Land-use fragmentation threatens rural economies

by Reid Folsom, Spring 2005

While the suburbs keep expanding outward, exurban communities are increasingly creating "leapfrog developments" far from other population centers, further fragmenting rural and wild areas. Exurban communities account for one-quarter of the recent population growth of the lower 48 states.

This pattern of development is often unplanned and can easily fragment forests and farms, forever changing the natural, social, and economic landscape in an area. Rappahannock County is not immune to this process; it particularly threatens our comprehensive plan's goals of

• Maintaining a viable economy based on agricultural and tourism.

• Discouraging the conversion of land from agricultural uses to other uses that challenge the tax base.

• Preserving the viewshed.

• Preserving open space.

Fragmentation of forest and farmland by residential and commercial development, such as this housing development in the exurbs near Warrenton, threatens rural economies and culture as well as wildlife. Photo courtesy Don Audette.

Fragmentation is the separation of parcels of land into ever-smaller pieces, with like uses interspersed with unlike uses. A forest cut in two by a power line or two farms separated by a townhouse development are examples.

One of the most visible, long-lasting negative impacts of fragmentation is on agriculture. Large farms are efficient, returning enough income to the farm family. The cost of equipment and otther inputs are spread over many acres. As the size of the farm is reduced, more manpower per acre is needed, and costs rise. As the fragmentation continues, the land farmed does not support the farm family and off-farm income is needed to survive. Continuing fragmentation eventually shifts farming into a hobby category, where costs of inputs far exceed expected income, and soon farms pass from the scene.

When suburban or urban people move into a development that fragments an agricultural or forestry land-use area, conflicts often arise about continued routine farming and forestry activities. Dust, mud, odors, and noise are often found objectionable by the new residents, sometimes enough for these newcomers to go to court-and sometimes they win. Farms and forestry operations are then forced out of business or out of the area. More housing and commercial development replaces them, further increasing fragmentation.

Nonfarm economic enterprises are also affected negatively by fragmentation, particularly the separation of farm and forest areas by nonfarm uses. For example, the success of Rappahannock's sizable bed-and-breakfast industry is largely due to the rural and scenic beauty of the county. This beauty helps B&Bs compete with more-urban attractions.

An aerial view of Washington, Virginia, shows the fragmentation of forest by farmland, and farmland by residential and commercial development.

Fragmentation of rural land by nonrural uses also affects the tax base and government spending. Large tracts of land pay far more in taxes than the occupants require in government-service dollars. As more people arrive to live on ever-smaller tracts of land, the taxes per acre are less able to cover the costs of increased government services the additional people require. At some point the tax rate must increase on all lands. This phenomenon is particularly true where fragmentation of land use reaches the townhouse stage of development. Higher taxes or industrialization appears to be the only remedy, neither of which is desirable in Rappahannock or is in keeping with the comprehensive plan.

How do we deter land-use fragmentation? First, we must vigilantly and vigorously defend the comprehensive plan and the county ordinances that translate the plan into specific actions on the ground. Fragmentation comes quietly, usually one small piece at a time: a special exemption here, an ordinance to accommodate someone's desire there. Proposed changes to these documents must be examined carefully and openly.

Second, citizens can take steps to strengthen the ordinances in keeping with the intent of the comprehensive plan. These steps include making well-thought-out changes and additions to the county ordinances that will encourage the retention of large, contiguous blocks of land in agricultural, forest, and conservation use, regardless of the number of ownerships involved:

• Increasing the minimum new-parcel size to 50 acres, as has been suggested in a Planning Commission open meeting.

• Matching the minimum acreage of an agricultural and forestal district to the minimum lot size.

• Developing a mechanism for formal interaction between landscape stakeholder groups, such as farm associations, B&B operators, and conservation groups.

While the impact of large-scale land development, such as Clevenger's Corner, is obvious, the nibbling away of the rural landscape by fragmentation is hardly noticed until it is too late. Both have the same end result-when the rural landscape is gone, it's unlikely to return.

Return to Current Issues