoli- tan Statistical Area (SMSA), more recently called the Metropolitan 20

21 Statistical Area. In terms of actual area, therefore, this fringe has become larger. Until 1970, metropolitan growth took place at the expense of the countryside. Rural/urban migration led to continuous increases in metropolitan areas although decentralization occurred within them to the suburbs. However, in the early 1970s, manifestations of decon- centration emerged, through a process called counter-urbanization. In a population phenomenon without precedent in our demographic history, non-metropolitan counties (i.e., those counties outside the limits of SMSAs) gained net migrants more rapidly than metropoli- tan areas. Of the 2,471 non-metropolitan counties in the United States—counties not containing a major city or located near one— about 1,450 were growing at a faster rate than metropolitan areas during the period between 1970 and 1975. Counties not adjacent to metropolitan areas were growing almost as fast as adjacent ones. Today, more people are moving into rural areas than are leaving them. Thus, Americans moved farther out into the countryside to live, to start new industries and develop resources, and to engage in recreation. This region has two components. The daily urban system, including 95 percent of the U.S. population, represents territory whose outer limits include at least five percent of commuters to the metropolitan area. Beyond this is the inter-urban periphery. Both areas make up the urban fringe which is the focus of this paper. The primary ecological problems associated with the expansion of the urban fringe are impacts of urbanization on rural land including agriculture. Before examining this pressure, however, it is necessary to look at the economic characteristics of fringe land in an ecological context. THEORY OF LAND USE ON THE URBAN FRINGE Sinclair (1967) provides a conceptual model for explaining and predicting land uses in the urban fringe. This model is based on the theory of agricultural land use as laid out by Van Thiinen in the nineteenth century for an Isolated State. In his theory, the more intensive land uses (e.g., market gardens and dairying) are situated on high-rent land near the city in order to reduce transportation costs of moving bulky perishable products to the markets. Farther out, the uses are less intensive and include grain production and livestock grazing. However, when the Van Thiinen model is applied to an

22 expanding city, the pattern of agricultural use is actually reversed. Farmers hesitate to invest capital and labor in land near the city because urban uses will outbid agricultural ones. Thus, the sequence of agricultural use becomes less intensive near the city and more intensive farther away. Bid/rent curves rise with distance from the city as the influence of the city decreases. At the edges of the built-up area, land is ei- ther changing to urban uses, is being subdivided, or is being held by speculators or developers for early development. Even farmers who might want to hold out are generally forced from farming by high land prices or taxes, zoning practices, or the nuisances associated with urban living. Organized agriculture is lacking. Where land is destined for urbanization, agricultural land use is of low intensity, of- ten idle, leased for grazing, or rented to urban groups for recreational purposes. Farther out, agricultural intensity rises as the possibility of urban use decreases. In ecological terms, there has been a tran- sition zone of conflicting land uses where conditions are far from optimal for either urban or agricultural use. Urban uses reflect an inadequate infrastructure, especially in terms of water and sewage facilities. Agricultural land suffers from such problems as erosion, over grazing, and groundwater pollution. Obviously, the land use pattern portrayed in this model is ab- stract, for in the real world patterns will show uneven growth, leapfrogging over vacant land, and the encroachment of cities on one another. Additionally, public policies such as zoning and green belt laws may act to preserve agricultural land use in the traditional Van Thiinen pattern. IMPACTS OP URBANIZATION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE FRINGE The most apparent effect of urbanization on the fringe is the loss of agricultural land to urban development. Recent studies by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service—a 1977 National Resources Inventory and a 1981 National Agricultural Lands Study—found an annual loss of 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land to urbanization. The agency estimated that urban areas of the United States increased by 47.5 percent in the period 1967-1975 and that 28.4 percent of prime agricultural land lay within a 50-mile radius of the 100 largest urbanized areas. All regions of the country lost agricultural land,

23 but the North Central region had the most cropland devoted to non- agricultural uses. Most critical for the future is the warning in the 1981 National Agricultural Lands Study that 44.5 percent of prime or high potential cropland will be subject to urban pressure by the year 2000. However, the 1975 Potential Cropland Study shows that urbanization pressure will be the greatest in areas where high-quality potential land is lowest, e.g., the northwestern and western states. Sinclair, in support of his hypothesis of less intensive land use in the urban fringe, cites a number of examples which are apparent in the landscape. In studies of Megalopolis—the long strip of coa- lescing cities with 35 million people between Washington, D.C., and Boston—a high proportion of unused, forested land has been found to result from farm land being abandoned at a faster rate than it was being assumed for urban utilization. Numerous part-time farms have been operated unintensively by wealthy owners whose main income has been derived from the city. In a more recent study of the fringe around metropolitan areas of the Middle Atlantic region, Berry (1978) notes a decline in the number of milk cows. According to Sinclair, agricultural activities involving long-term investment are more directly affected by the anticipation of urbanization than those involving short-term investment. Furthermore, short-term activities place greater ecological pressure on the land. A somewhat different example is provided by the Montfort feed- lots, which in the 1940s represented a modest operation about three miles north of Greeley, Colorado. As Montfort grew to be the largest cattle-feeding operation in the world (150,000 head annually), pres- sure on the environment became unbearable. The most noticable result was odor pollution. Eventually the entire feedlot facility was forced to move 12 miles to the east. In this case, the impact on agricultural land led to a protest against technology. Center-pivot irrigation represents a new technological innova- tion in agriculture that has had severe ecological impacts on the environment. No longer is irrigation confined to fiat terrain: rolling ranchland can now be irrigated and cultivated. Center-pivot irri- gation not only lowers the water table but also encourages plowing soils—often for the first time—which, if abandoned, may blow and cause severe erosion. The state of Nebraska has the largest number of center-pivots in the United States, and the highest concentra- tion is around the margins of the Sand Hills. Although the impact comes generally from local farmer use, some is from urban areas. In 1976 in one six-county area of the Sand Hills, over one-fourth of the

24 center pivots were owned by non-farmers, absentee individuals, and corporations. A more apparent example of the ecological impact of urban proximity on agricultural land is the suitcase farmer, an absentee owner who lives and works in the city but farms on weekends, often putting in a crop of wheat with the help of local farmers. Such a procedure creates a problem in the fragile environment of the Great Plains. The primary ecological problem is the plowing of semi-arid grazing land in attempts to make profits; once plowed, the topsoil blows away. In 1936, the county newspaper of Baca, Colorado—located in the heart of the Dust Bowl—acknowledged that 75 percent of the cultivated land was blowing. In the 1960s, however, Baca County was again planted in crops, and the fears of creating a desert-like condition proved premature. Nevertheless, suitcase farmers still exist and have an adverse impact on the land by plowing and planting land that does not represent their main source of livelihood, thus creating a situation that is likely to be harmful ecologically. The Great Plains region is an environment of risk agriculture because of low and irregular precipitation, and evidence shows that risk agriculture is less stable when operated on an absentee basis. IMPACTS OF URBAN LAND USES ON RURAL LAND The most apparent effects of urbanization on the landscape and ecology of fringe areas are related to the impacts of actual urban uses. These impacts are both direct through the movement of people into the fringe or indirect as seen in uses that are aimed at supporting urban residents in the city. In both cases, urban and rural interests clash and make the solution of fringe problems difficult. The provision of better highways after World War II—especially the national interstate system which was built through many major American metropolitan areas—allowed increasing numbers of urban residents to consider the countryside as a place to live. This rural non-farm population increased from 27 million in 1940 to 47 mil- lion by 1978. Their settlements are of two types. The first—often called "buckshot development"—includes individual houses on large acreages whose owners want the privacy of a rural location, often for the purpose of gardening or raising horses. Generally these develop- ments are not attached to any existing settlements and depend on

25 wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewage disposal. How- ever, if the density of houses becomes too great from lots that are too small, or if ecological controls do not exist because of locations on county land, the pressure on septic tanks becomes great. In the 1960s, one-half of the wells of a Minneapolis suburb were infected from adjacent septic tanks. Furthermore, even though developments make up only a small percentage of land, all of the land becomes committed to urban development with concomitant speculation and rising land prices. The second type of urban-oriented settlement is the large subdi- vision developed in the country to house urban residents seeking to escape the congestion, insecurity, regulations, and high land prices of American cities. Subdivisions are generally located in incorpo- rated or unincorporated suburbs where land use and environmental controls are less strict than in central cities. In some cases, these set- tlements are retirement communities located on rural land close to forest areas and lakes, representing minor loss of prime agricultural land. More often, however, they are, in effect, dormitory subdivisions on prime agricultural land with neglible commitment to the rural area. By depending on the nearby city for jobs and services, these settlements increase pressure on the environment. Water supply and sewage disposal are often administered by a sanitary improvement district, which in turn depends on the future sale of lots and homes to pay off the bonds used for its construction. Subdivisions are fre- quently separated from the built-up area of the city proper in what is called "leap-frog development," i.e., leaping over land adjacent to the city which is being held open for high priced speculation pur- poses. The general term for this process of development, whether in single homes or in subdivisions, is sprawl. This condition repre- sents a disorganized type of development that places considerable pressure on the environment and makes comprehensive planning dif- ficult, particularly for the solution of regional problems of pollution and transportation that transcend local political boundaries. The demand from city residents for recreation provides still an- other ecological pressure on the urban fringe. In the United States, over 1.3 million square kilometers are devoted to recreation and most of this is under federal control. Pressure is greater on sites close to population centers than on distant ones although even the national parks are exhibiting extreme signs of deterioration. In Yosemite Park, for example, cars are now banned. Locally, the creation of

26 new recreation areas with lakes has generated considerable opposi- tion from farmers because of loss of land, together with problems of traffic, law enforcement, and litter. Weekend recreation homes also add to the pressure on land, especially from the lack of taxing power and proper infrastructure. One in 12 American families owns such a home or lot. Often the lots are purchased for investment and if undeveloped can cause environmental problems. The face of rural fringe has also been changed by industry. From 1962 to 1978 some 1.8 million manufacturing jobs appeared in non- metropolitan counties as compared to 1.4 million in metropolitan areas. Thus, this part of America with 29 percent of the industry and 31 percent of the population is now about as industrialized as the nation as a whole. New rural industry is diversified in type, regionally specialized, and located near urban centers of counties. Factories secure the benefit of lower costs in terms of land, labor, and taxes while adding to the tax base of the community or county. Chief negative factors are energy costs—chiefly transportation—and an antipathy to this new type of activity in traditionally rural areas. In addition, significant environmental impacts arise in terms of traffic, requirements for infrastructure, and waste disposal. Land uses connected with mining and power make strong im- pacts on rural land. Construction materials, including both gravel pits and stone quarries, take urban fringe land away from other uses, especially near cities where proximity reduces the high cost of trans- porting these bulky materials. The impact of surface coal-mining activities is particularly severe because the pits are extensive and ex- pensive to reclaim. Problems include water supply and waste or slag at the mines as well as services for expanding settlements. In portions of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, large deposits of low- sulphur coal are being exploited as a response to both the national energy crisis and passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Environ- mental impacts in this fragile, semi-arid region will be great because of the concentration of mining: 93 percent of the sub-bituminous, strippable, low-sulphur coal is located in four contiguous counties in northern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. In 1977, 16,000 square kilometers was disturbed by surface mines and only one-sixth of that amount had been reclaimed artificially. Accompanying min- ing, of course, is the generation of steam power. Farmers object to the loss of land and water to the power plants and to the dangers in- herent in high voltage transmission lines. Opposition to the 500,000 volt line proposed by the Nebraska Public Power District to link the

27 state with the Canadian province of Manitoba clearly illustrates this trend. One of the greatest impacts of urban areas on the fringe land of cities is toxic waste disposal. Although many disposal sites are well designed sanitary landfills, the majority are open dumps. In 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported over 17,000 waste dumps in 46 states. Another source estimates that these dumps average 13.6 hectares and occupy a total of 190,000 hectares. Approximately 500 new dumps are added each year. Obvi- ously, such dumps create urban/rural conflicts from loss of land and from air, water, and visual pollution. In addition, the land is forever lost to some types of use unless expensive reclamation is undertaken. PRESERVATION AND CONTROL OF FRINGE LAND The magnitude of ecological problems in the urban fringe calls for some degree of control not only to preserve land but also to monitor the impacts of agricultural technology and urbanization on the environment. The problem, of course, is that land use controls in rural areas have always been resented as an invasion of free enterprise and individual property rights. Although some studies show that rural residents are now more aware of the dangers to the environment, acceptance of planning is far from uniform. However, local control is more acceptable than state or federal control. Because of numerous overlapping jurisdictions in the fringe (e.g., incorporated city versus county) some sort of regional jurisdiction is advisable, as pollution knows no boundaries. Three types of incentives are used to preserve farm land: tax relief, agricultural districts, and right-to-farm legislation. By far the most common is tax relief from paying market values based on potential urban use. Thus, differential assessment in 28 states permits lower agricultural use-value assessment if the farmer agrees to continue farming. If the farmer sells for another use, higher back taxes must be paid. Sometimes such laws are called "Green Belt" legislation. The other types of incentives—districts and right- to-farm legislation—are less common. The latter prohibits local government from enacting laws that unreasonably restrict farming practices unless they are needed to protect the public health or safety. Districts are created to prohibit any non-agricultural activities. Three types of land use controls are also used to protect agri- cultural land—agricultural zoning, purchase of development rights

28 by the local government, and transfer of development rights from a preservation area to a development area. By far the most popular of these is the first: non-exclusive zoning of land. In this process, non-farm dwellings are allowed to be built but only under certain con- ditions. The primary restriction is a minimum density of dwellings, either by large-lot ordinances or by an area-based allocation which permits clustering but still retains low density. Such zoning reduces the demand for lots because their cost discourages land speculation and subdivision development. In the 1970s, some 270 communities in the United States implemented agricultural zoning programs; a sample of these shows the method to be effective in preserving agri- cultural land. The most important result is that speculation for non-agricultural purposes shifted from agricultural areas to desig- nated development areas. Supplementing the incentive and land-use control methods of agricultural preservation are integrated programs for metropolitan areas and for states. Outstanding examples of such programs are the metropolitan areas of the Twin Cities in Minnesota and Dade County, Florida, and the states of Oregon, Vermont, and Hawaii. The programs are fairly comprehensive in their degree of control over land and in the unusual amount of public support required. The preservation and control methods just discussed emphasize agricultural land. However, the preservation of fringe land used for wildlife habitats is equally important. Such land—marginal crop areas, wet areas near streams and lakes, and forest regions—is not classified as agricultural, yet its preservation is important in provid- ing feeding/nesting, hiking, and hunting areas on a seasonal basis. The impact of people from the city on such areas is just as strong as on prime agricultural land, especially impact resulting from construc- tion, hunting, and recreation. Most states, therefore, have habitat programs generated by a hunting stamp tax. Funds from this tax go toward land acquisition, encouragement of private habitat improve- ment, and management of habitat on public lands. CONCLUSION The mobility of Americans is changing the landscape and ecol- ogy of extensive areas of rural land. Not only has prime agricultural land been lost to urban settlement and uses, but the use of agri- cultural land has also become less intensive, causing some ecological problems. A wave of urban settlement is also advancing into the

29 fringe, bringing houses, industries, and facilities for recreation, min- ing, power, and waste disposal. Procedures for the preservation and control of rural land have been slow to develop, reflecting the Ameri- can public's resistance to government planning. However, the drastic impact of these changes on the ecology of the fringe has had some results in terms of public attitudes and willingness to plan more com- prehensively in the future. The urban fringe will obviously be the focus of much economic growth in the future, but ecological concerns should not be ignored if a quality environment is to emerge. REFERENCES Berry, David. 1978. Effects of urbanization on agricultural activities. Growth and Change 9:2-8. Buttel, Frederick H. 1981. Environmental quality and protection. In Hawley, Amos H., and Sara M. Mazie, Eds. Nonmetropolitan American in transi- tion. University of North Carolina Press, pp. 668-703. Coughlin, R.E., et al. 1981. The protection of farmland: A reference guidebook for state and local governments. U.S. Government Printing Office. Furuseth, Owen J., and John T. Pierce. 1982. Agricultural land in an urban society. Association of American Geographers. Little, Charles E., and W. Wendell Fletcher. 1981. Buckshot urbanization: The land impacts of rural population growth. American Land Forum Magazine 2:10-35. Platt, Rutherford H., and George Macinko, Eds. 1983. Beyond the urban fringe: Land issues of nonmetropolitan America. University of Minnesota Press. Sinclair, Robert. 1967. Von Thunen and urban sprawl. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57 (March) :72-87. Wilkening, Eugene A., and Lowell Klessig. 1978. The rural environment: Quality and conflicts in land use. In Thomas R. Ford, Ed. Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change. Iowa State University Press.