Land fragmentation

Land fragmentation: notes on a fundamental rural spatial problem by Russell King and Steve Burton

David Grigg (1981, 271) concluded a recent review of progress in agricultural geography by identifying land tenure as a field of growing interest for rural geo graphers. This is undoubtedly true (cf. King 1971; 1977). But land tenure, and its reform, are basically matters of a legal, political and economic nature — although different tenure types may manifest themselves in terms of different landscapes and different forms of rural spatial organization. There is one aspect of land tenure, however, which is more centrally geographical since it refers directly to the spatial structure of farm holdings. This is land fragmentation. The fragmentation of agricultural land is basically concerned with farms which are poorly organized in location and space. Consolidation, the name given to the policy response to poor spatial organization of farming, is therefore intrinsically a spatial problem-solving technique. Yet it is strange that the standard texts on agricultural geography mention fragmentation either not at all (the case of Tarrant, 1974) or only in passing and then only to briefly outline its negative effects (Gregor, 1970, 8 7 - 8 8 ; Morgan and Munton, 1971, 58; Symons, 1978, 6 7 - 6 8 ) , a situation paralleled in rural sociology (Fals Borda, 1956; Lynn Smith, 1959). Of the wide circulation texts only Clout (1972, 102—12) has a somewhat more extended treatment, whilst Chisholm's famous essay deals with the problem within the now well-established Thunian framework of distance from the farm, a rather partial analysis (Chisholm, 1979, chapters 3 and 6). Books on land reform also touch on land fragmentation and consolidation (Jacoby, 1971, chapter 8; King, 1977, 1 9 - 2 2 ) but it is clear that they regard the fragmentation-consolidation theme as a side issue to the more fundamental problem of inequitable land distribution which is a vital part of the development debate, especially in many less developed countries. It is significant that Erich Jacoby, FAO's most notable expert in the field of agrarian structure, calls land consolidation 'the small land reform' (Jacoby, 1971, chapter 8).

I

Definition

From the literature it emerges that the term fragmentation is used in two quite distinct senses. Firstly, it is often taken to imply the subdivision of farm property

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014

476

Land fragmentation: notes on a fundamental

rural spatial problem

into undersized units which are too small for rational exploitation. The second aspect is the situation whereby an individual holding is split into many non contiguous parcels. Some authors try to distinguish between the two forms by creating their own terminologies. Farmer (1960) for example refers to the first form as subdivision and the second as scattering. Sanderatne (1972) sees frag mentation as the process of division of existing holdings whilst parcellization is the spatial segregation of plots which are technically and economically part of one agricultural enterprise. The issue is further complicated by the fact that both types of fragmentation frequently coexist, and by the fact that consolidation is the term applied to the remedy for both situations. The FAO defines land consoli dation as a policy t o create, or foster the creation of, individually owned farms of adequate size, structure, capitalization and management' (Meliczek, 1973, 50). True to the blandness of international organization policy statements, this definition covers the enlargement of uneconomic holdings as well as the grouping of dispersed plots. It also, incidentally, carries an ideological value judgement on the desirability of individual ownership. From this point on, we take fragmentation to mean the spatial dispersion of a farmer's plots over a wide area, intermixed with parcels operated by other farmers — i.e. the second definition given above. Fragmentation in the first sense — undersized farms — is an issue of wider implications, linked to problems of overpopulation and polarized land ownership and to processes of land redistribution as in a conventional land reform.

II

Measurement of fragmentation

Geographers appear to have been slow to grasp the fact that fragmentation and consolidation are quintessentially spatial processes. Where farmsteads and farmers are badly located with respect to their fields, where fields are inconveniently located with respect to one another, and where the fields are an awkward size and shape for modem farming practices (e.g. in tiny wedge-shaped plots) both the problems and solutions are inherently spatial. Appropriate techniques range from the traditional cartographic to the modern spatial optimizing. Several relevant parameters can be identified. These include: the size of the holding, the number of plots, the size of plots, the size distribution of plots, the spatial distribution of plots, and the shape characteristics of plots. The measure ment of farm and plot areas is a simple matter. Nowadays it can most efficiently be carried out by using a digitiser or graphics tablet linked to a computer or micro computer with visual display. The simplest fragmentation measure is the number of plots per holding, but of course this ignores other parameters such as plot size and distances. Four other fragmentation indices have been proposed, and each of these will be briefly described. Simmons's (1964) index of farm fragmentation expresses the relationship


Russell King and Steve

Burton

477

between the number of parcels in a farm and the relative size of the parcels. Dis tance is not incorporated into this index; in this respect each spatially separate plot is equally weighted, being distinguished only by its relative size in respect of the total holding area. But the index is independent of overall farm size. Simmons's fragmentation index (FI) is given by the sum of the squares of the plot sizes (a) divided by the square of the total farm size (.4): 2

Xa P I - - ,

A value of 1 indicates a one-block holding; values tending to zero represent high fragmentation. Applying his index to 83 sample farms in Nottinghamshire in 1943 and 1963, Simmons found an increase in both farm size and fragmentation. Bryant (1974) also used Simmons's index in a more complex analysis of changing farm structure around the edge of Paris. The second index, developed by Januszewski (1968), is rather similar. He too looks at the number of plots per holding and their size distribution, taking advan tage of the arithmetical rule that the square root of a sum of numbers is smaller than the sum of their square roots. His index of consolidation (K) is: K = This index too ranges between 0 and 1, higher values indicating the more consoli dated, and lower values the more fragmented, holdings. The index has three pro perties: the degree of fragmentation increases with the number of plots (i.e. the K index gets lower); fragmentation increases when the range of plot sizes is small; and fragmentation decreases when the area of big plots increases and that of small plots decreases. Like Simmons, Januszewski demonstrated an empirical relation ship between fragmentation and farm size: his data were drawn from 135 ran domly selected holdings in Lower Silesia. He also points out that the same index can be used to express the degree of fragmentation of cropping patterns" within a holding or region. Fragmentation of land-use patterns has also been investigated by Board (1970) using intercept measurements of sample land use quadrats, but his methodology is not easily transferable to non-contiguous, widely scattered farm fragments. The third measure is Igbozurike's 'relative index of land parcellization' (Igbozurike, 1974). In direct contrast to the simple 'number of plots per holding' measure mentioned earlier which ignores size of plot and distance parameters, this index is based on the average size of plot and the distance covered by the operator in visiting all his plots in one round trip, ignoring number of plots. The index is given by the equation. Pi = 1

1 J _

Dt

100 Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014

478



where Pf is the parcellization or fragmentation index, s is the size of each parcel and Dt the aggregate round-trip distance taking in all plots. In practice, however, Igbozurike's index has limited value and his own methodology has certain flaws. Firstly, he is confused over measurement of distance. He states that distance is to be measured as t h e actual total distance covered by the operator in a single round that takes him to all his parcels', whereas his diagrams measure distance as being the sum of individual return trips to each parcel (Igbozurike, 1974, 133—34). Secondly he mixes units of measurement in his worked examples. This does not alter the relative ordering of the various examples' indices, it just depresses the figures misleadingly close t o zero which is the state of no fragmentation (so that a five-plot holding gets a index of 0.015). Logically, his example results should be multiplied by 100 (the ratio between kilometres and hectares). Perhaps the most important criticism of the index is that it overstresses distance and ignores number of plots. To give an example, a farm with two plots of size* 10km apart would produce aP,- index twice as high as a holding with 10 plots of size x each one kilometre from its neighbour. The- fourth index is one used by Schmook (1976) in a historical study of the evolution of farm structure in a village near Ghent (Belgium) between 1604 and 1950. This index, P , is the ratio between the area of a polygon which circum scribes all the plots of one holding to the area of that holding. P is always larger than 1; a large P value indicates intense fragmentation. Schmook considers two objections to his method. When the plots of a highly fragmented holding are grouped in a narrow, elongated polygon P rather small, even though frag mentation is intense. Secondly it could be that a very eccentric plot can have a great influence on polygon size and therefore distort P upwards. This drawback can be countered by calculating P- and P- indices, removing the one or two most eccentric plots from the polygon and from the farm size. Schmook shows that for all farm size categories and on all indices used, fragmentation decreased between 1604 and 1950. 0

0

0

c a n

D e

0

0

t

2

Finally, a brief mention of shape and other pattern characteristics is in order. Shape is obviously not the same thing as fragmentation, but fragmented plots are often of a highly awkward shape for rational farming, being excessively elongated, pointed or irregular. There is a considerable literature on measuring shape in geography. Much of it refers to physical phenomena such as pebbles, drainage basins and atolls, but there are a few human geographical examples includ ing city and village slopes. Many of these shape indices can be used to measure the shape of plots of land. Methods of measuring shape which are relevant to field and plot patterns include those dealt with by Blair and Biss (1967), Boyce and Clark (1964), Chorley (1959), Clark and Gaile (1973), Lee and Sallee (1970), Rasheed (1972) and Stoddart (1965). Numerous authors state or have reached the con clusion that on a farm square or rectangular fields (rather than circular or hexagonal plots) would be optimal, with the farmstead centrally placed (e.g. Wheeler, 1973, 50—52), but only Lee and Sallee (1974) provide a formal proof of this, based on minimizing travel time and on linear field operations like ploughing and mechanized


Russell King and Steve Burton

479

harvesting. Other pattern features of plot nets which can be measured include intricacy (the amount of 'detail' in plot boundaries as indicated, for example, by the number of angles per parcel or the ratio between the plot perimeter and the circumference of a circle having the same area as the plot) and orientation (the direction of the 'graining' of the plot pattern). Some techniques for assessing these parameters are dealt with by Board (1970), Haggett and Board (1964) and Latham (1963).

Ill

Extent of fragmentation

The problem of fragmentation is present in most old peasant communities through out the world but it would be a mistake to regard it as purely an inheritance from earlier epochs or as a relic feature of rural backwardness. This view oversimplifies the nature of and changes within rural society. Even in western Europe much of the fragmentation that now exists has evolved recently over relatively few generations. Dovring (1965, 46—47) cites the case of parts of the Balkans, settled only in the nineteenth century, where fragmentation was already severe by the early twentieth century. He also stresses the speed with which many newly consolidated areas refragment within a few decades: the experience of the early twentieth century consolidation schemes in Austria and Germany is instructive here. American experi ence contradicts the view of fragmentation as a feature characteristic only of back ward agriculture. Smith (1975) has shown that in the United States some of the largest and most successful farms have a fragmented structure. This occurs because dynamic, expanding farmers cannot find land near at hand and so purchase or rent parcels often at some considerable distance from the farm headquarters. Rapid transport and large size of the fields lessen the inefficiency of this fragmented structure. The literature on farm structure is replete with examples of extreme fragmen tation from many parts of the world and from many historical periods. Typical is Thorpe's (1951) study of an eighteenth centry Danish open field village. The pattern was one of miniscale fragmentation; one peasant held 127 strips, few of which were contiguous. Naylon (1959, 363) gives examples from early postwar Spain: a farmer in Zamora province with 66 acres divided into 394 parcels; and fragments of arable land so small that it is impossible to turn a yoke of mules — a reminder of the Portuguese proverb quoted by Lambert (1963, 44) that 'a cow grazing on one man's land manures his neighbour's plot'. A more recent study of agrarian structures in Galicia showed the average number of parcels per farm to be 3 2 ; severe fragmentation prevents the population from extracting anything like full potential from a generally favourable physical environment (O'Flanagan, 1980). Sometimes the extent of fragmentation reaches physically indivisible pro portions. In the Mediterranean region it is common to find that ownership of trees is distinct from that of the land on which they grow. Trees themselves may be subdivided, such as the separation of the rights to cut wood, gather fruit, or even


480

Land fragmentation:

notes on a fundamental


to use the shade. In Sri Lanka Arulpragasam (1961) found two coconut trees shared by 360 people. Likewise undivided fractional shares of land may reach bizarre proportions such as the 2450/282 240 OOOths (0.00000868) of a i acre plot in Taiwan recorded by the Vander Meers (1968). Much more important, and less common, are studies of average conditions over wider areas such as whole countries. On the widest possible scale, the World Census of Agriculture, taken in 1960, reported that fragmentation was most severe in Europe (an average of 6.7 plots per holding), followed by Asia (4.0 plots per holding). According to Dovring (1965, 39—40) about 35 per cent of Europe's farmland was in need of consolidation in 1950. In Portugal the proportion was 60 per cent. Although since 1950 significant progress towards consolidation has been achieved in countries like France, Germany, Holland and Spain (Lambert, 1963), the overall situation has not notably changed. If anything it has worsened, for since 1950 the technical requirements for rational farm layout have become more stringent with the advent of machines and increased labour costs. By far the most detailed study of farm fragmentation is the excellent analysis of the Greek situation by Kenneth Thompson (1963). This study, which deserves to be more widely known, revealed an acute and widespread fragmentation of Greek farm holdings which comprehensively constrains any thoroughgoing modern ization and mechanization plans. Thompson summed up the situation by saying that the fabric of Greek agriculture had been cut to pieces.

IV

Causes of fragmentation

Farm fragmentation may be caused by one or more of a number of influences which may be broadly classified into four categories: sociocultural, economic, physical and operational. Sociocultural processes comprise a number of important elements leading to fragmentation. Particularly important are inheritance laws which facilitate or demand equal division of land amongst heirs. This principle has deep histori cal roots in old world countries where, for example, both the Napoleonic Code and Islamic inheritance laws require equal distribution of a patrimony amongst heirs upon the landholder's death. Fragmentation is exacerbated where heirs are able to demand equal shares of different types of land such as orchard, pasture and irrigated field. A farm of, say, three plots with different land qualities or uses would therefore be split into twelve fragments if there were four heirs. Zaheer (1975) has pointed out how such extreme fragmentation occurs in India as a result of local spatial variation in land quality, and evidence from Greece shows that valuable perennial crop land under vines and orchards is fragmented at a faster rate and to a greater extent than arable and pasture (Thompson, 1963, 24). Once the process of fragmentation has started, it continues with geometrical progression at each succeeding generation. Equal inheritance by women with men tends periodically to check (upon marriage) the diminution in the size of



481

holdings but increases the degree of fragmentation. One should, however, be cautious in ascribing an existing state of fragmentation solely or mainly to inheri tance rules; the high degree of fragmentation which existed in the congested parts of western Ireland, for example, arose in spite of the English laws of primogeniture. Land may also be fragmented by small plots being gifted to individuals as dowries or building plots or to charitable or religious organizations. Moneylenders may collect parcels of land in lieu of debt payments and thereby acquire spatially dispersed holdings. All these influences are likely to be strengthened by the driving force of demographic growth. For the Netherlands Vanderpole (1963) has pointed out that fragmentation is worst in the southeast where the Catholic religion prevails and families are larger, on average, than the rest of the country. Secondly, economic processes may lead to fragmentation. It may happen that a pattern of fragmented holdings which at one time was rational is rendered irrational by changes in the economics or technology of farming. Often the earlier pattern remains fossilized in the modern landscape, such as the pattern of strips from an old open-field system. In Ireland small fragmented holdings created to meet the needs of peasant arable farming became unsatisfactory when the rural economy turned more towards stock and dairy farming (Binns, 1950, 9). There are other economic processes too. Often when a farmer wishes to buy or rent additional land he is prevented from doing so in the area contiguous to his own holding and so distant plots are taken. As rural population increases fragmentation may be fostered by the process of letting land in smaller and smaller pieces in order to maximise income from tenants. Fragmentation may also result from the process of economic expansion when farmland, won piecemeal from the waste at times of food shortage or high land prices, is divided internally into small individual plots. Thirdly, fragmentation may be underlain by physical factors. Broken, dissected topography may make the continuity of farmed space difficult. The form of the terrain and the nature of the agricultural enterprise may make the spatial separation of farm plots unavoidable or essential — as for example with transhumance on Alpine farms. This is an instance of economically rational fragmentation, which we shall return to later. Fourthly, fragmentation may be the result of what might be termed 'operational processes'. Here separation may result from establishing a fence or ridge between plots or breaking into the compact holding by roads, canals, railways, industries and other artificial constructions. In certain forms of tropical agriculture, a single cultivator switching from common extensive tillage to intensive activity may carve out isolated small plots from a larger holding or from the unfarmed brush. One of the major causes of fragmentation in Turkey is the 'operative process' whereby a government land distribution programme has fragmented village commonland and allocated it in small parcels to members of the village community (Busch et al., 1979). Similarly the Greek distribution of state and expropriated properties did not take the form of one parcel of land per beneficiary but saw 4 - 1 8 tiny plots of land going to each recipient. Such fragmented assignments were generally made


482

Land fragmentation:



as the result of the beneficiaries' myopic concern for an equitable distribution of all land types (Thompson, 1963, 23). Finally, mention may be made of the link, which is associative rather than causative, between agglomerated settlement and fragmentation. Although severe fragmentation can coexist with dispersed settlement, as Tindituuza and Kateete (1971) have shown for Uganda, farmers living in highly nucleated settlements are more likely to have fragmented holdings than those living in farmsteads on their land. Such a situation is not necessarily one of farmers' preference, however: in many areas, such as southern Italy and parts of the Iberian peninsula, the histori cal development of the land tenure system, with a well established feudal economy until relatively recently, led to the concentration of rural populations in nucleated 'agro-towns' which were a reflection of the peasants' lack of access to permanently owned land, only to fragmented, short contract parcels. Chisholm (1979, chapter 3) has examples of this. Living away from the farmland can be regarded as a pre disposing condition for fragmentation only to the extent that the inconvenience of scattered parcels is less obvious to a farmer who does not live on any part of his farm than to one who does. An instructive example of a changing settlementfragmentation relationship is provided by the Italian land reform (King, 1973). Before the land reform in 1950 the South Italian settlement pattern was dominated by large, nucleated settlements full of peasants with fragmented and insecure holdings; after the land reform peasants were given small compact holdings and were moved from their overcrowded villages to dispersed farms on the new plots. Compact settlement and dispersed plots became dispersed settlement and compact plots.

V

Disadvantages of fragmentation

Some of these have already been hinted at. Most writers condemn fragmentation for its disadvantageous effects on farming, although detailed empirical analyses of these effects are relatively few. Here are three typical statements from different rural contexts. According to Sargent (1952) fragmentation is 'the greatest single factor limiting an increase in French farm production . . . One half of the arable land in France . . . is so severely cut up and fragmented that production costs are high and mechanization and rational land use impossible. The problem posed by fragmentation exists in nearly every farm community in France'. In Spain the 'disease' of fragmentation 'produces no social benefits whatever, and at the same time precludes any rational and economic use of the land . . . (it is) . . . the principle obstacle to the rationalization of Spanish agriculture' (Naylon, 1959). And in India 'fragmentation is a system of perpetual handicap . . . retarding . . . the agri cultural economy' (Zaheer, 1975). Economic costs are usually seen as the most forceful argument against frag mentation. More than 30 years ago Binns (1950, 15) summed up these dis advantages: 'time is wasted and extra expense involved in moving workers, animals



483

and implements to and from the farmstead and from one field to another, and in carrying seed and manure to the various fields, and crops from the field to the threshing floor, stockyard or barn; supervision is rendered more difficult; de predations of animals and birds are harder to control; expense on fences, water supplies, buildings, threshing floors etc. is often much greater; comprehensive drainage or other schemes of improvement may be rendered impossible; access to various fields may be difficult, especially during the season when crops are on the ground; more hands may be required, especially for watching animals; and so on'. In reality the economic drawbacks of fragmentation fall into two groups. Firstly, the 'time wasted' category embraces the extra travel time for the farmer and for his animals, machinery, harvested crops etc. In an interesting table Chisholm (1979, 39) presents data from six African countries to show that between one tenth and one third of agricultural time is spent moving to, from and between fields. In Cyprus Karouzis (1971) found that farmers in the Pitsilia region (where there is an average of 22 plots per holding) travelled an average of 3935 kilometres annually to visit their scattered parcels: if covered on foot such travel could claim half the work time of farmers. Additional time and energy are wasted because of the excessive amount of hand work which has to be done in the corners and along the borders of small parcels where machines cannot operate. Strictly speaking it is not time as such that matters from an economic point of view, but the value of that time, measured either as wages paid to farm labour or as the opportunity cost of production foregone. The second group of economic drawbacks comprises the obstacles that fragmentation provides to a farmer wishing to modernize or rationalize his holding by introducing new crops, machinery, irrigation, drainage, fencing, new forms of animal husbandry, disease control etc. To cite an example, on a one hectare plot a tractor can spend up to a third of its time simply turning round (Naylon, 1959, 364). Some of these economic costs have an ecological basis, such as problems of soil conservation, drainage and irrigation. If fragmen tation makes soil conservation and improvement impossible, the land's produc tivity declines. Extension costs rise and the abandonment of far-flung panels obviously reduces overall agricultural potential. In some cases plots lie idle because no one can prove ownership of them. Credit facilities may not be granted because of the lack of convenient bases to establish guarantees and so this important source of rural economic improvement is denied to the population owning fragmented holdings. Other disadvantages of fragmentation are more concerned with the social and administrative aspects of rural life. Fragmentation increases the number of people involved in implementing decisions about a particular area. Concensus becomes less likely and cooperation becomes more difficult as the farmer is less and less committed to each parcel in an ever widening area (Busch et al., 1979). Cadastral authorities have difficulty in identifying and monitoring precise pat terns of ownership. This in turn will affect land tax collection. Social tension is caused by disputes over ownership, access, rights of way and damage. Such litigation often proves expensive for farmers and clogs up the local courts. Some of these Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014

484

Land fragmentation:



problems have been well documented in Greece where property division among coheirs is often marked by tension, mutual distrust and even violence, and where 47 per cent of plots and 33 per cent of farmland are only accessible by trespass on someone else's land (Herzfeld, 1980; Levy, 1956; Papageorgiou, 1956; Thompson, 1963).

VI

Adjustments to fragmentation

Although fragmentation is conventionally portrayed as a kind of straightjacket on farming, farmers do make certain adjustments to reduce some of its more iniquitous effects. One of the most obvious adjustments is intensity of cultivation — usually measured in terms of labour input — which tends to decline the further the parcel is located from the farmer's residence. Chisholm (1979, chapter 3) marshals a lot of evidence on the relationship between distance, labour input and various measures of output. He notes that the rate of 'drop-off tends to be most rapid around the 2—4 km mark — about one hour's travel on foot. Much of the evidence assembled by Chisholm comes from Scandinavia and the Netherlands where empirical data are generally good because of the high level of education and literacy of the farm population. Nevertheless some studies are available from third world countries which find similar adaptations: either replacement of labourintensive by labour-extensive forms of cultivation, or the cultivation of the same crop with diminished labour input (see, for example, Blaikie (1971) on India; Jackson (1970) on Ethiopia; Prothero (1957) on Nigeria; and Richardson (1974) on Guyana; also Morgan's (1969) review essay on tropical Africa). Another mechanism to combat fragmentation is joint ownership in individual fractional shares. This allows the subdivision of title demanded by equity and inheritance customs but without the physical subdivision of the land, since the coowners agree to farm it as one unit. Joint ownership is more flexible than indi vidually fragmented ownership since it allows farmers to rearrange ownership units into more suitable operational units thereby avoiding the deleterious effects of minute fragmentation. In practice joint ownership seems most common in intensively cultivated irrigated land such as that found in Taiwan and other parts of southeast Asia (Vander Meer, 1975). A rather similar practice, also well documented in southeast Asia (cf. Agarwal (1971) for India; Ganewatte (1974) for Sri Lanka; and Vander Meer (1975) for Taiwan) is that of renting out remote parcels to other farmers for whom they are more accessible. This can be compensated by the first farmer renting in other parcels which are closer to his farmhouse. In this way the pattern of operation becomes more compact and rational than the pattern of ownership (Chisholm, 1979, 59). Where farmers operate particularly remote plots temporary secondary dwellings may be erected, to be occupied only when the farmer is working his plots in that area. Such dwellings are quite common in Alpine and transhumant agricultural



Burton

485

systems. Ultimately, however, fragmentation may invoke permanent residential shifts. Brookfield (1973) found that the New Guinea Chimbu relocate thendwellings when the house-to-plot distance exceeds a certain threshold. Around the coasts of southern Italy, where fragmentation is often acute (Sorbi, 1952), farmers have been transferring residence from interior villages to coastal hamlets in order to be nearer their best land parcels (Kish, 1953).

VII

The case for fragmentation

The arguments given above against fragmentation do not mean that it is a phenomenon universally to be condemned. In certain circumstances fragmentation may be desirable or even necessary. It may, for example, be a perfectly logical and sound response to soil and crop variations or to spreading the risk of climatic or other hazards like frost, hail, flood or animal damage. Igbozurike (1970) claims that, in the tropical realm, fragmentation is an 'overrated phenomenon'. In this area, where people and societies have evolved agrarian practices over millennia, fragmentation has long been endemic and appears to be almost as ancient as the practice of tillage itself. Presumably, therefore, it has utility and relevance for its practitioners, otherwise it would not have lasted so long. The fact that owners with rights to fragmented holdings do not generally agree spontaneously to con solidate their holdings suggests that there may be some underlying economic rationale for fragmentation as well as the more commonly ascribed factors of tradition and cultural inertia. Johnson (1970) shows that from a theoretical stand point fragmentation may indeed be economically rational, provided certain con ditions are present. These conditions are: spatial variations in land types; a pre dominantly subsistence economy; minimal use of capital intensive techniques; low cost of local transport; and a high cost of exchanging parcels of land. The main hypothesis that Johnson verifies is that the greater the degree of subsistence (or the lower the degree of specialization — defined as a situation in which an individual produces more of a commodity than he consumes), the greater the degree of fragmentation individuals will prefer in a milieu in which land is not homogenous (for further discussion and critique of Johnson's model see King and Burton, 1 9 8 1 , 1 8 - 2 3 ) . More accounts of the rationality of fragmentation come from the anthropologi cal literature, especially the work of ecological anthropologists. Much of this work is set in alpine environments where microvariations in altitude, slope, soil, pre cipitation, temperature, wind, sunshine and shade provide an ecological setting for scattered holdings as the logical and necessary adaptive response. Given a subsistence or semi-subsistence polyculture of agriculture and animal husbandry, the utilization of a multiplicity of altitudinal zones and niches may be the only possible adaptive ordering of resources; to attempt to survive at one altitudinal level could only end in disaster. The key to success is the constant vertical oscillation of cultivators, herders and animals following the season climatic round. For man


486

Land fragmentation:



and beast alike this vertical rhythm unites the mountain pastures and woodlands with the valley floor meadows, giving alpine mixed farming its distinctive ecological design (Netting, 1972). Spatial, more particularly altitudinal, fragmentation of individual holdings is the sine qua non of this ecological system. The governing ideal of the homestead as the guarantee of susbsistence prevents partible inheri tance from leading to an irrational subdivision and fragmentation of holdings. Weinberg (1972) demonstrates that the 'pie' of property in the Swiss Alps is not cut into equal and ever-diminishing wedges which would seem to be the logical, Malthusian outcome of a system of equal division amongst coheirs. Property is viewed functionally rather than quantitatively. A complete holding is defined as the set of property units required to support a complete, single household, viz. buildings, animals, vineyards, arable fields, forest, meadows and high pastures. Since these types of land are not strictly comparable, Weinberg calls them 'quantum untis', each one uniquely identified according to function and ecologically con ceived in terms of the physical environment. But a household may vary in size and composition between families and at different stages of the lifecycle. Therefore its supply of labour and demand for work, income and other rural resources changes over time. The inheritance process therefore involves a progressive and pragmatic division of property according to the short-term needs of the evolving family. Such a matching-up process may also take into account sources of work and income outside agriculture such as tourism, industrial work or other forms of wage labour. In a historical study of a Swiss alpine village, Netting (1972) has identified a number of demographic checks on the fragmentational momentum of partible inheritance: family size is reduced by late marriage; the proportion of celibates increases; and people may migrate out of the community. Cole and Wolf (1974, 2 4 9 - 5 2 ) , Friedl (1974, 2 7 - 2 8 ) , and Wolf (1970) provide corro borative data from other parts of the Alps and Rhoades and Thompson (1975) identify similar mechanisms in other high altitude regions of the world such as the Andes and the highlands of Nepal. Other examples of 'rational fragmentation' come from the Mediterranean where fragmentation, due to a number of reasons (inheritance practices, a long period of settlement, detailed spatial variations in microenvironment and climatic hazard), is well advanced. Data from a field study of a Greek peninsula where culti vated land ranges from sea level to 700 metres and varies in aspect supports the hypothesis that the fragmented agricultural system is geared primarily towards stability rather than towards productivity (Forbes, 1976). Insurance against the risk of hail, excessive dampness or drought, and the long-run stability of the overall agricultural ecosystem, which is subsistence-oriented, are seen as rational factors underlying a very high degree of fragmentation - the average holding consists of 2.9 ha. divided into 18 plots. A wide range of crops — wheat, barley, oats, sorghum, vetch, peas, beans, vines, fruit trees, grazing, etc. — is matched in detail to the multiplicity of microenvironments offered by the 'vertical economy' of the peninsula. Moreover the same crop may be grown at two or three altitudes in order to hedge against complete failure. Most fields are small terraces under 4 m



487

wide; agriculture therefore is unmechanizable. Rather similar is Gait's (1979) study of Pantellaria, an island of volcanic origin southwest of Sicily. Here, frag mentation is set in a monoculture of vines. The landscape is composed of inten sively cultivated vineyards enmeshed in a network of carefully constructed walls and terraces. The island's rugged topography combines with climatological factors to produce a variety of ecozones. These in turn produce variations in the grape crop in terms of harvest time, yield per vine, sugar content, etc. Vines mature earliest around the coast, and market prices for these early, sweet table grapes are high, but coastal areas are most vulnerable to drought because of higher tempera tures, drier soil and greater exposure. Inland and uphill the vines, destined mostly for wine, mature later; prices are lower and resistance to drought higher. Most farmers are owner-cultivators and possess land in four or five scattered plots in different ecological locations. The ideal vine holding has its plots in different ecozones to minimize the risk of complete failure in a dry year and to stagger the demand for grape-picking labour. Fragmentation is thus an extremely rational adaptation to local environmental circumstances and the nature of the crop. With out fragmentation, Gait contends, the island could not support the relatively pros perous intensive agriculture it does for so many small proprietor households. Gait's most stunning finding is that owner-farmer housefolds on Pantellaria produce very few children (generally only one or two) in order to avoid excessive reduction in land holding size through partible inheritance — a beautiful example of cultural adaptiveness. Fragmentation may have other ecological benefits. Small plots and a mixed mosaic of crops may tend to check disease diffusion. Crops will benefit from greater protection from exposure to wind, and soil erosion will be reduced. Amenity arguments also play a part. Large, square, desolate fields have less aesthietc value than a 'patchwork quilt' of smaller, irregular plots. Hedgerows provide an important sanctuary for plant and animal life — more important than an equivalent area of woodland because they form a network, rather than a patch, of uncultivated environment. Farm consolidation and field enlargement reduce hedgerow length — by 12 per cent in a recent five-year period in Huntingdonshire (Teather, 1970). In the Netherlands consolidation procedures include the planting of areas of wood land for ecological and recreational purposes, to compensate the loss due to field enlargement (Benthem, 1969).

VIII

Consolidation: the solution?

To fully review the nature of land consolidation and its progress in various countries would require a separate article. Here, only a few points will be made by way of conclusion. Consolidation is of course the other side of the coin to fragmentation. Fragmentation indices can also be regarded as consolidation indices. The dis advantages of fragmentation, when stated in terms of opposites, become the advantages of consolidation. Similarly some of the difficulties with, and drawbacks


488



t o , consolidation programmes are often bound up with the more rational aspects of certain fragmentation situations. The Thunian interpretation of land use patterning at the farm level as exemplified in Chisholm's book has been widely accepted by geographers and others as indi cative of the necessity for consolidation which, theoretically, would remove the negative effect of distance from farm to parcel produced by fragmentation, thus leading to greater overall productivity. Johnson (1970) has also postulated the theoretical economic gains to be had from consolidation. These gains take place under conditions which are the very opposite of those which underlie his frag mentation model outlined earlier. Three assumptions underlie the consolidation model: that all parcels of land are homogenous; that the decision-maker expects an increase in wealth as a result of consolidation; and that this expectation derives largely from anticipated lower transport and management costs. On a consolidated holding the farmer saves time and effort in moving himself, his labourers, his machinery and his output. Gains are particularly significant when heavy machinery is involved. It is also easier for a farmer to supervise the activities of his labourers and helpers. But when the specified assumptions do not operate, consolidation programmes may not succeed, as the experience of some countries shows. In Japan, where farmers do not utilize heavy machinery, consolidation was difficult to implement (Hyodo, 1963). Enforced consolidation in a region of low agricultural specialization may actually lead to reduced welfare for farmers. Jackson (1972) shows that in rural Africa, with its mainly subsistence farming, the supposed benefits of consolidation do not appear to be appreciated by many groups of farmers. A consolidation programme may be heralded by officials and bureaucrats as a necessary or a 'good thing', but in the eyes of rural dwellers it may be per ceived as a meddling, bureaucratic interference in the natural workings of rural life. Although it is generally held that there are considerable economic benefits to be had from consolidation programmes, there are few reliable studies which analyse these enconomic effects. Often the effects of consolidation cannot be disentangled from other policies acting at the same time such as irrigation, new marketing strategies or rural education and extension programmes. Bergmann (1970) sees land consolidation as a means of adapting the agrarian structure to the changing needs of farming and of the rural community as a whole. It therefore becomes a kind of staging process in the rural development of a country, continually respond ing to, and at the same time stimulating, rural economic change. Land consolidation schemes are being pursued in many parts of the world, in countries at all stages of development, and under diverse political conditions. Chisholm (1979, 1 1 6 - 2 1 ) gives a summary of some of these experiences. Only in Europe is consolidation a well documented aspect of agrarian historical geo graphy (see Dovring, 1965, 4 8 - 5 6 ; Hirsch and Maunder, 1978; Jacoby, 1959; Lambert, 1963). Here early moves were made in Scandinavia with a law passed in Finland as early as 1757 (Mead, 1953; Pihkala and Suomela, 1952). The Danish situation is also well documented in English (Skovgaard, 1952; Skrubbeltrang, 1953). Danish laws of 1781 to consolidate land and of 1788 to emancipate serfs



Burton

489

resulted in the establishment of unitary holdings in place of the open fields worked in common. By the early nineteenth century this rural revolution had affected almost the entire farmed area. Elsewhere, considerable progress was made before 1900 in Britain (due largely to the Enclosure Movement), northern Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The European countries which have made most impact on the fragmentation problem in the twentieth century include the Netherlands (Lambert, 1961), West Germany (Bergmann, 1970; Mayhew, 1970; 1971), France (Baker, 1961; Clout, 1968; Perry, 1969; Thompson, 1961) and Spain (de Oteyza, 1969; Naylon, 1959; 1961). Cyprus also has a small, well-conceived programme (King, 1980). Outside Europe only a few countries have embarked on major pro grammes. These include Chile, Egypt, Kenya, Japan, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. Of these only Kenya (Barber, 1971; Clayton, 1970; Homan, 1963; Lawrance, 1970; Taylor, 1969) and India (Agarwal, 1971; Elder, 1962; Shetty, 1963; Sreeraman 1966; Zaheer, 1975) are well documented in English. FAO has had a close involvement with land consolidation, publishing over 30 years ago a surprisingly incisive analysis of the issues of fragmentation and con solidation (Binns, 1950). Throughout the 1950s and 1960s various working party documents and country reports were issued: these are fully referenced in Meliczek (1973, 5 7 - 6 3 ) . Jacoby's Land consolidation in Europe (1959), an important early reference work on consolidation, was based on information provided by 12 member governments to the second session of FAO's Working Party on Con solidation. This was followed by the more legalistic monograph of Moral-Lopez (1962). But most notable has been the complete lack of published work by FAO on fragmentation and consolidation since about 1968. One could be forgiven for assuming that these were no longer live issues in world agricultural development. Department

DC

of Geography, University of Leicester, UK

References

Agarwal, S.K. 1971: Economics of land consolidation in India. New Delhi: Chand. Arulpragasam, L.C. 1961: A consideration of the problems arising from the size and subdivision of paddy holdings in Ceylon and the principles and provisions of the Paddy Lands Act pertaining to them. Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies 4 , 5 9 - 7 0 . Baker, A.H. 1961: Le remembrement rural en France. Geography 46, 60—62. Barber, W.J. 1971: Land reform and economic change among African farmers in Kenya. Economic Development and Cultural Change 19, 6—24. Benthem, R.J. 1969: Changing the countryside by land consolidation. Biological Conservation 1 , 2 0 9 - 1 2 . Bergmann, T. 1970: Land consolidation in Germany. In Bunting, A.H., editor, Change in agriculture, London: Duckworth, 4 8 1 - 8 5 . Binns, B.O. 1950: The consolidation of fragmented agricultural holdings. Washing ton: FAO Agricultural Studies 11. Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014

490

Land fragmentation:



Blaikie, P. 1971: Spatial organization of agriculture in some north Indian villages. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 52, 1—40. Blair, D.J, and Biss, T.H. 1967: The measurement of shape in geography. Univer sity of Nottingham, Department of Geography, Quantitative Bulletin 11. Board, C. 1970: The quantitative analysis of land use patterns with special reference to land use maps: shape analysis, with an application. Geographia Polonica 18, 1 2 1 - 3 8 . Boyce^ R. and Clark, W. A. V. 1964: The concept of shape in geography. Geographi cal Review 54, 5 6 1 - 7 2 . Brookfield, H.C. 1973: Full circle in Chimbu: a study of trends and cycles. In Brookfield, H . C , editor, The Pacific in transition: geographical perspectives on adaption and change, London: Edward Arnold, 127—60. Bryant, C.R. 1974: The anticipation of urban expansion. Geographia Polonica 28, 93-115. Busch, R.C., Busch, C D . and Uner, N. 1979: Field fragmentation on an irrigated plain in Turkey. Human Organization 38, 37—43. Chisholm, M. 1979: Rural settlement and land use: an essay in location, third edition. London: Hutchinson. Chorfey, R.J. 1959: The shape of drumlins. Journal of Glaciology 3, 3 3 9 - 4 4 . Clark, W.A.V. and Gaile, G.L. 1973: The analysis and recognition of shapes. Geografiska Annaler 55B, 1 5 3 - 6 3 . Clayton, E.S. 1970: Agrarian reform, agricultural planning and employment in Kenya. International Labour Review 102, 431—56. Clout, H.D. 1968: Planned and unplanned changes in French farm structures. Geography 53, 3 1 1 - 1 5 . 19T'2: Rural geography. Oxford: Pergamon. Cole, J.W. and Wolf, E.R. 1974: The hidden frontier: ecology and ethnicity in an Alpine valley. New York: Academic Press, de Oteyza, L.G. 1969: Consolidation of holdings and rural development in Spain. Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives 1, 1 - 1 5 . Dovring, F. 1965: Land and Labour in Europe in the twentieth century, third edition. The Hague: Nijhoff. Elder, J.W. 1962: Land consolidation in an Indian village: a case study of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in Uttar Pradesh. Economic Development and Cultural Change 1 1 , 1 6 - 4 0 . Fals Borda, O. 1956: Fragmentation of holdings in Boyaca, Colombia. Rural Sociology 2 1 , 1 5 8 - 6 3 . Farmer, B.H. 1960: On not controlling subdivision in paddy lands. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28, 225—35. Forbes, H.A. 1976: 'We have a little of everything': the ecological basis of some agricultural practices in Methana, Trizinia. In Dimen, M. and Friedl, E., editors, Regional variation in modern Greece and Cyprus: towards a perspective on the ethnography of Greece, New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 268, 2 3 6 - 5 0 . Friedl, J. 1974: Kippel: a changing village in the Alps. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gait, A. H. 1979: Exploring the cultural ecology of field fragmentation and scatter ing in the island ofPantellaria. Journal ofAnthropological Research 35,93—108. Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014


491

Ganewatte, P. 1974: Fragmentation of paddy land: a case study of five purana villages in Anuradhapura district. Colombo: Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Occasional Publication 5. Gregor, H.F. 1970: Geography of agriculture: themes in research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Grigg, D. 1981: Agricultural geography. Progress in Human Geography 5, 268—76. Haggett, P. and Board, C. 1964: Rotational and parallel traverses in the rapid integration of geographic areas. Annals of the Association of American Geo graphers 54, 4 0 6 - 1 0 . Herzfeld, M. 1980: Social tension and inheritance by lot in three Greek villages. Anthropological Quarterly 53, 91 —100 Hirsch, G.P. and Maunder, A.H. 1978: Farm amalgamation in western Europe. Westmead: Saxon House. Homan, FJD. 1963: Land consolidation and redistribution of population in the Imenti sub-tribe of the Meru (Kenya). In Biebuyck, D., editor, African agrarian systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 224—44. Hyodo, S. 1963: Aspects of land consolidation in Japan. In Parsons, K.H., Penn, R. and Raup, P., editors, Land tenure, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 558-59. Igbozurike, M.U. 1970: Fragmentation in tropical Africa: an overrated phenomenon. Professional Geographer 22, 3 2 1 - 2 5 . Igozurike, M.U. 1974: Land tenure, social relations and the analysis of spatial discontinuity. Area 6, 1 3 2 - 3 5 . Jackson, R.T. 1970: Some observations on the von Thiinen method of analysis with reference to southern Ethiopia. East African Geographical Review 8, 39-46. 1972: A vicious circle: the consequences of von Thiinen in tropical Africa. Area 4, 2 5 8 - 6 1 . Jacoby, E.H. 1959: Land consolidation in Europe. Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. 1971: Man and land. London: Andre Deutsch. Januszewski, J. 1968: Index of land consolidation as a criterion of the degree of concentration. Geographia Polonica 14, 291—96. Johnson, O.E.G. 1970: A note on the economics of fragmentation. Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies 12, 175—84. Karouzis, G. 1971: Time wasted and distance travelled by the average Cypriot farmer in order to visit his scattered and fragmented agricultural holding. Geographical Chronicles 1, 39—58. King, R.L. 1971: Land reform: some general and theoretical considerations. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 2 5 , 8 5 - 9 7 . 1973: Land reform: the Italian experience. London: Butterworth. 1977: Land reform: a world survey. London: Bell. 1980: Land consolidation in Cyprus. Geography 65, 3 2 0 - 2 4 . King, R.L. and Burton, S.P. 1981: An introduction to the geography of land fragmentation and consolidation. Leicester University, Geography Department, Occasional Paper 8. Kish.G. 1953: The 'marine' of Calabria. Geographical Review 4 3 , 4 9 5 - 5 0 5 .


492

Land fragmentation:



Lambert, A.M. 1961: Farm consolidation and improvement in the Netherlands, with an example from the Land van Maas en Waal. Economic Geography 32, 1 1 5 - 2 3 . 1963: Farm consolidation in western Europe. Geography 48, 3 1 - 4 8 . Latham, J.P. 1963: Methodology for an instrumented geographic analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53, 194—209. Lawrance, J.C.D. 1970: Land consolidation and registration in Kenya. In Bunting, A.H., editor, Change in agriculture, London: Duckworth, 451—60. Lee, D.R. and Sallee, G.T. 1970: A method of measuring shape. Geographical Review 60, 5 5 5 - 6 3 . 1974: Theoretical patterns of farm shape and central place location. Journal of Regional Science 1 4 , 4 2 3 - 3 0 . Levy, H.L. 1956: Property distribution by lot in present day Greece. Transactions of the American Philological Association 87, 42—46. Lynn Smith, T. 1959: Fragmentation of agricultural holdings in Spain. Rural Sociology 24, 1 4 0 - 4 9 . Mayhew, A. 1970: Structural reform and the future of West German agriculture. Geographical Review 60, 54—68. 19"71: Agrarian reform in West Germany: an assessment of the Integrated Development Project Moorriem. Transactions of the Institute of British Geo graphers 52, 6 1 - 7 5 . Mead, W.R. 1953: Farming in Finland. London: Athlone. Meliczek, H. 1973: The work of FAO and experiences in land consolidation. Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives 1, 50—64. Moral-Lopez, P. 1962: Principles of land consolidation legislation. Rome: FAO Legislative Series 3. Morgan, W.B. 1969: The zoning of land use around rural settlements in tropical Africa. In Thomas, M.F. and Whittington, G.W., editors, Environment and land use in Africa, London: Methuen, 301 — 19. Morgan, W.B. and Munton, R.C. 1971: Agricultural geography. London: Mehtuen. Naylon, J. 1959: Land consolidation in Spain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 49, 361—73. 1961: Progress of land consolidation in Spain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 5 1 , 335—38. Netting, R.M. 1972: Of men and meadows: strategies of alpine land use. Anthro pological Quarterly 4 5 , 145—57. O'Flanagan, T.P. 1980: Agrarian structures in northwestern Iberia: responses and their implications for development. Geoforum 11, 157—69. Papageorgiou, E. 1956: Fragmentation of land holdings and measures of con solidation in Greece. In Parsons, K.H., Penn, R. and Raup, P., editors, Land tenure, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 543—48. Perry, P.J. 1969: The structural reform of French agriculture: the role of the 'Societes d'Amenagement Foncier et d'Etablissement Rural'. Revue Geographique de Montreal 23, 137—51. Pihkala, K.U. and Suomela, S. 1952: Land fragmentation and measures of con solidation in Finland. International Journal of Agrarian Affairs 1, 15—23, Prothero, R.M. 1957: Land use at Soba, Zaria Province, northern Nigeria. Economic Geography 3 3 , 7 2 - 8 6 . Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on December 21, 2014

R ussell King and Steve Burton

493

Rasheed, K.B. 1972: An examination of the shape of administrative areas in Bangladesh. Geografiska Annaler 54B, 104—16. Rhoades, R.E. and Thompson, S.I. 1975: Adaptive strategies in alpine environ ments: beyond ecological particularism. American Ethnologist 2, 535—51. Richardson, B.C. 1974: Distance regularities in Guyanese rice cultivation. Journal of Developing Areas 8, 235—55. Sanderatne, N. 1972: Tenancy in Ceylon paddy lands: the 1958 reform. South Asian Review 5, 1 2 3 - 3 0 . Sargent, F.O. 1952: Fragmentation of French land: its nature, extent and causes. Land Economics 23, 2 1 8 - 2 9 . Schmook, G. Jr 1976: The spontaneous evolution from farming on scattered strips to farming in severalty in Flanders between the sixteenth and twentieth centuries: a quantitative approach to the study of farm fragmentation. In Buchanan, R.H., Butlin, R.A. and McCourt, D., editors, Fields, farms and settlement in Europe, Belfast: Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, 107—17. Shetty, V.V. 1963: Consolidation of holdings in Mysore state. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 18,46—54. Simmons, A.J. 1964: An index of farm structure, with a Nottinghamsire example. East Midland Geographer 3, 255—61. Skovgaard, K. 1952: Consolidation of agricultural land in Denmark. International Journal of Agrarian Affairs 1, 9—14. Skrubbeltrang, F. 1953: Agricultural development and land reform in Denmark. Rome: FAO Agricultural Studies 22, Smith, E.G. 1975: Fragmented farms in the United States. Annals of the Associ ation of American Geographers 65, 58—70. Sorbi, U. 1952: Land fragmentation and dispersion in Italy. International Journal of Agrarian Affairs 1,44—53. Sreeraman, N.A. 1966: A note on the consolidation of holdings in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Economics 46, 487—95. Stoddart, D.R. 1965: The shape of atolls. Marine Geology 3, 3 6 9 - 8 3 . Symons, L. 1978: Agricultural geography. London: Bell. Tarrant, J.R. 1974: Agricultural geography. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Taylor, D.R.F. 1969: Agricultural change in Kikuyuland. In Thomas, M.F. and Whittington, G.W., editors, Environment and land use in Africa, London: Methuen, 4 6 3 - 9 4 . Teather, E.K. 1970: The hedgerow: an analysis of a changing landscape feature. Geography 55, 1 4 6 - 5 5 . Thompson, LB. 1961: Le remembrement rural en France — a case study from Lorraine. Geography 46, 2 4 0 - 4 2 . Thompson, K. 1963: Farm fragmentation in Greece. Athens: Centre for Economic Research, Research Monograph Series 5. Thorpe, H. 1951: The influence of enclosure on the form and pattern of rural settlement in Denmark. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17, 1 1 1 - 3 0 . Tindituuza, R.J. and Kateete, B.M. 1971: Essays on land fragmentation in Kigezi District. Kampala: Makerere University, Department of Geography, Occasional Paper 22.


494



Tiwari, S.N. 1970: Land consolidation and its impact on land utilization. Deccan Geographer 8, 8 9 - 1 0 0 . Vander Meer, C and Vander Meer, P. 1968: Land property data in Taiwan. Journal of Asian Studies 28, 1 4 4 - 5 0 . Vander Meer, P. 1975: Land consolidation through land fragmentation: case studies from Taiwan. Land Economics 5 1 , 275—83. Vanderpole, P.R. 1963: Reallocation of land in the Netherlands. In Parsons, K.H., Penn, R. and Raup, P., editors, Land tenure, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 3 4 8 - 5 4 . Weinberg, D. 1972: Cutting the pie in the Swiss Alps. Anthropological Quarterly 45, 1 2 5 - 3 1 . Wheeler, P.T. 1973: Agriculture and agrarian land planning. In Dawson, J.A. and Doornkamp, J.C., editors, Evaluating the human environment: essays in applied geography, London: Edward Arnold, 34—56. Wolf, E.R. 1970: The inheritance of land among Bavarian and Tyrolese peasants. Anthropologica 12, 9 9 - 1 1 4 . Zaheer, M. 1975: Measures of land reform: consolidation of holdings in India. Behavioural Science and Community Development 9, 87—121.
