Land Use and Greenery in Our Midst

Our relationship with land can be categorized in terms of population density, leading to three major distinctions: rural, suburban, and urban. Each environment presents a different facet form which one could view our interaction with undeveloped real estate. Manipulation of land is justified by two claims: "I want to" or "I have to". Wanting to trim the lawn, pretty up that garden, put up those notorious lawn-gnomes, or just stroll through a park or nature preserve; none of those are done out of necessity. By contrast, "I have to" gives the impetus of economic well-being or another vital civil function to land manipulation. Themes of choice versus necessity snake through the following discussion of land use in rural, suburban, and urban settings.

Rural land has a unique quality - it can be just as useful as it is beautiful. More so, the depth and magnitude of this beauty is singular not only because of sheer size, but also in relation to what one can accomplish with it. Practical accomplishment has a unique appeal that purely decorative works can't touch in relation to who owns them. However, it remains that rural land is unique among the three mentioned environs in that there is much greater economic value placed on it. By extension, society at large has a bigger stake in how it is managed, modified, and perceived. Details of such perceptions vary; just how much value rural land has (inherently and potentially) is a topic of debate.

Farmers have an obvious stake in rural land being perceived in the best light possible. Clashes ensue with developers and expanding suburbs who argue that economic development brought on by construction compensates (and then some) the disadvantage brought on by farmland loss. Herein the beauty of even the most practical utilization of land emerges - the scenic value of farmland. While aesthetic arguments lag behind those brought on by the likes of nature preserves, those arguments are not hollow. An instance of rural farmland coming into conflict with developers in North Carolina illustrates the visual, as well as practical appeals of farmland. (1) Leah Greden Mathews, a researcher with the University of North Carolina involved in the debate states, "What is really clear is that people value farmland for things in addition to the crops that are grown on the land".

Economics of rural land subject it to a phenomenon that suburban and urban enclaves of natural flora do not encounter on a systematic basis - the elimination of farmland to make way for development. Suburbs expand, and cheap real estate attracts companies looking to set up shop with lower overhead costs. Since farms function in terms of markets and economics, portions of farmland are often bought for a price that is, in theory, satisfactory to the prior owner. Questions of beauty and usefulness as food (and lately, fuel) source are addressed, but the result is often predictable - development wins, and whoever decides to farm the remaining land makes substantial amounts of cash in exchange for their reduced private property, and therefore, source of fixed income. A case study manifests in Michigan; larger lots and increasing suburb/exurb population makes it tempting, and financially logical to buy out portions of farms. (2) The net result of this mentality over time is a progressively harder career working with rural farmland. Measures are in place to protect remaining rural land for farming use and to provide incentives through tax breaks for remaining farmers to stay in the business. Economic turmoil overshadows visual appeal of rural land, and even if scenery is taken into account it is much more difficult to agree on a price tag or to quantify scenery on a dollars-per-unit basis. This is far easier done, at least theoretically, with land priced in terms of area, for instance such-and-such dollars/acre.

Perhaps the most symbolic of modern life, and that land manipulation that people know the most is the lawn. A simple patch of grass, usually with rectangular geometry. Often maintained by mowing, selective spraying and/or fertilizing, and of course patrolling for noxious weeds. All this and more (property taxes) takes up time, money, and can strain one's patience. Relate the front lawn with the farm. Obviously size differences are prominent. Even the most opulent front lawns do not straddle the other side of a horizon, to my knowledge. But more than size is evident. A lawn gives back very little equity, yet can demand a pretty penny for proper appearance. In fact, an article on HGTV's website covers homeowner communities where lawns are seen as a net liability barring new maintenance methods. (3) Of course prices of lawn care existed before the infamous gas pinch and new environmental awareness, but they were apparently not high enough to offset the "prettiness" that lawns bring.

So why have a lawn, and why covet it if you don't? There are several practical benefits, such as reduced soil erosion, retardation of any potential fires, and a general cooling effect that combats the asphalt-induced "urban heat-island" phenomenon. However, that doesn't cut it for an answer. I challenge the reader to ask their friends/neighbors/coworkers on why they have a lawn. Even though I make no pretense of having insight into people's needs, I am willing to bet that "oxygen production" or "lessens the urban heat-island effect" is not on the top of people's reasons for having and maintaining a lawn. Lawns simply look nice. Providing a space for families to indulge on the weekends and after work, lawns are a humble yet powerful reminder that no matter how much steel and plastic surrounds us, there is an inherent appeal in the "natural". Lawns seem to fulfill this psychological need at reasonable cost, and with certain practical benefits. However, remember the distinction between suburban lawns and rural farmlands. Lawns are an option. The absence or excessive care of a lawn can pinch but not maim. If push comes to shove, lawns can be dropped from the equation of suburban life without any critical detriment to their ex-owners. This is not the case with farmland, where the land and its mastery is gardening, indulgence, perhaps a chore, but in contrast to suburban lawns, also a paycheck.

Technically speaking, there is also the urban environment to consider. Central Park of New York City as well as indoor "natural environments" such as greenhouses come to mind. However, the themes evident in urban landscaping are not much different than those evidenced in rural and suburban settings. Occasionally, scenery/aesthetics competes with economic potential. Usually, but not always of course, economics win. Other times, attempts to protect greenery are successful, in recognition of its value being greater than what is determined by supply-demand dynamics. Rural land and the issues surrounding it teach of the practical, gritty aspects of dealing with tracts of land where growth is substantially justified by economics and only secondarily by aesthetic considerations - case in point being crops grown to be sold, not to look good. Suburban lawns and landscaping illustrate the opposite case, where money is spent on patches of nature that are, in strictly financial terms, a net liability rather than an asset. These two opposing forces create a kinetic tug-of-war which shapes land use in various human environments, from urban to rural to government-controlled.

An exploration of natural land use in urban and state-controlled settings would require an application of these two themes that are in fact the "choice vs. necessity" alluded to earlier. While interplay between the two forces of land use is unique in each instance, their effects are most clearly seen in rural and suburban settings.

References:

1. The Weekly Journal. "Farmland Project Measures Rural Lands' Economic Importance". Stacy Kish, 2008.
http://www.weeklyjournal.net/content/news/farmland-project-measures.shtml

2. Record-Eagle. Farmland Shrinks Under New Development.
http://www.record-eagle.com/business/local_story_317093043.html

3. Lawns for Less. Home and Garden Television
http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/gl_lawns/article/0,,HGTV_3597_1388055,00.html