Rural Land-Use Planning in Developed Nations (Routledge Revivals)

Paul Cloke, Paul Cloke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134736638
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

This edited collection, first published in 1989, provides a detailed analysis of rural land-use policies on a country-specific basis. Case studies include analyses of planning and legislation in Britain, The Netherlands, Japan, the U.S.A. and Australia. Alongside a comprehensive overview of the concept and application of rural land use from Paul Cloke, environment issues, resource management and the role of central governments are topics under discussion throughout. At an international level, this title will of particular interest to students of rural geography and environmental planning.

1 Planning and rural land use: concepts and applications

PAUL CLOKE

Introduction

Rural land is regarded as important for a number of reasons. It represents the space and resource base for timber and food production, and so becomes an essential component in the political discourse over the strategic need for agricultural self-sufficiency, and over the economic necessity in the case of some nations to reproduce an export capacity in agricultural produce under rapidly changing trade conditions. It also comprises a major spatial constituency for outdoor recreation and is therefore subject to the necessary discussions about access, facility-provision and management which accompany both multiple land use and specific recreational schemes on rural land. Recreation is in turn predicated on landscape quality (at various scales) and often also on the factor of heritage which is attributed to the rural environment, again both in part and as a whole. Recognition of the value of landscape in its heritage context and in ecological terms has given rise to an expanding interest in the conservation of rural land and landscape, whereby an attempt is made to express a format of common interest in maintaining particularly threatened or precious elements. Conservation has become important, not only in deep rural areas but also on the urban fringe. Paradoxically in these areas of conflict over the transfer of rural land to urban use, often for housing development, the influx of adventitious rural residents gives a boost to the conservation cause, which has been characterized (somewhat cruelly) as groups of people wanting to ensure that they are the last to be permitted to move into – and thereby spoil – these rural environments.

These various functions of rural land are potentially conflicting, but not inevitably so. The scale and distribution of rural land in different nations is sufficiently varied that caution is necessary in any generalized view of rural land-use conflict. There does, however, seem to be mounting evidence that the scientific and technical changes in the second half of the 20th century, when allied with the changing nature of world trade and economy, do constitute prompters of accelerating conflict. For example, changes in agricultural production have made significant impacts on rural landscapes both visually and in terms of downstream pollution. Mechanization has been accompanied by the economic desirability of large improved fields, unencumbered with landscape features such as hedges, trees, wetland areas, and so on. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, all necessary for ‘modern’ agricultural production, have turned some parts of rural land into what Goldsmith & Hildyard (1986) have termed ‘an industrial wasteland’. Neither is it those industries traditionally viewed as ‘rural’ which are the only polluters, as emissions from urban-based power stations contributing to international flows of acid rain on rural land have shown (Park 1987). It is the economic imperative of increased productivity which has led to the low priority given to some parts of the rural land base.

The conflicts between agriculture and other industries and concern for conservation of the rural environment are not the only components of the accelerating turbulence over rural land-use issues. Where priority is given to recreation and tourism, potential over-use of some rural sites can lead to environmental damage and psychological pollution of previous wilderness experiences. The deconcentration of industry and housing which have accompanied the counter-urbanization phenomenon (see Fielding 1982, Cloke 1985) has also had a considerable visual impact on rural environments. The disposal of urban industrial waste in rural locations and the siting of potentially polluting industrial establishments such as nuclear power stations in remote rural sites are adding significantly to rural land-use problems, as is mineral exploitation in some cases.

These conflicts are with us now, but there are others which are not far off according to the view of some futurists relating to post-industrial society. For example, there is a body of opinion (see, for example, Robertson 1978) which suggests that the movement towards ‘alternative life-styles’ which has been apparent in many rural areas over the last twenty or so years represents a precursor to a much more significant back-to-the-land trend in the the post-industrial future. Whatever the prejudices about post-industrial theory – and there are many – it is possible to foresee an increasingly technological mode of production linked with increasingly technocratic labour markets resulting in higher rates of redundant labour than are experienced now. Society has yet to face up to how it will cope with the support of the unneeded workforce, but some argue that there will be a return to a more simple land-based lifestyle in rural areas. Were this to happen at any scale, a further laminate of use would be required from rural land – a use which might lead to a higher degree of environmental consciousness but which could be out of tune with many existing landowners and land users in the areas concerned.

Rural land-use issues, then, have become an important facet of late capitalist nations, and are likely to become more so. In rational terms, the role of planning in the mediation of conflict might be thought to be equally important. Planning itself, however, is also changing with the new political regimes which have accompanied the economic restructuring taking place in many nations. It is therefore necessary briefly to examine the context, purpose and type of planning through which intervention occurs in rural land uses.

Land use: in search of concepts

Sandy Mather, in his book Land Use (1986), uses a biblical illustration of a fundamental contrast in attitudes to land. In the book of I Kings, Chapter 21, is told told the story of Naboth’s vineyard. Ahab, King of Samaria and personifying wealth and power at that time, wishes to purchase Naboth’s land as an extension to his own property – as Mather points out, Ahab regards land as a commodity to be bought and sold. Naboth, however, places a different value on his land since it is an inheritance from his family and he is merely a steward over it, so he refuses Ahab’s offer. Mather (p. 2) uses this conflict to outline two fundamental concepts of land:

On the one hand, land is simply a form of property that may be traded at will. On the other, land is much more than just personal private property, and its possession is not (just) a matter for market forces to determine. In this second concept, a sense of stewardship attaches, and land is a form of common property, either in the sense of succeeding generations or, by extension, in the wider sense that the community has an interest in it.

These issues of how land is conceptualized may be seen to be at the root of wider issues of how and why landowners can or should be controlled in the use of their own property (Clark 1982).

It would, however, be foolish not to take note of the ending of the Ahab-Naboth dispute. With Queen Jezebel urging him to act in a manner which benefited his power status and wealth, and having Naboth put to death over some trumped-up charge, Ahab took possession of the land he coveted. This serves as a stark reminder that contests over land usage are fought in the arena of existing power relations and so the settling of conflict will often not be through a rational mediation of issues but rather according to the power and influence of competing land users. Following the biblical theme, there is a clear illustration of what should be expected in these circumstances:

If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still. The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.

(Ecclesiastes 5.8–9, New International Version)

These attitudes to land, and the power relations which underlie land-use conflicts, are emphasized here because any discussion of the planning of rural land use requires a focus around which to weave its analysis. It would be easy to go along with Patricios (1986) emphasizing that because land use is influenced by history, institutions, politics, technology, society and economy, and because each of these factors differs in different nations, there is therefore a ‘bewildering number of variety of themes’ for land-use analysts to consider. However, such an approach is not particularly helpful in breaking down the parochialism of land-use planning studies. It suggests that we can perhaps know about planning in other nations but we can only understand that planning in the context of the particular circumstances of that nation.

Neither is it useful to replace the ‘bewildering variety’ with over-simplified generations whose perceived utility is in achieving some link, however spurious, between land-use issues in particular places. For example, Fabos (1985) describes four common characteristics of land-use issues:

(a)	they present or generate one or more uncertainties
(b)	they can be perceived as both a problem and an opportunity
(c)	they have a supply and a demand aspect
(d)	they can be dealt with in one of two ways, either systematically or conceptually

But it seems unlikely that these characteristics can be translated into a cogent, theoretically informed view of the planning of rural land use. Indeed, they merely beg further questions: how and for whom are uncertainties reduced; how are ‘problems’ and ‘opportunities’ distributed amongst the various interest groups involved; does the mechanism of the market place regulate supply and demand, and if so what impacts result; and where do political factors enter into either systematic or conceptual approaches for dealing with land-use issues? As Healey (1986) has argued, identifying outcomes is not enough; we have to look at the different ways these outcomes can be evaluated.

One way forward here is to focus on the idea of regulating land-use conflicts. Dawson (1984) and others stress first that land (unlike other factors of production such as labour and capital) is in (almost) fixed supply, and second, that it is specifically located such that its value is closely interrelated with the activities being pursued nearby. Pollution from adjacent land uses will reduce land value whereas value-adding improvements to neighbouring land will sometimes benefit land values despite the fact that in both cases the land in question has not itself changed in character or use. Dawson (p. 3) suggests that

the market fails to allocate the costs and benefits of such operations accurately; and, because this is the case, there has been an increasing tendency for governments to restrict the rights of private owners to use their land as they wish, in the interests of society at large.

Two issues arise from these contentions. First, in what ways is market-place regulation of rural land use deemed to be inefficient; and second, how are ‘the interests of society at large’ interpreted and implemented? These themes are pursued through an analysis of the reasons for planning intervention, and through a discussion of the role of planning within its state context.

The market and intervention

Why has it been necessary to plan rural land use? If land-use decisions were made merely by landowners alone, then not only would there be a potentially random intermixture of uses but also there would be no protective mechanism against wholesale changes to existing cherished landscapes or to strategically necessary land uses. There has therefore arisen a series of traditional wisdoms as to why planning systems have been generated which provide a framework for the decisions of landowners and land users. Held and Visser (1984), for example, advance four roles for land-use planning, which infer in each case market inefficiencies or injustices:

(a)	to discourage certain uses which would be incompatible with existing uses
(b)	to achieve greater efficiency in the use of land resources in the area
(c)	to reduce or eliminate certain hazards
(d)	to preserve or to protect desired elements of the existing environment

and Dawson (1984) adds three more at the meso- and macro-scales:

(e)	to control the aggregate allocation of land among alternative uses
(f)	to achieve particular levels of output, particularly in agriculture
(g)	to control the intermixture of uses to provide a pleasant and safe environment.

This kind of listing of roles for land-use planning fits worthily into the rational decision-making view of the planning process. Society identifies potential inefficiencies and inequalities arising from market-led land-use decisions; politicians design planning procedures which permit the regulation of decisions by landowners; and planners implement those decisions, unswervingly being able to recognize the ‘common good’ when they see it. Indeed, this whole approach is based on this premise of there being a common good. As Held and Visser (1984, p. 4) conclude:

Their [land-use plans] primary purpose is to protect a substantial common or public interest which, if left to individual p...