It is not just a few elitists who support land conservation, almost everyone does.  In fact, land conservation as a general principle is supported in polls of voters by pluralities in the 80 to 90 percent range. (See End Note 1)

With broad support for land conservation, why is open land being consumed at an accelerating rate? Why is land conservation described in glowing terms but honored primarily in the breach? (See End Note 2)

Almost no one would admit to opposing land conservation or supporting wanton, excess land exploitation and despoliation. Excess land consumption and unintelligent land use is characterized by loss of top soil, erosion and siltation, deforestation, high nutrient runoff and damage to surface and subsurface water resources. These practices result in the loss of agrarian and forest economies, loss of tourism (a good indication of the level of amenity and attractiveness for human activity), loss of wildlife habitat, air pollution, degradation of entire watersheds and estuaries (e.g. the Chesapeake Bay) and loss of useable open space. These and other economic, social and physical consequences of the failure to conserve land resources are indicators of an unsustainable trajectory of a society as documented by Jared Diamond in his new book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail of Succeed.

At the present, however, the greatest threat to the Countryside is not direct land abuse. Rather, it is the scatteration of urban land uses. This activity is explored in “Scatteration” (Sept. 22, 2003 ) and will be documented for a specific Beta Community in The Shape of Warrenton-Fauquier's Future (Forthcoming).

The Context of Contemporary Land Conservation

The general support for land conservation in contemporary society can be traced to the conservation movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  Think Teddy Roosevelt, the Audubon Society and John Muir. This interest in conservation was, in turn, a reaction to gross land and wildlife exploitation of the early and mid 19^th century. 

Early in the 19^th century, land exploitation was a viable objective for the populist agrarians who supported Andrew Jackson in his runs for president in 1824, 1828 and 1832. They favored a fundamentally different vision of use and ownership of the landscape than that of Thomas Jeffersion and other gentry agrarians. In the debate between these two views of the nation-state’s future, no one spoke for the urban interests. Urban residents accounted for about five percent of the population; as a political and economic force they were largely a non-factor. In addition, urban citizens were wholly dependent on nonurban activity to sustain their well-being. Understanding this dynamic is the first step in understanding the current land conservation dilemma.

For Jackson and his supporters, privatization and exploitation of the vast reserve of public land was a way to increase the population and expand the settled area to further national defense. The War of 1812 brought this important issue into sharp focus. The resources of the United States made an attractive target for international aggression, and vacant land cannot protect its flag. The land exploitation strategy also enhanced the well-being of yeoman farmers, loggers and frontiersmen who accounted for the vast majority of voters.

By the late 1800s citizens and their leaders reacted negatively to rapacious destruction in pursuit of extensive (nonurban) uses of land. These included clear-cut-and-abandon-logging, burn-out-the-top-soil- and-move-west-agriculture and the wonton slaughter of wildlife. 

In 1890 the urban settlement patterns were compact and industrial pollution was considered a price of progress. To the extent there was widespread concern about the industrial aspects of urban land use, the proximity of noxious industrial activities to middle and upper class residential areas was the primary concern. True, the growth of rail commuters grew in step with industrial expansion but the settlement pattern of these new urban enclaves was compact and relatively balanced. The living conditions of the industrial working class were a concern for many but were not a core part of the conservation awakening (or reawakening).

Thus, the driving forces behind the conservation movement in the late 19^th century were very different from those behind land conservation in 2005.

In 2005 the primary factor driving the need for land conservation is the cumulative, region-wide impact of the scatteration of urban land uses.

Now the problem is scattered urban land uses. McMansions on 10-, 20-, and 50-acre lots can be portrayed as attractive, even stylish. Every orphan subdivision is called a “neighborhood,” “village” or even “community” proceeded by a description of what was formerly on the site (as in “The Quiet Woods Village”).  New projects are sold with glossy photos of happy families achieving their fondest dreams in a shinny new home. There are no dead fish here, at least not near the scattered urban dwellings. In an alarming demonstration of obliviousness, Progressive Farmer illustrated the story about Fauquier County, Va., being the “No. 1 best place to live in rural (sic) America ” with a picture of a McMansion on a 10-acre lot. The adjacent 10-acre lot will be for sale soon.  

Most citizens do not yet see these land uses as a problem, a threat to air and water quality, or to the quality of life in general. Citizens first must come to understand the cumulative impact of these scattered urban land uses–traffic congestion, strip development and the other land, air and water impacts that are regional in scale.

The Nonurban to Urban Transformation

Land exploitation–the inverse of land conservation–may have been a fairly debatable strategy in 1820. It is not a defensible strategy to achieve citizen well-being or any of the stated goals at the national, state or municipal scales in 2005. Land exploitation and consumption is not a popular idea with current citizens of the United States. The reason is not a change in the landscape but a change in what the vast majority do for a living.  

Over the past two centuries, the population has flipped from 95-percent nonurban to 95-percent urban. While this transformation is often treated as just an historical factoid, industrialization and urbanization have profound impact.  This spacial impact is not yet reflected in contemporary land conservation activity. 

The 95-percent nonurban to 95-percent urban transformation means that the amount of land that can be functionally occupied by 95 percent of the population to achieve a quality life on a daily basis has actually decreased by a factor of 100. In other words 95 percent of the population can rationally use one hundredth the area per capita people could in the early 1800s. This is the second critical fact to understand in considering the current land conservation issue. (See End Note 3.)

Land Conservation and Environmentalism

Land conservation is an environmental issue because of the impact of dysfunctional human settlement patterns on air and water quality, especially the cumulative impact of these patterns of use on region-scale resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. 

In addition, because of the 95-percent nonurban to 95-percent urban transformation over the past 200 years and the resulting difference in land that can be efficiently used for daily activity, land conservation is also a critical economic and social issue. (Again refer to the material cited in End Note 3.)

Because most land conservation activity has been based on an environmental rationale, rather than the broad economic and social basis that would be even more relevant and powerful, it is instructive to consider a question now being widely debated: Is environmentalism dead?

A popular statement of this contention can be found in The Death of Environmentalism, a summary of 25 interviews of environmental leaders by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. The authors note that since the mid-1980s there have been few environmental victories. They cite the failure to address global climate change but also the difficulty in passing reauthorization of the major environmental legislative landmarks concerning air, water and endangered species passed in the 1970s. They and others see a stalemate that is eroding in favor of non-environmental and anti-environmental interests. (See End Note 4.) 

Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that environmentalism has became just another cause, just another special interest. Environmental issues are strongly supported in the abstract but, jobs and private rights “win” and environmentalist “lose” in many elections where the issues are framed and argued on the jobs/rights basis.  (See “Land Speculators 2, Citizens 0", March 14, 2005 )

The “environmentalism is dead” thesis suggests that leaders of environmental organizations believed the polls indicating broad public support for the issues they championed concerning land (wilderness, farms, open space et. al.) and animals (owls, wolves, salmon, et. al.). Because they thought they had public support, they generated excuse after excuse for defeat after defeat suffered over the past two decades. By not questioning or examining their tactics, they lost the moral high ground and their commanding position on the issues. They still have diehard supporters and deep-pocket sponsors but not a broad citizen mandate based on recent election results.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest that the easy victories by environmentalist in the 1960s and 1970s have led to the current condition. Under this theory, environmentalists picked the easy fruit with respect to air, water, endangered species and other concerns. They became over confident while those who were negatively impacted (actually or philosophically) become better prepared to argue their case. The argument turns on the observation that environmentalism has morphed from a reflection of reality that impacts all citizens to just another “cause.” For a discussion of the roll of private vs. public rights see “Land Speculators 2, Citizens 0”, March 14, 2005 .

In this context it is fair to asked if traditional land conservation efforts have ruined the East?

During the 1960s, '70s and '80s, threats to air and water quality and land consumption by scattered urban land uses led to conflicts between land conservation and Business As Usual. Land conservationists achieved many victories. (See “Chasing Out The Mouse,” Oct. 4, 2004 . These victories are reflected in the adoption of land conservation “tools.” These tools included land use controls (e.g. large lot zoning and environmental standards in subdivision regulations), conservation easements, land value taxation, transfer of development rights and others.

These tools “worked” to protect land for a while. Now they are failing and, in fact, accelerate land consumption. There is nothing “wrong” with any of these tools and a comprehensive land conservation program would included most of them. But, and it is a big “but”:  

Lacking a fair allocation of the cost of dysfunctionally located urban land uses, the economic pressure for this scatteration has turned each of these tools into an accelerator of land consumption.

The tools crafted to “control” cancerous expansion of urban fabric and, thus, to “conserve land” have been trumped by a distorted, counterproductively-subsidized market and by automobility. The traditional land conservation tools have not just failed to protect land, they have now turned to exponents of urban land conversion and land exploitation. (See “Scatteration” Sept. 22, 2003.)

The easiest-to-understand malfunction is large-lot zoning. Ten thousand half-acre lots chew up 5,000 net acres. An ordinance requiring 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-acre lots for urban houses consumes from 100,000 to one million acres. That is from 20 to 200 times as much land consumed by the same number on urban dwellings. With thousands of “AOL millionaires” abroad and low interest rates, the high price of large lots is not a barrier. Conservation easements and purchases of development rights conserve some land but drive up the market price and focus development pressures on the unprotected land owned by speculators.     

Fauquier County, which prides itself on land conservation policies, applies most of the traditional land conservation strategies. Over the period 1993 to 2004, the average new urban house consumed nearly seven acres of land. At that rate. in 10 years the County urbanized more land than had been set aside for all urban land uses for the indefinite future in the service districts. 

The impact of each of the current land conservation tools will be examined in future columns and in The Shape of Warrenton-Fauquier's Future (forthcoming).   For an overview of the issues, including an answer to the question, “Well, if we do not scatter urban houses there, what can we use all that land for?” (See “Scatteration,” Sept. 22, 2003.)

The promoters of traditional land conservation techniques are not bad people. In fact, the ones we know agree with this view of traditional land conservation tactics. They just do not know what to do, given the current level of citizen understanding of human settlement patterns and thus the current political climate.

Geographic Illiteracy is the Problem , and Eradication of Geographical Illiteracy is the First Step Toward a Solution

So, where is the problem? Lack of citizen understanding, specifically Geographical Illiteracy. 

What is the answer? First, citizens and their leaders must confront Geographical Illiteracy. Geographical Illiteracy was defined and the elements explored in End Note 9 of “Land Speculators 2, Citizens 0,” March 14, 2005.

The next step is to set down a specific set of facts to illuminate the impact of Geographic Illiteracy. Only when the citizens in the Countryside and in the Urbanside understand examples such as the one that follows will there be support for Fundamental Change and efficient, effective land conservation.

Demonstration of Urban Land Balance in the Countryside: 95 Percent Land Conservation, Five Percent Urban Land

The most expeditious way to understand the basis for a 95/5 ratio for nonurban to urban land in the Countryside is a specific example. We use the northern part of Virginia and adjacent West Virginia which makes up about 40 percent of the area National Capital Subregion for the following demonstration.

Where the jobs are, now and in the future. According to Washington Council of Government's data, over 80 percent of jobs in the Virginia/West Virginia within 60 miles of the Memorial Bridge are lie within just 20 miles of that bridge. In Virginia, most of these jobs are within 10 miles of the Virginia end of the Memorial Bridge. This area includes Tysons Corner, Merrifield, Springfield et. al.   

Something close to this distribution is projected to exist still 25 years from now and beyond. In spite of modest radial expansion (and significant percentage growth), the volume of non-residential construction in and near the core of the Subregion far exceeds that in outer locations like Loudoun and Prince William Counties. The CoStar Office Watch data on the location and value of recent and under-construction commercial buildings published by The Washington Post as recently as  Feb. 14, 2005, documents that predictions for distribution of jobs in the Virginia Subregion are on track. (See “Where the Jobs Are,” May 24, 2004).

Despite attempts to confuse and obfuscate the facts, there is no “phenomenal job growth” at the fringes of the intensively urbanized area.

Balanced Communities. Next, there is an imperative to create Balanced Communities. Few argue for the creation of unbalanced communities. The details of what constitutes a "balanced" community can be complex but in simple terms, it requires a strong (but not necessarily an absolute) balance of jobs/housing/services/ recreation/amenity at the Alpha Community scale. That means putting houses near the jobs both inside and outside the Clear Edge. 

Because of the job distribution noted above, the Beta Communities of Greater North Arlington, Greater South Arlington and Greater Alexandria have far more jobs than housing. Other Beta Communities inside the Beltway and all those outside the Beltway except perhaps (depending on where the boundaries are drawn) Greater Reston and Greater Tysons Corner have more housing than jobs.  Inside the Clear Edge, every Beta Community needs to evolve to become a Balanced (Alpha) Community.

Outside the Clear Edge, the five percent of the land devoted to urban uses would be distributed in functional, disaggregated but Balanced Communities.  Each urban enclave in the Countryside would also be surrounded by a Clear Edge. The total area needed for these urban enclaves is calculated below.

A need to urbanize more land inside the Clear Edge? Those afflicted by Geographic Illiteracy go wildly into non-reality when they suggest that there is a need for substantial radial expansion of urbanized area to create Balanced Communities. This misconception is rooted in the failure to understand A=PiR² as it applies to the distribution of human settlement at the community, subregional and regional scales. Those who read this column understand that:  

Within 20 miles of the Memorial Bridge there are about 270,000 acres of land in Virginia.  If the vacant and underutilized land in this area were intelligently developed and redeveloped, there would be more than enough built environment to support all the jobs and housing demand in the Virginia Subregion for the foreseeable future.  (See End Note 5.)

Regional Metrics.  With these understandings of job location, Balanced Communities and urban land demand, it is possible to apply Regional Metrics to demonstrate the power of A= PiR². Inside Radius=20 there are, as noted above, 270,000 +/- acres in Virginia. In the radius band between Radius=20 miles and Radius=60 miles there are 2.6 million +/- acres south and west of the Potomac River in Virginia and West Virginia. This is the area that experience over the last 45 years indicates is being (and without Fundamental Change will continue to be) scattered with urban land uses. This is especially true if there is an expansion and extension of radial roadways and commuter rail. (See “The Commuting Problem,” Jan. 17, 2005 .)

Regional Metrics are based on The Five Natural Laws of Human Settlement Patterns. The 10 Person Rule holds that, based on settlement patterns actually built over the past 50 years, the minimum density at community-scale that will support a balance of jobs/housing/services/ recreation/amenity is 10 persons per acre. This is the density of the original plan for Planned New Communities such as Reston and Fairfax Center and is the minimum density for Balanced Communities (aggregated or disaggregated) that are either new or evolved from existing Beta Communities.   

R=20 to R=60 Mile Radius Band Capacity. At the density of Balanced Communities and preserving 50 percent Countryside (aka, Subregional and Regional openspace) the R=20 to R=60 Mile Radius Band has room for a minimum of 13 million citizens as well as their jobs, services, recreation and amenity at sustainable urban densities. Preserving 75 percent of the area in Countryside leaves a capacity of at least 6.5 million citizens under the same conditions. That is about 150 percent of the existing total population in the National Capital Subregion. The power of A=PiR² is clearly demonstrated by these calculations. 

S/PI advocates preserving 95 percent of the R=20 to R=60 Mile Radius Band as Countryside as the optimum economic, social and physical outcome for citizens of both the Urbanside and the Countryside in the National Capital Subregion. This is one of four 95 percent/5 percent ratios that are outlined in Handbook: Three Step Process to Create Balanced Communities and Sustainable New Urban Regions. (See End Note 6.)

Settlement patterns that conserve  95 percent of the land in Countryside land uses would provide for a future population in balanced, disaggregated Balanced Communities of 1,300,000. There are about 600,000 living in this area now. Over a two times expansion seems like plenty of “room for growth, especially when there is no “need” for any new land conversion outside the Clear Edge to support the Subregion’s projected growth of jobs/housing/services/recreation/

amenity. This amount of growth is also about what will be needed to create disaggregated, Balanced Communities in the Countryside outside the Clear Edge around the intensively urbanized core of the Subregion.

In addition, this pattern of 95 percent Countryside and 5 percent Urbanside in the R=20 to R=60 Radius Band would accommodate the patterns of land use most highly valued in the market and would provide affordable and accessible housing near the jobs for those workers. 

For those who favor land conservation, this may sound too good to be true.  Even better news is that achieving this result does not require draconian controls. All that is needed is (1) broad citizen understanding of spacial reality (eliminate Geographical Illiteracy) and (2) a fair and equitable distribution of the location-variable costs of services needed to support contemporary society. Let Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” of the market do the rest. Over 40 years a sustainable pattern would emerge from this Fundamental Change.

Once Geographic Illiteracy is recognized and examples such as this are understood, progress can be made to conserve land.

The Current Situation

Geographic Illiteracy infects every debate about land conservation. It distorts discussion of the cost of housing and allows supporters of Business As Usual to claim a negative relationship between land conservation and affordable housing, and between land conservation and economic development. (See “Affordable, But No Bargain,” Feb. 17, 2003, and “The Housing Dilemma,” July 14, 2003.)

A typical example, in fact an archetypical example, of the impact of Geographic Illiteracy on land conservation is a multi-part series in one of the weekly newspapers serving Warrenton-Fauquier. (See End Note 7.)  Fauquier is a county of 420,000 acres and a population of over 60,000. It is in the bulls eye of the 2.6 million-acre R=20 to R=60 Radius Band and makes up about 16 percent of this territory. In the three front-page articles printed to date the reporter has quoted:  

• County supervisors and land conservation advocates praising the “green” orientation of the county

• The county planner proudly noting that by applying the traditional land conservation tools 37 percent of the county is “protected”

• Conservation groups noting the improved pace of securing easements

• Affordable housing advocates lamenting the impact of land conservation on availability of affordable housing

• Building industry representatives declaring that land conservation is contrary to the interests of less well to do residents and the rights of private property owners.

In other words the article is a recitation of views founded on Geographical Illiteracy. Conservation interests and public officials like to brag about the “success” of Fauquier County in land conservation.  And, compared to many of its neighbors, Fauquier County has, until recently, done a better job. Now the traditional land conservation tools are beginning to leverage gross land consumption as the seven acres-per-unit figure cited earlier indicates. What is most obvious is the new subdivisions agglomerating along U.S. Route 29, along VA Route 28 and around the Town of Warrenton. This is just the tip of the iceberg.  If present trends continue there will be no Countryside left in the “No 1. place to live in 'rural' America.”   

Land conservation supporters who advocate use of the traditional tools do not intend to wipe out the Countryside. As noted earlier the tools they advocate have a role, but only within a overarching context that recognizes spacial reality. The core problem is they are devoting most of their attention to support the traditional tools in places like Loudoun County and to defend against perceived threats such as a federal review of the tax deductibility of easements rather than addressing the fundamental problems.  

Many leaders in the land conservation effort agree with the 95/5 percent ratio to conserve and enhance the Countryside and the Urbanside.  They admit that none of the tools now being touted will achieve these goals. 

In their defense they note, “We are doing better now than 10 years ago.” They describe this progress in glowing terms to retain existing supporters. They say that they do not think it is “realistic” to shoot for 95 percent land conservation. In fact, it is not realistic until citizens have a clear understanding of the context of land conservation. In other words, wipe out Geographical Illiteracy.

Fundamental Change would mean no more subsidies for speculators, developers and builders. These entrepreneurs could, however, make a good profit building components of sustainable human settlement patterns inside the Clear Edge. There is also new development needed to create Balanced Communities in Greater Fredericksburg, Greater Manassas-Gainesville (aka, West Prince William), Greater Ashburn, Greater Leesburg, Warrenton-Fauquier, Greater Culpeper and Greater Charlestown all within the R=20 to R=60 Radius Band.

Where to From Here

There must be a plan to create Balanced Communities inside the Clear Edge as well as disaggregated Balanced Communities in places like Warrenton-Fauquier within the 2.6 million-acre R=20 to R=60 Radius Band.

Until there is an intelligent region-wide plan for the patterns and densities of land use that will create 130,000 acres of quality urban fabric in the Virginia/West Virginia R=20 to R=60 Radius Band of the National Capital Subregion, it would be foolhardy to build new roads, raise taxes, subsidize any form of development or take other actions. 

Building the roads and rails that transport facility advocates desire does not just make hundreds of speculators, developers, engineers and builders richer, they make millions of citizens poorer -- and roadways more congested.  

The first step is to wipe out Geographic Illiteracy.

-- March 28, 2005

END NOTES

1. The support for land conservation “in principle” might also be termed “in the abstract.” The reason is that the level of support falls off in specific instances, as in, “They want to conserve land by preventing me from doing just what I want with my land?” As noted in “Land Speculators 2, Citizens 0", March 14, 2005, the drop-off reflects in large part a failure to understand the cumulative impact of over emphasis on individual rights vs. community rights/responsibilities.

2. There is no need for more land to be converted to urban land uses to support the projected population and job growth. See "Five Critical Realities That Shape the Future", Dec. 15, 2003, and “Scatteration”, Sept. 22, 2003. For a review of urban land conversion rates, see “Region’s Green Space Going Fast: Study Says 28 to 43 Square Miles (sic) Disappear Each Day”, Elizabeth Williamson, The Washington Post, Page B-1, May 22, 2004. This study by the Washington Council of Governments and the National Park Service found that nearly half as much “green space” disappeared between 1986 and 2000 (14 years) as had disappeared in the prior 379 years. The use of the term “Square Miles” in the headline and the story was corrected to read “acres” a few days later but is repeated here as an indication of the level of Geographic Illiteracy that plagues the discussion of land conservation. This topic is discussed later in the column.

3. See Chapter 1 Box 2 of The Shape of the Future and the references cited therein. As noted in this Box, the land area of the United States increased by a factor of five between 1800 and 2000. It is also important to understand the difference between the amount of land used per capita in daily lives and the “ecological footprint.” Because almost every citizen of the US of A consumes large quantities of food and fiber plus extractive and nonrenewable resources, the ecological footprint of each individual is much larger than the area they use in daily life (maximum 1/10 acre per person at the Alpha Community scale). The easiest way to grasp this concept is to note that an urban citizens does not visit the fields, forests, processing plants, warehouses and distribution centers much less the mines and oilfields in their daily activities.

4. Shellenberger, Michael and Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism, The Nathan Cummings Foundation 2004. (Google the title for a pdf file of the report and a range of views and comments.) The interviews focused on the issue of global warming. Because the impact of human settlement patterns is even more abstract than global warming, the report may be of interest to those concerned with either global warming or in achieving Fundamental Change.   

5. For easy reference the following summary is provided. Also see “Five Critical Issues That Shape the Future,” Dec. 15, 2003.

If the vacant and underutilized land within a half-mile radius (500 acres) around 15 existing METRO stations in Virginia, plus the three planned Tysons Corner METRO stations were developed in the same pattern and density as the 5 stations in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor are now planned; and,

If, with 50 percent subregional open space plus 40 percent community open space preserved, the vacant and underutilized land in the Beta Communities of Greater North Arlington, Greater South Arlington, Greater Alexandria, Greater Baileys Crossroads, Greater Springfield, Greater Annandale, Greater Merrifield, Greater Tysons Corner, Fairfax Center, Greater Lorton, Greater Woodbridge (East Prince William), Greater Centreville, Greater Chantilly, Greater Reston, Greater Cascades-Sterling were developed in the pattern and density that Reston and Fairfax Center were originally planned (they were originally planned as Balanced Communities);

Then there is plenty of room inside R=20 miles for all the development projected for the foreseeable future. The recent “Reality Check” exercise produced a consensus estimate of 1.6 million new jobs and two million new residents between now and 2025. “Reality Check” also suggests that the majority believe a rational location distribution of jobs and housing that reflects the market is superior to continuing the current trend of dysfunctional scatteration of urban land uses.

6. Risse, E M. Handbook: Three Step Process to Create Balanced Communities and Sustainable New Urban Regions, Warrenton, VA: SYNERGY/Resources, Forthcoming.

7. “Going Green – What does it Mean? Counting the cost of saving the land, the challenge of affordable housing, Conflicting forces at work." Cheryl K. Chumley, The Fauquier Times-Democrat, March 9, 16 and 23, 2005.