Preservation of open space in the New Jersey pinelands

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

511(
Coastal Zone
Information
Center

COWAL IONE
MFO.WATWN CMR

HC
107
.N5
P74
1974
F
as
f @tal one
or io
ln at n
rt,r

ence Research Institute GPO Box 8776 Phila.v'Pa.- 19101

05971

THE PRESERVATION OF
OPEN SPACE IN THE
NEW JERSEY PINELANDS
by
D. Berry, M. Ontko, D. Scott,
M. Silberfein & Gene Steiker

RSRI Discussion Paper Series:
No. 73

May 1974

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

The purpose of this series is to encourage the earliest
possible dissemination of research results. Appearance of a
paper in this series does not preclude later formal publication
in journals or elsewhere. The authors invite comments and
reactions.

These papers were originally presented at the 1973 con-
vention of the Middle States Division, Association of American
Geographers held in Philadelphia: Chairperson, Marilyn Silberfein.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL OCEANIC
ATM0SPHERIC ADMINISTRARION

For Retention
Regional Science Research Institute When no longer needed, please
return to Technical Processes
Branch - D823

P.O. Box 8776

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania l9101
Property of CSC Library

Contents

INTRODUCTION I
by Marilyn Silberfein, Department of Geography,
Temple University

@ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND OPEN SPACE 8
by David Berry, Regional Science Research Institute

ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT 36
by Michael Ontko, Open Space Project Manager, Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission

COMMENTARY 1 58
by Gene Steiker, Regional Science Research Institute

COMMENTARY 11 68

by Dick Scott,, Department of Geography, Glassboro
State College

A SELECTIVE PINE BARRENS BIBLIOGRAPHY 89

INTRODUCTION by Marilyn Silberfein

Stare into the tea-colored water flowing past
the canoe and for a few moments you're convinced
you are moving backwards. Look up just in time,
it turns out, to avoid a sandbar - and the
illusion of spacial regression disappears, re-
placed immediately with the illusion that you are
moving backwards through time.1

There is a current fascination with a several thousand

square mile block of central New Jersey known as the Pine

Barrens* The area is located in the heart of megolopolis and

in the most urbanized state in the nation, but it still has an

average population density of only sixteen persons per square

mile.

For many city dwellers the Barrens have become a near-by

"wilderness refuge" attracting hikers, campers, hunters, and

canoe and wildflower enthusiasts. At the same time, the land

speculators have taken note of the area's potential for

commercial facilities and suburban housing. Thus, a conflict

of interest is emerging between the demands of the public for

.open space and the goals of the land developers. It is the

resolution of this problem which forms the focus of the papers

and commentary which follow.

*For a map of the area see Figures 1 and 2 in the article by
Michael Ontko.

A full appreciation of the Pine Barrens requires a brief

historical overview. From the eighteenth century, the area has

been characterized by a polygot ethnic composition with represen-

tations of Hessian soldiers, French Huguenots, fugative criminals,

and escaped slaves. All of these groups functioned in an econo-

mic backwater, except for a brief period in the mid nineteenth

century. During this phase, local bog iron ore was exploited

in the production of pig and wrought iron. According to the

Atlantic Monthly of 1840, an expectation of industrial growth

and'expansion pervaded the Pinelands.

By the end of the next decade, however, the iron industry

had shifted to Western Pennsylvania. The towns of the Barrens

attempted to salvage their economy by turning to the manufacture

of glass and paper, but these activities lost out to other

centers. Gradually, families of the region began to evacuate

and whole communities fell into a state of disrepair. Accord-

ing to the 1846 records of the American Tract Society:

"The wood is generally gone so the people are
poorer than they were a few years ago and like-
ly to remain poor. Towns and populous neighborhoods
can never be on such barren sands."2

Following their economic demise the Barrens remained

relatively isolated. Railroads were built throughout the state

of New Jersey, but those lines serving the Barrens were later

:abandoned and other lines planned for the area were never

built. Isolation increased as the heart of the Barrens came

to be ringed by blueberry and cranberry farms and a large tract

was acquired by the state government (The Wharton Tract).

Behind the farm perimeter, a few small communities continued

to function, based on such activities as the collection of

sphagnum moss and christmas greens, the preparation and sale

of charcoal and lumber, and occasional extra-regional employ-

.ment in Philadelphia, Camden, and the vacation hamlets along

the south Jersey shore.

Unfortunately, by the beginning of World War I, the repu-

tation of the Barrens as an attractive wilderness refuge was

shattered by the writings of a South Jersey psychological

researcher. Her thesis suggested that the occupants of the
Pine Barrens were inbred,, vicious, and mentally deficient. 3

The governor of New Jersey proposed at one point that the en-

tire area be isolated from the rest of the state to prevent the

spread of genetic contamination. To this day these fallacious

beliefs still circulate, although the stories have gradually

been discredited.

None of the events'which occurred in the Pine Barrens com-

pletely discouraged the activities of the land speculator. As

early as the 1860's, the name of the town of Atsion was tempo-

rarily changed to Fruitland, and small lots were carved out of
4
the near-by countryside. The availability of these lots was

advertised', but with little initial response from the general

public. As a result of this type of speculation, however,

land titles in the Barrens became completely confused.

The recent emergence of the Pinelands as a focus for land

development has been the logical outcome of urban sprawl in

central Megolpolis. There are already housing developments

around the edge of the area and for-sale signs are appearing

along roads that pass through unoccupied woodland. A major

highway and a regional jetport have been proposed, although

both ideas have raised an outcry of protest. In all, five

hundred thousand acres are in the hands of developers, many of

whom are simply waiting for the price of land to rise.

An important step in controlling future land uses was taken

with the creation of the Pinelands Environmental Council in 1972.

It consists of representatives of government, administrators,

elected officials, conservationists, and local farmers. in

addition to creating an overall plan for the region the Council

is charged with evaluating all development plans. Lacking actual

veto power, the Council can still carry out thorough investi-

gations, hold public hearings, and make recommendations. The

Council is also empowered to assist regional and municipal

boards in devising appropriate local ordinances to ensure the

maintenance of the Pinelands as a resource.

According to A. Jerome Walnut, assistant director of the

Burlington County Planning Board, the following attributes

provide the basic rationale for the preservation of the

Barrens:

1. The immense underground water supply. The
Cohansey.Formation under the Barrens* is one of the largest
reservoirs of pure, fresh water on the North American Continent,
but it is highly susceptible to pollution from surface sources,
septic systems and industrial wastes. Local pollution is apt
to spread out horizontally to affect a large area. The State
of New Jersey purchased the Wharton Tract in 1954 to help
protect this supply.

2. The area's historical heritage. Trade and indus-
trial enterprises were very active here around the time of the
American Revolution and into the Nineteenth Century. Cedar
staves were exported to the West Indies, and much of the area
was cut over for timber and charcoal. Bog iron was processed
here and exported, and Stephen Decauter is reputed to have
tested his cannon here. The relics of this heritage still
exist,, and the State is restoring some of this in the Village
at Batsto.

J. The region's natural history. The region is the
northern limit of many southern plants and animals and the
southern limit of a number of subartic species, which gives an
interesting mixture. Moreover, it is the home of several rare
varieties of ferns, orchids, reptiles and other species. Not
only does this have a value in itself, but the Pine Barrens
are an excellent outdoor laboratory for study and research
within easy distance of several major universities.

4. The agricultural complex. The region sustains an
extensive cranberry-blueberry agricultural complex, which is
utterly dependent on the combination of acid podzolic soils,
climate, and a vast supply of clean fresh water. This region
in New Jersey is the third-largest producer of cranberries in
the country, and it makes a substantial contribution to the
local economy. However, if any of the factors of soil, water or
climate are disrupted or polluted, the whole complex would suffer.

5. Recreation potential. There are a number of camp
grounds, gunning clubs, parks and other facilities in the
Barrens, and the area is within reasonably easy reach of Phila-
delphia and New York for recreation. Given the trends of
increasing affluence and leisure time, the demand for near-at-
hand open space seems bound to increase. The Barrens, especially
along the streams, are beautiful and spacious and should have
much potential in this direction.

The main question to emerge from this discussion is not

whether portions of the Pine Barrens should be maintained in a

natural state but how much land should be set aside and how

such portions would be selected and purchased. Alternative

strategies have been proposed, but no satisfactory compromise

has been derived. For example, the creation of a Pinelands

National Park has been suggesced, but this option would eliminate

some of the important features of the region such as the Cranberry

and Blueberry farms.

All of these factors which contribute to decision-making

in the Barrens are discussed in the following papers and com-

mentaries.

REFERENCES

1. Rod Townley, "Deliverance in the Pine Barrens," The
Philadelphia Inquirer, August 26, 1973, p. 20.

2. Quoted in John McPhee, The Pine Barrens,. Ferrar, Straus
and Company, New York, 1968, p. 38.

3. Robert McGarvey, "The Pine Barrens: Isolation and Image,"
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia,
Pa., 1972.

4. Private Communication from A. Jerome Walnut, Assistant
Director, Burlington County Planning Board, February 8,
1974.

ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND OPEN SPACE -- by David Berry

"..[Dl,o we not sing our love for and obligation to the land
of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and
whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending
helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we
assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges,
and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we
exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Cer-
tainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated
many of the largest and most beautiful species." -- Aldo
Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, p-204.

Within the last decade or so we have become more and more

conditioned to the vague concept of environmental rights and

perhaps eIven some have found themselves comfortable with this

notion. Yet the weak response to the urgent pressure for devel-

opment of the New Jersey Pinelands points up the disarray of the

structure of the rights that people and plants and animals have

within the existing social and legal institutions to protect

this large semi-wilderness area.

In this paper I hope to outline two sources of environ-

mental rights deriving from ecological and social claims for

protecting the Pinelands and to indicate by way of an example

how these claims may be played off against longstanding social

mechanisms such as the land market. Environmental rights may

be envisioned as the justification for institutional means for

recognizing ecological and social claims.

Ecological and social claims are not entirely independent

sources of environmental rights since society may put some value

on environmental protection, but the whole of ecological claims

generally transcends consumer evaluation of environmental pro-

tection. This can be concisely rendered in terms of a familiar

Venn diagram. See Figure 1.

Ecological Claims

The origin of ecological claims for protecting the Pine

Barrens from disturbance by man is simple enough. The spectrum

of plants and animals indigenous to the Pinelands (or anywhere

else for that matter) merit protection because they exist there

and have existed there for some time in harmony with each other

and with their physical environments. The right to continued

existence with minimal human intrusions is based on tnis natural

occupation of the land. The entirety of the earth, New Jersey

included, is not solely the inheritance of man and his tech-

nology; other forms of life are as meritorious as Homo_sapiens.

Plants and animals benefit from protection of their habitats

and suffer from the destruction of their habitats so it is

Figure 1. Sources of Environmental Rights

Ecological Claims C1

Social Claims

Social claims for environmental protection constitute the inter-
section of the ecological and social claims.

therefore necessary to consider them in the evaluation of

environmental rights.

Ecological claims are really first principles that are

difficult to derive from more fundamental beliefs without tedious

circumlocution. Their defense in this paper will instead lie

on acceptance of their correlaries and implications which we

now examine.

Correlaries of Ecolo&ical Claims

First of all, the ecological claims for protecting the

Pinelands can be interpreted more clearly if the ecological

basi's for these claims is outlined. The Pinelands are a major

system of plant and animal communities covering over one million

acres of South Jersey (McCormick, 1970). More specifically, an

inventory of vegetation reveals two basic associations: lowland

areas and upland areas. These are not so much descriptions of

elevation, as the Pinelands are rather flat, but are reflections

of soil characteristics.

Upland areas exhibit highly permeable soils whose seasonal

high water table often lies more than six feet below the surface

(Soil Conservation Service, 1971). The soil is dry and the

vegetation pattern reflects this. Upland tree species consist

almost entirely of mixtures of pitch pine and several of the

following oaks: blackjack, post, bear, white, black, scarlet,

and chestnut. The trees rarely grow over forty feet in height

and many oaks are shrublike in appearance. Common understory

and groundcover include sheep laurel, blueberries, and various

ferns. The forest is sparse compared to, say, Pennsylvania

woodlands, and sunlight can usually reach the forest floor.

A major influence on upland vegetation is the recurrence of

fires, which may sweep large areas of dry vegetation every few

years. This has had a pronounced influence on natural selection

of upland vegetation (McCormick) and seems to have had an especi-

ally important role in causing dwarf oak-pine forests in the East

and West Plains area of the Pinelands.

Lowland areas are wet all or part of the year and are often

characterized by mucky soils. Dominant vegetation varies here

somewhat more than in the uplands and the following tree species

occur in varying proportions: trident red maple, pitch pine,

Atlantic white cedar, tupelo, sweetbay and

occasionally gray birch. Nearly pure stands of red maple or

cedar are common. The understory and ground cover include leather-

leaf, sphagnum moss, and the insectivorous sundew. In contrast

to the uplands, lowland vegetation is extremely thick, and many

areas are so dense that it is not possible to walk through.

In summary, McCormick estimates the following inventory

of plant and animal species:

Plants

Total plant species -- at least 550 and probably 600 to 700

Plant species whose southern limit occurs in Pinelands -- 13

Plant species whose northern limit occurs in Pinelands -- 109

Plant species occurring only in the Pinelands 2 (?)

Animals

Mammals -- 34 species Lizards 3 species

Birds -- 144 species Snakes 17 or 18 species

Frogs and Toads -- 13 species Fish -- 24 species

Salamanders -- 10 species Insects -- ? (butter-

Turtles -- 9 species flies -- 91 species)

Secondly, the name "Pine Barrens" is an unfortunate

legacy. According to the dictionary something is barren if it

is not productive, and certainly the implication is there in the

minds of many people that this land is idly sitting by, doing

nothing, but waiting for the hand of developers to exalti.ts being

with houses, shopping centers, industries, and roads. This myth

about the land being unproductive is compounded by the widespread

notion of worthless species that contribute nothing to man's

well-being, as if plants and animals evolved to be inputs into

technological achievements. Any place that can support several

hundred species is clearly not unproductive.

Thirdly, we must be careful to recognize that ecological

claims are not anthropocentric. The' 11consumption" by
y do not rely on

man, but they nonetheless must be recognized and accepted by man

so that his harmful activities may be averted in such ecologically

valuable areas as the Pinelands. Stone (1972) discusses the

legal implications of this point.

Implications of Ecological Claims

To conclude this section, we can derive a few basic rules

on planning for the protection of open space in recognition of

ecological claims. First, there are several kinds of major

plant associations and numerous minor associations in the Pine-

lands, and representative areas of all of them should be allowed

to remain as undisturbed as possible. The region is not a homo-

geneous mass wherein any random chunk will do as the site selected

for preservation as open space.

Secondly, protected areas should not be so small as to raise

the probability above a minimum level such as 1% or 5% that

rarer plants or larger animals will face extinction. Estimates

of these probabilities may be obtained through techniques such

as species area curves (Cain, 1938). Thus, even a well land-

scaped front yard will hardly compensate for the disruption of

the ecological features which existed there before.

Thirdly, the plant and animal communities and their

physical environments are interrelated, most obviously via the

drainage system and through food chains, so that the land and

water areas through which these linkages are maintained should

be protected. The desirable spatial pattern of interconnected

areas of open space can thus be described as a series of func-

tional'. self-maintaining natural regions representative of the

local ecological systems.

Social Claims

It is apparent that land has a dual nature. On the one

hand it can be a private good divided up into private lots for

homes, and businesses and bought and sold by private individuals

acting independently of each other in the land market. On the

other hand, it can be a public or collective good, protected as

public open space to be enjoyed by the entire community and

toward which many people contribute taxes. These two uses are

mutually exclusive and are further contrasted in the need for

collective action rather than private, independent action in

order to preserve land as open space.

Open space serves at least three major uses for society:

It furnishes a community with scenic amenities, provides places

for outdoor recreation, and affords the community a measure of

environmental protection. Since collective action is necessary

for people to express their demand for these uses of land in

any combination, one cannot go to the town hall and look up

records of prices paid for various quantities of land purchased

for open space uses as one can for private uses. The demand for

open space can be registered only through governmental action to

preserve ecologically valuable land, and in the case of the Pine

Barrens governmental processes seem inadequate indicators of

social claims. Only about 14% of the total Pine Barrens is

presently protected to any degree by the State and another 4%

is in military reservations (McCormick).

Notwithstanding the lack of a marketplace in which to

measure the demand for open space, it is possible to estimate

consumer evaluation by means of household interviews concerning

willingness to pay to acquire public open space in the Pinelands.

While reporting the average household's willingness to pay for

x acres of open space disguises the variances in demand with

income (implying the need to tax for open space in accordance

with income) it is still a useful measure of the strength of

social claims for open space.

To illustrate the nature of these claims we can observe

the results of a set of household interviews for Medford Town-

ship, New Jersey, a community two-thirds of whose 41 square

miles lies inside the Pine Barrens and which is about to experi-

ence a tripling of its population over the next decade to about

30,000 people. These interviews were conducted to provide in-

formation for the township open space plan (Berry and Coughlin,

1973).

The reader should be cautioned that the attitudes expressed

in this survey apply only to the local plan and.cannot be directly

translated into attitudes of all New Jersey residents toward

hundreds of thousands of acres of Pinelands. A new survey would

have to be undertaken to identify social claims for the entire

Pine Barrens. Nonetheless, the Medford results are indicative

of the importance of an open space program developed at the

community level.

The annual willingness-to-pay curve shown in Figure 2 for

the average Medfordite reflects a moderately strong desire to

protect open space in that municipality. No effort was made

18
to determine willingness to pay for open space in the Pinelands

outside the township, however. Assuming the average resident's

attitudes toward open space remain the same in the future except

for the effects of inflation (at the rate of 5% per year), the

annual willingess-to-pay curves for the average household are

shown for the years 1980 and 1985 as well as for 1973 in Figure 2.

Three statistically significant regularities occur in the

Medfox'd sample. First of all, social claims for preservation of

open space become stronger as income rises, as shown in Figure 3.

Using the Mann-Whitney U test on the sample willingness to pay

for four square miles of open space within the Township, house-

holds earning over $15,000 per year significantly outbid house-

holds earning less than $15,000 per year at the 5% level. Recall

that this implies that households should be taxed for open space

according to income. In addition, as the general level of income

rises, we can expect social claims for open space to strengthen

accordingly.

Secondly, length of residence in Medford affects willingness

to pay for open space. See Figure 4. Households living in Med-

ford for a year or less significantly outbid households living

in the Township for 10 years or more at the 4% level according

Figure 2. Average household's.annual willingness to
pay for open space in Medford,by Year

150-
1985

125-

1980

100'

1973

75-

r-4
0

50'

25-

2 4 6 8
square miles of open space

Figure 3. Average household's annual willingness to
! - p- F,
pay for open space in Medford by income

100.

80-

Households with income
over $15,000

$4
Ca 60-
r-4
T-4
0
Households with income
under $15,000

40-

20-

2 4
square miles of open space

Figure 4. Average household's annual willingness to pay
for open space in Medford by length of residence in Medford

100-

1 yr. or less
in Medford
80-
1-10 yrs. in
Medford

$4
Ca 60-
r-4
r-4 10 yrs. or more
0
in Medford

4o-

20-

8
square miles of open space

to the Mann-Whitney U test on willingness to pay for four square

miles of open space inside the Township. That is, new residents

(and probably the next few years of future residents) exhibit

stronger claims for open space than long-time residents of the

area. This can be interpreted to mean that people now moving

to Medford are aware of the imminent development of the area and

wish to escape the despoilation of the landscape typical of Phila-

delphia and the inner ring of suburbs. We can therefore expect

strong restrictions on development of the Pinelands to be favored

by new people living in or near this ecologically valuable area.

(Cynics may also wish to attribute this second regularity

to a thinly veiled desire to exclude new residents who might move

into Medford Township after the respondent did. In part this

may be true, but it is not evident that the respondents seriously

believed that they could prevent the growth of the Township by

this or any other means. Moreover, why do long-term residents

not feel any such exclusionary desires as well?)
Thirdly, Friedmangs )er test applied to the increments in
willingness to pay as acreage increases (measured in dollars per

acre) reveals that, at the 0.1% level, willingness to pay for

open space increases at a decreasing rate. This means that the

first few square miles are the most important -local open space

and that additional acres are less and less important, as measured

in dollars per acre.

Recall that since these data refer only to local open

space we cannot infer that only the first few square miles of

Pinelands are the most important statewide. In fact, we can

expect that the first few hundred square miles will be the most

important. The scale of the Medford study is of a completely

different magnitude than a study of all the Pine Barrens would

have to be. Local open space and regional open space are dif-

ferent goods, but the methods of measuring consumer demand for

these goods are quite similar.

The Medford study revealed something about the motivation

of people for preserving open space as well. Asked to rank the

uses of open space in Table I as not important, important, or

very important, respondents indicated that those uses that could

be called environmental protection (Items 3 and 5) were listed

as very important far more frequently than those that could be

interpreted as scenic amenities (Item 4) or outdoor recreation

(Items 1 and 2). Nearly all respondents said most items were

at least important and relatively few said nothing was important.

Table I

Use of Open Space Number of house-
holds rating it
very important

1. Places for hiking or enjoying nature 25

2. Places for family outings, camping
or picnics 20

3. Places where wildlife and plant
life can be protected 48

4. Places which break the monotony
of suburban development 21

5. Places which protect the water
quality of streams and lakes 54

Thus) it can be concluded, very roughly, that preserving

open space in this Township along the border of the Pinelands

is at present chiefly motivated by a desire to protect the

environment. In terms of the Venn diagram in the introduction,

the overlap between social claims for open space and ecological

claims for open space is fairly large. Whether this motivation

will change as the population increases remains to be seen.

(To the extent that people desire open space with much

of it to be used for large numbers of recreationists engaged in

some form of active leisure, there is a conflict with the pre-

servation ethic underlying this paper. Thousands of canoeing

enthusiasts simultaneously paddling down the Mullica, hundreds

of hikers daily assaulting Mt. Misery, or a herd of hunters

blasting away at deer and trampling vegetation runs counter to

the purist approach. While some areas can be set aside for

intensive active recreation with little environmental cost, I do

not envision preservation of the Pinelands to mean the establish-

ment of Fantasyland or Coney island. Infrequent use of the land

such as by occasional hikers, will cause little damage to the

area, and so I do not suggest that the Pinelands be placed off

limits to people altogether.)

The collective strength of the demand for open space in

Medford is considerable and will increase as the population

increases. If land can be acquired under the New Jersey Green

Acres Program (Ch 419, Laws of 1971) where the state pays one-

half the cost of the land, the town of Medford can afford to

purchase and zone as floodplains (Ch 185, Laws of 1972) approxi-

mately 3000 acres of land not now protected as open space. See

Figure 5 which shows one possible acquisition plan out of a

range of acceptable plans. Table II translates this sample plan

into annual costs and willingness to pay for the average Medford

household from 1973 to 1985 assuming that the land is purchased

Figure 5. Medford, New Jersey
Sample Open Space Plan

Z miles

X. t

Land presently in major tracts
0
f public and private open space

Land to be purchased by Medford
Township under indicated plan

Land to be zoned as floodplain
under indicated plan

Table II

Total acreage presently in public or private
open space in Medford Township ............... 3639 acres

Total acreage to be purchased in 1973-4 under
sample plan .................................. 2279 acres

Total acreage to be zoned as floodplain ........... 695 acres

Municipal bonds to be issued to purchase
2279 acres shown in Figure 5 ................. $3,095,000

Interest rate on municipal bonds .......................... 6%

Repayment period on municipal bonds ................. 20 years

Year by Year Schedule of Costs and Willingness to Pay For Open Space
(1973-1985)

Year Cost of Open Space Average Household's Willing-
Program to Average ness to Pay for 2974 acres*
Household of Open_Space

1973 $ 65-55 $ 60.58
1974 57.52 63.61
1975 51.24 66.79
1976 46.19 70.13
1977 42.06 73.64
1978 38.60 77.32
1979 35.66 81.18
1980 33.14 85.24
1981 30.96 89.50
1982 29.04 93.98
1983 27.35 98.68
1984 25.84 103.61
1985 24-50 108.79

Totals $507.65 $1073.05
(current $
1973-85 only)

*2279 acres purchased plus 695 acres zoned as floodplain

in 1973 by issuance of $3,095,000 of municipal bonds whose

interest rate is 6% and whose repayment period is 20 years.

The costs of the open space program to the average household

decrease each year because the population paying for open

space increases.

A variant on social claims for providing open space is

not developing land because of environmental hazards (see Center

for Ecological Research in Planning and Design, 1973). Specifi-

cally, the threat of fire and the inconveniences of a high water

table in some areas would, on the surface, seem to strengthen

rational people's claims for leaving much of the Pinelands

undeveloped. However, the ignorance of or disdain for fire

hazards and the high water table in lowlands is quite remarkable,

for houses are being built and occupied in spite of these dangers

of future calamity.

Environmental Rights and Decision Making

Let us conclude this brief exposition of environmental

rights as related to the New Jersey Pine Barrens by showing

how they can be registered and taken into account in a critical

decision making process pertinent to protection of the Pinelands.

This concerns the government's power to regulate land use (zoning)

and the need for compensation of private individuals whose land

is regulated. A review of the kinds of legal issues involved

may be found in Kingham (1972) and Rose (1973).

Considering environmental rights in terms of the ecological

and social claims for preserving open space, it can be argued

that the government should prevent environmental damages by

regulating what landowners may do with their land. Thus, because

development in the Pine Barrens is usually inimical to existing

natural processes and to the stock of plants and animals and

imposes losses on consumers desiring open space the state should

prohibit development throughout much of the 950,000 acres of

unprotected Pinelands.

In contrast to this doctrine is the important tradition

that a man's property is his to do with as he chooses, including

construction of dense suburban housing. Regulation substantially

interfering with this constitutes a taking of that land which,

in turn) requires compensation of the landowner to make up for

the diminished market value of his land caused by the regulation.

The classic statement of this point is Justice Holmes' opinion

in Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon et al (260 US 393 [1922]).

Obviously there is a conflict over the rights to ecologi-

cally valuable land. Court cases so far have bounced back and

forth from the point of view that strong regulation for environ-

mental protection is a taking of land requiring compensation of

the owner (see Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Parsippany

Troy Hills Twp, 193 A2d 232, N.J., 1963 and Maine v. Johnson 265

A2d 711) 1970, both concerning filling of marshland) to the point

of view that the public is entitled to protect itself (and nature)

from damages produced by land development and therefore does not

have to compensate regulated landowners at all (see Just v.

Marinette County, 201 NW 2d 761, Wisc., 1972). In the latter

approach, only if the public wanted to create new benefits

(e.g. by developing for a park) mt- the land in question could

the action be deemed "taking!' rather than reasonable use of

police power.

Reliance on the polar extremes in these cases seEms unlikely

to yield an equitable distribution of the costs of environmental

protection. Either the public and nature bear the costs of

damages imposed by private landowners or else the private land-

owners bear the costs of benefits accruing to a large number of

other people and to nature. Some kind of partial compensation

rule seems necessary to be fair to all parties involved. This

rule would, of course, be dependent upon what rights the public

obtains from private landowners.

An equitable procedure can be further defined by character-

izing the fair price for regulating ecologically valuable land

in terms of a "maximin@' rule: Choose that compensation which

maximizes the minimum "payoff" regardless of which interested

party has the minimum payoff. In Rawls' (1971) words, act so

as to make the least advantaged party best off.

Before elaborating on this rule we must first review the

interested parties and their respective strength of claims. The

parties are:

1) Nature -- a multidimensional party with many species,

2) Consumers desiring open space, and

3) Private landowners whose land is ecologically valuable.

Their strengths of claims to the land are, not surprisingly,

measured in completely alien terms. They are, respectively:

1) Number of species which could survive over the long

run if as much land as possible were protected under the given

compensation scheme (including aquatic species.whose habitats

are affected by urbanization),

2) Willingness to pay for open space, measured in dollars,

3) Market value of land, measured in dollars.

The noncomparability of claims reflects the differences in the

interested parties (some of which do not even contain people)

and the dissimilarity in their objectives.

Because of this disparity, the costs borne by one of the

parties in any compensation scheme cannot be easily offset by

the gains or benefits of another. Hence a compensation rule

such as "maximize net benefits" makes little sense here. The

maximin approach instead says that one party should not have to

subsidize the gains of another any more than is absolutely neces-

sary. Why should wildlife suffer because of traditions in land

ownership, for example? or, why should a few private landowners

suffer for the benefit of the community at large?

Moreover, to attempt to incorporate benefits as well as

costs into the decision making procedure (i.e., to trade off

costs borne by one party for benefits of another in some kind

of net benefits rule) is likely to be beyond the decision making

ability of most mortals. Stronger interparty comparisons of

welfare are required in the "maximize net benefits" technique

than in the maximin technique.

Clearly a compromise compensation rule like "the public

should pay one-half the market value of the land" will improve

the position of the least-advantaged parties in either of the

extreme solutions (compensation to make up the difference between

full market value and the land's regulated value or uncompensated

regulation). In general, however, the decision as to which party

is least advantaged under various compensation rules is a subjec-

tive one that must be worked out in a series of publicly made and

publicly defended judicial, legislative, and administrative forums

where all parties are adequately represented.

That the New Jersey legislature is ready to embark on

laying a foundation for such a procedure appears to be far in

the future. A failure to incorporate environmental rights into

the legal system can only mean the undue loss of some Pinelands

to suburban Philadelphia and New York and to landward pressures

from shore communities.

REFERENCES

Legal Cases cited:

Just v. Marinette County 201 NW 2d 761 (Wisc, 1972).

Maine v. Johnson 265 A 2d 711 (Maine, 1970).

Morris County Land IMRrovement Co. v. Parsi2pany - Troy Hills TwP
193 A2d 232 (N.J. 1963).

Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon et al. 260 US 393 (1922).

New Jersey Laws cited:

New Jersey Green Acres Land Acquisition Act, Ch 419 (1971).

Delineation and Marking of Flood Hazard AreaSL Ch 185 (1972).

Books, Articles and Reports:

D. Berry and R. E. Coughlin, Economic Implications of Preserving
Ecologically@Valuable Land in Medford, New Jersey Regional
Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, 1973.

S. Cain, "The Species-Area Curve," American Midlands Naturalist,
Vol 19 (1938) pp 573-581.

Center for Ecological Research in Planning and Design, "An Eco-
logical Planning Study of Medford Twp, New Jersey," Dept of
Landscape Architecture, Univ of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1973.

R. Kingham, "State and Local Wetlands Regulation: The Problem
of Taking without Just Compensation," Virginia Law Review, Vol 58
(1972) pp 876-906.

A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, Oxford University Press, New
York,, 1949.

J. McCormick, The Pine Barrens: A Preliminary Ecological Inven-
tory, New Jersey State Museum Report No. 2, Trenton, 1970.

J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1971.

J. Rose, "The Courts and the Balanced Community: Recent Trends
in New Jersey Zoning Law," Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, Vol 39 (1973) pp 265-276.

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Survey of Burlington County, New Jersey, 1971.

C. Stone, "Should Trees Have Standing? -- Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects," Southern California Law Review, Vol 45
(1971) pp 450-501.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN OPEN SPACE LAND MANAGEMENT -- by Michael S. Ontko*

Current Setting for Land Management

In the past few years, we as a nation have come to the

realization that there is no longer an unlimited supply of land

for our many needs. Competition for land in the eastern mega-

lopolis is manifested in rising land prices, which is accentuated

by withholding of land by speculative interests. Such holdings

artificially reduce supply and thus increase the cost of available

sites. As prices rise however, the economic land use alterna-

tives are reduced. This economic situation, coupled with the

recognition of a deteriorating environment, has prompted the

trend toward land use management. Open space land management

is a part of that larger management system.

The nation has placed great emphasis on solving the prob-

lems of water and air pollution. It is, however, land use which

holds the key to solving these problems and is the area where we

have shown the least success. It is not that we do not realize

the need. Public and governmental awareness of the need for

workable controls is at an all-time high. Land use management,

however, is a more complex problem than air and water problems,

which may be controlled at point sources given the proper

* The comments presented in this paper are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the official position of the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

expenditure of money. Undeveloped land, the area for which there

is still hope to avoid problems of development, is very poorly

controlled. Almost any parcel can be developed. Major limita-

tion of such development would challenge the right of individuals

or organizations to receive a fair economic return on their

property. The politics and economics of modifying this founda-

tion of American society is an extremely delicate and complex

issue since our system places a premium on individual rights

over the rights of society in general.

While we reach for a handle on the land use problem,

programs for open space acquisition, development, and management

remain a low priority item in governmental budgets. It is clear

that government at all levels is struggling to reidentify the

roles to be played in land management. In the Delaware Valley

the greatest land use control powers have been acquired by local

governments. However, they have often been relatively unsuccessful

at control for a variety of reasons, such as the following:

1. Pressure to acquire ratables to hold taxes down --
inability to resist developments regardless of
design or location.

2. Lack of fulltime management -- inability to formulate
and enforce controls.

3. Limited area of control -- numerous small minor civil
divisions showing individual but uncoordinated efforts.

4. Weak zoning controls -- misguided reliance on zoning
and over-use of spot zoning changes.

This is an oversimplification of the problem.1 These and

other inadequacies have led to the suggestion that at least some

controls should be imposed at the state level. The National Land
Use Policy Act2 is a response to the lack of successful local
controls. By providing incentives to the states3 for land use

planning, the National Land Use Policy Act attempts to promote

more systematic and stronger mechanisms for land use control.

It is within this framework that open space land manage-

ment has grown to importance. There are at least four sub-

categories of open space that must be treated in such a program.

1. Park and Recreation -- Acquisition and Development
2. Natural Resource -- Development, Conservation,
Preservation
j
J. Historic Site Preservation
4. Agricultural Conservation and Preservation

Each of these holds individual significance but benefits

most from integration into a singular open space land management

policy. The remainder of this paper will be concerned with the

role of government in open space land management, with special

emphasis on applications for the New Jersey Pine Barrens.

Open Space Land Management -- A Problem of Responsibility
and Coordination

The Pine Barrens have been defined most broadly by
McCormick4 as occupying about 2,000 square miles of the southern

New Jersey coastal plain (Figure 1.) This represents 25.4%

of the area of the Garden State, the most rapidly urbanizing

state in the nation. A somewhat more restricted delineation

has been made by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.5 See Figure 2.

The Pinelands have many unique natural resources which

require extensive and sensitive management. Among these are:

1. The largest freshwater aquifier system on the
east coast, composed of the Raritan-Magothy formati9n
and the unconsolidated Cohansey and Perkasie sands.
The latter is extremely sensitive since it begins
a mere 20' from the surface and is extremely vulnera-
ble to contamination from sewage, runoff, and other
development-related sources.

2. The last major freshwater river system on the east
coast composed of the Mullica, Wading, Bass, and
Oswego systems. This is a major source of fresh-
water to the Great Bay, which is a significant
wetlands area.

3. A major near-natural wilderness area (the Central
Pine Barrens). This area supports numerous species
of plants and animals, some o5 which are unique
or nearly unique to the area.

Figure I New Jersey Pine Barrens

After McCormick

New York City

Phila-
delphia

- -.000/11M

Figure 2 New Jersey Pine Barrens
After Regional Ecological
Map of New Jersey -- N.J.
Department of Environmental
Protection

New York City

Phila-
delphia

.N.

4. A large area of dwarf scrub oak and pine (the
Plains area). These trees are less than 4' in
height. This area is extremely sensitive
ecologically and vulnerable to fire due to the
near drought conditions which exist because
water percolates beyond reach of root systems.

A combination of conditions have deterred development of this

ecologically sensitive but strategically located area. Some

of these conditions have recently changed, thereby endangering

a major physical resource.

1. Lack of Access -- The Pines have long been relatively
isolated from the immediate development pressures of
New York, Philadelphia, and Atlantic City. The con-
struction of the Garden State Parkway, the Atlantic
City Expressway and the Lindenwold High Speed Line
have penetrated the Barrens and will increase
development pressure.

2. Economic Integrity --For many generations, the large
cranberry and blueberry farms have helped to preserve
the perig hery of the Pine Barrens through viable agri-
Cult%XLE;. The owners of these large productive
facilities have expanded their holdings to secure
continual supplies of water vital to operations. In
addition, the growers seem to act as a cohesive group
to help preserve their economic interests from detri-
mental action. This social and economic system has
served to defend the area from encroachment. Should
it break down, however, developers will have an
opportunity to secure large acreages. New Jersey is
extremely concerned about the loss of farmland in
the state. Like many other states, it has turned
to agricultural assessment9 as a means of providing
tax relief to farming. However, as elsewhere, the
penalties for development are not sufficiently severe
and speculators are able to use this reduced assess-
ment to help hold land for rapidly increasing prices.

3. Government Lands -- A large part of the Pinelands 10
is in public ownership, primarily Federal and State.
Less than 1% of the Federal land can be considered
natural.11 Nevertheless, this framework is being used
by the State of New Jersey as a basis for expanding
public ownership of the pinelands. This effort in
effect is undertaken on a plot-by-plot basis as land
comes on the market.12

4. Soils -- Sandy soils and high water tables have reduced
the desirability of this area for development. As long
as land was available elsewhere and pressure for develop-
ment was less severe, this peripheral area was largely
ignored. This factor is rapidly changing and technology
can easily overcome this problem. The long-term effects,
as we shall see, can cause irreversible problems.

The efforts of government are usually well meant but often

a positive action to rectify one problem presents new and unfore-
seen problems. In 1970, the New Jersey Wetlands Actl3 was passed

to preserve the tidal areas so important to food chains.

Initial mapping methods to delineate these areas were slow, so

remote sensing was applied to delineate the areas covered under

this law. It seems likely that this technique will stand the

test of legal battle and a large area of wetland may be saved.

If extensive wetlands are preserved, the pressure will

mount for development of the Pine Barrens. Development will be

forced away from the coast and the Pine Barrens are the next

nearest area of available land for second homes with seashore

resort access.

The implications of state policy are easier to read than

those of the minor civil divisions. The Pinelands include

most of Ocean and Atlantic, much of Burlington, part of Cape

May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Camden and some of Salem and

Monmouth Counties. Scores of townships are included. It is

a politically complex area.

No single mechanism exists for communication among the

numerous minor civil divisions, 9 counties,, and several state

government branches which all have separate interests in the

status of the Barrens. Burlington, Camden and Gloucester

counties are included in the Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Commission. Monmouth County is part of Tri-State Regional

Planning which focuses on New York City. The remainder has no

regional organization among its member governments. The area

lacks formal coordination as a singular unit.

Some efforts have been undertaken to improve communications
among concerned individuals. The Pinelands Advisory Committee14
and the Pinelands Environmental Councill5 have been organized

to fill the communication gap and investigate alternative uses

of this area. In terms of planning by government, however,

there are several conflicting approaches which must be resolved.

More important, there must be a concensus of member governments

to achieve the goals through local policy and cooperation with

the state.

Open Space Planning -- A Problem of Conflicting Values

Like most planning functions, open space proposals are sub-

ject to a variety of pressures, each claiming to satisfy the

needs of society in an optimal manner. The arguments are debated

continually among governments, individuals, groups, and private

interests.

Development vs. Non-Development

A century ago, Joseph Wharton acquired a large tract of

Pine Barren land for its water resources with which he proposed

to supply Philadelphia. The plan was abandoned when New Jersey

legislation was passed prohibiting interstate transfer of this

valuable water resource. Recently, several development pro-
posals have been designed for the Pine Barrens,16 including

one which proposed a large jetport to serve the east coast.

The use/non-use issue is oversimplified. The real issue

is degree of use which can be permitted. Although the Pines

are thought to be a relatively homogeneous area, this is not

the case. Certain portions should be preserved in a natural

state while other sectors may be developed in varying degrees

dependent upon specific conditions. The Pinelands should not

be further interrupted until these areas are specified.

Recreation vs. Wilderness

Recreation and conservation interests differ greatly on

the potential use of this area. Were it to become entirely

within the public domain, it would be difficult to justify

retention of the entire area in natural state. Increased

population, higher disposable incomes, more leisure time, and

changing social values have increased the need for recreation

services. However, the fragile ground cover and ecological

systems could be easily upset by heavy recreational use.

Access again is ttie key to management. Although large

numbers of people are turning to hiking and back-packing as a

form of recreation) most visitors will remain relatively close

to facilities. A combination of careful placement of access

and facilities and designation and enforcement of restricted

areas could be used to control the adverse effects imposed by

visitors.

Local Rights vs. Common Good

With an area as large as the Pine Barrens, any major pro-

posals must cope with local reaction. In many parts of the

Pines local sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to any major

changes in the status quo. Bass River Township, for example,

has repeatedly opposed a major development project for several

years in defense of the status quo and at the expense of losing

precious ratables which other communities seek so eagerly.

Five-acre zoning has been a common technique for supporting

agriculture and resisting development. But this technique,

when used for an entire township, could be overturned by the

courts as exclusionary.

If extensive areas are to be acquired, they would serve

state and regional needs. Local governments would be expected

to object to the resulting loss of ratables. Close coordination

between different levels of government will be necessary.

Implementation -- A Need for Many Techniques

Were the money available and sellers willing, the pine-
lands could be purchased for a sum of 1 billion dollars.17

Although that would be most desirable, such a large sum is

not likely to be available for open space. More modest and

more realistic approaches should be taken.

Even modest purchases will not be easy at present since

the HUD Open Space Land Program is under moratorium and the

BOR Land and Water Conservation Fund is diminished to 1/3 of
its budget for last year.18 Historic sites in the pinelands

could be acquired or improved through the Department of Interior
Historic Preservation Act.19 The New Jersey Green Acres program

is being used to purchase land when it becomes available and
a 3,000 acre site 20 is now being considered.

Beyond the modest national and state programs, little

money is available for purchase of land for open space. There-

fore, government should resort to less costly measures and

regulatory controls to achieve the desired results.

Implementation can be effected through the application of

various tools by the governments and their various departments.

In addition, numerous private institutions, organizations and

individuals can be encouraged to participate in the acquisition

and maintenance of open spaces to supplement the inventory of

public facilities. Each tool has specific advantages and dis-

advantages and its application must be evaluated on a project-

by-project basis. Governments must use the methods which best

meet their needs. Implementation techniques and the types of

areas to which they are most applicable are summarized in Table 1.

Fd H z p1d C) C1 Cf) N t:@ F-3 Fid rij Fd I"d
1-1 @I (D C@ 0 0 r. 0 0 pa r@ 0) r. r@
0 A) C@ @3 @:; Cr p @3 t-I CA ti
rt @:S I 0@ rr 0@ H. 03 0 (D 0
(D V) I-d 0 t1l H. 113 ri, Pd ::71 0 ='
0 @-h 0 @d < GQ H. (D pa (D w PO
rr (D ::@ tl Fj- 0 CO p Cf) CI)
Fj. 1-1 p @3 rt CO 1 @3 H. (D m (D (D
w 1@ Cn Fj. r. H. (D
rt (D 0 z pa 0 :3@ F-h 0 I-d
H. lc@ r@
p @I L7' "t
0 C@ > Pd H. 0 fD (D
1@ M GQ (D 0 @al 03 (D
(D < PI < p 03 U)
:3 fD H. (D H. CA (D Cn
@-A M (D (D v Fj.
0 5 F3
"0 E3 (D rT
CO Eg z @3 D3
(D El rf, :3 (D
p En
rt W
rr
Pd z
H. z En

rt
DO

Park & Rec.

x x x x Nat. Resour

x Historical

X X X x Agricultura

X X x x X x X Dev Constra

In addition to the techniques mentioned in the Table,

preservation of wetlands is a classic example of regulation

designed for a functional area. Its success in this case is

partly related to historic rights of the state to wetlands. No

such historic claim can be used to preserve the Pine Barrens.

State control of water resources, howeverl can be used as

leverage to control development which would directly affect

ground water quality. Legislation controlling development of

flood plains and stream valleys could assist in control through

water quality management.

In the past, developers have been able to gain approval

of projects which later require provision of utility services.

Currently, the provision of such services is controlled by

minor civil division governments, utility authorities and

utility companies and are not always well planned or coordinated.

Strict control over extension of water supply, sewerage, sewage

treatment, paved roads, and electrical supply can be used to

control development. A stronger role for state, regional, and

county governments is suggested.

In addition to the selection and activation of an implementa-

tion strategy, municipalities should prepare capital investment

programs which allocate funds for open space acquisition and

development. Many municipalities have already established such

procedures. Since open space is often a relatively low priority

item in municipal budgets it is often the first sacrificed under

emergency conditions. Capital Programming can assist in the

allocation of funds and help assure availability of resources

for open space acquisition and development.

Elements of a Program for the Pine Barrens

Since it is unlikely that it will be possible for the

public to purchase the entire Pine Barrens, and perhaps it

should not all be purchased anyway, a possible strategy for

maximizing the utility of this resource might go something

like this:

Legislative Controls:

1. Enforcement of the current Wetlands Act
of 1970.
2. Extension of controls to non-tidal wetlands.
3. Emphasis on flood plain legislation.
4. More stringent yet attractive agricultural
assessment.
5. Creation of Pinelands Regional Coordination
system.
6. Compliance with Federal W-9ter Pollution
Control Act of 1972.21 22
7. Use of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
8. Use of the National Land Use Policy Act if
passed. 23
9. Use of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.

Planning:

I. Inventory

1. Identification of critical natural
resource planning elements.
a. Geological -- consolidated and
unconsolidated geological structure.

b. Physiographic -- significant physi-
ographic features and areas.
c. Hydrological -- surface and ground
water and aquifer recharge.
d. Vegetative Associations -- major
communities and sensitive areas.

e. Soils -- prime agricultural and
problem areas.

f. Fauna -- animal habitats.

g. Climatology -- variation in micro-
climate.

2. Identification of Historic Sites.

II. Progra

1. Preservation of critical natural resource

areas.

2. Preservation of historic sites.

3. Agricultural preservation program.
4. Park and Recreation acquisition and
development program.
5. Establishment of planning coordination
among concerned governments and citizens.

All these factors should be integrated into an Open Space

Land Use Plan with development constraint land management policy.

A strong geo-science data base should be created. The use of

remote sensing can greatly facilitate the collation of data for

these purposes on a manageable, consistent, economic and.regular

basis.

Implementation:
1. Purchase of highly critical areas, such
as the Central Pinelands and the Plains

areas.

2. Expansion of state parks when land and
funds are available.

3. Conversion of Federal surplus lands that
may become available into the state
management system.
4. Use of other implementation techniques
listed in Table 1.

These and other procedures can be used to preserve this

very unique and valuable resource area for a multi-use system

which places utility on assets and recognizes the seriousness

of environmental considerations. Multi-use can tie together

elements which can not justify preservation on singular terms.

Summary

Land use is perhaps the most critical factor in our total

environment. Control of land use patterns can be effective

but the implementation of equitable mechanisms are extremely

complicated and delicate. Strategies for control should be

oriented around the roles of natural phenomena. Open space

preservation and conservation is part of this strategy and must

play a larger role in governmental action than has been dem-

onstrated in the past. The Pine Barrens represent an opportunity

to devise effective open space land management before large-scale

development has complicated the situation.

Footnotes

1. See Thompson, Wilbur, Preface to Urban Economics (Baltimore,
1969), Chapter 7 "The Urban Public Economy: Problems in
Scale and Choice" for detailed description of potential
interrelationships.

2. The Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act (S-268)
sometimes called the Jackson-Udall bill.

3. This bill provides $100 million per year for 8 years for
the development of state planning processes, state planning
agencies and state land use programs. An additional $15
million per year wo,..Id go to states for land use planning
in interstate regions.

4. McCormick, Jack, The Pine Barrens - A Preliminary Eculogical
Inventory (Trenton, New Jersey 1970) p. 10.

5. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, "Regional
Ecological Map of New Jersey," 1973. The State of New Jersey
is separated into 15 ecozones characterized by homogeneous
interrelationships of soils, land farms, vegetation, geology,
drainage, and land use and plotted on an ERTS mosaic. This
delineation differs from McCormick's primarily by separation
of the Vineland mixed agriculture and forest area which the
DEP version considers to be separate from the Pine Barrens.

6. Rhodehamel., Edward C., "A Hydrologic Analysis of the New
Jersey Pine Barrens," U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department
of the Interior) 1966. This study details the groundwater
capabilities of the pine barrens.

7. McCormick, Op. Cit. The curly grass fern is nearly peculiar
to the pine barrens. The area does however contain an unusually
large variety of species as well as unusual combinations of
vegetative types.

8. Farming is sufficiently extensive as to have helped disqualify
the pine barrens as "wilderness area." National Park Service -
U.S. Department of the Interior "The Pine Barrens ot New Jersey
A Study of Alternatives," Feb. 1969 - unpublished report.

9. There are several New Jersey Farmland Assessment Acts:
S-44) S-10815 S-1159, A-1268, S-620, A-2263. They generally
call for lower agricultural land assessment to encourage
continued production.

10. State of New Jersey owns 162,000 acres. Federal government
owns 45,000 acres. The combined acreage (207,000 acres)
accounts for about 18% of the pine barrens.

11. McCormick, Jack, Op. Cit., p. 11.

12. The New Jersey Green Acres program provides state funds for
acquisition and development of land for parks and recreation.

13. The Wetlands Act of 1970 requires a permit to modify the
natural environment in tidal waters whose surface is at or
below an elevation of I foot above local extreme high water
or capable of sustaining certain named species of plants.

14. The Pinelands Advisory Committee was created by the National
Park Service at the request of freeholders from Burlington
and Ocean Counties to insure local input into potential
plans for the area. The first meeting was held on Dec. 16,
1968. A manuscript publication entitled Report of the Pine-
lands Advisory Committee was published in July 1970.

15. The Pinelands Environmental Council was formed through state
legislation A-2096 in response to recommendations for such
a group by the Pinelands Advisory Committee.

16. Smith, Herbert H. and Associates for the Pinelands Regional
Planning Board Future Development Plans - The New Jersey
Pinelands Region (Trenton, 1964) 41 pages. See also,
Coughlin, R. E., and Thomas W. Langford, Relative Economic
Effects on Penjerdel of Two Alternative Jetport Proposals in
New Jersey, Report to Committee Hearing on Regional Develop-
mentl Phila: R.S.R.I., June 1969.

17. With 207,000 acres of 1,164,000 acres already in public
ownership and the remaining 957,000 to be purchased at the
modest price of $1,000 per acre, the total cost would be
$957 million.

18. BOR Land and Water Conservation Fund
1973 - $150 million nationally
1974 - $ 66 million nationally
This grant provides matching funds for acquisition and
development of public outdoor recreation areas and
facilities. Grants are made to states and through them
to local governments to finance 50% of all allowable
project costs.

19. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides Federal
matching funds for the acquisition and preservation of
historic sites listed on the National Register.

20. The proposed site includes an operative cranberry bog which
would be kept active as part of the acquisition.

21. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is designed
to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of waters.

22. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is designed to preserve
plants and animals facing extinction.

23. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is designed to assist
in the implementation of preservation of selected rivers
of the nation which possess "remarkable recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other
similar values ....

COMMENTARY I -- by Gene Steiker

Environmental issues should not be made to sound unneces-

sarily complicated. Although ecological processes are complex

and effective solutions to environmental problems are difficult

to devise and implement, problems may be confronted in a straight-

forward manner. In discussing the preservation of a wilderness

area like the Pine Barrens, basic questions must be resolved

pertaining to: 1) the nature, extent and causes of the problem;

2) the specific goals that are to be set for environmental

quality; 3) whether or not these objectives can be justified;

and 4) strategies that will be effective in producing the

desired results.

The problems involved in preserving the Pine Barrens are

clearly def"ned in the two papers. The Barrens are a valuable

and delicate ecological system that may be ruined irreversibly

by almost any type of human encroachment. Michael Ontko points

out the danger of recreational uses without adequate planning

as well as the danger of development for housing and industrial

purposes. The danger to the Pine Barrens is an imminent one.

Existing controls and institutions are inadequate to control

development due to fragmentation of political jurisdictions,

lack of coordination between government agencies and conflicting

goals. There is a need for both regional planning and coordina-

tion of policies in order to rectify this situation. The frame-

work of property rights is central to this issue.

In his paper, David Berry identifies demand for open

space, demonstrates a method of measuring what he defines as

social demands, and discusses decision criteria used to resolve

questions where the interests of different groups conflict. He

describes two principal justifications for preserving open space:

11social claims., " which are the demand for scenic amenities, out-

door recreation and environmental quality and "ecological claims"

which are based on the rights of living things to live, independent

of any use or pleasure humans may derive from their existence.

The concept of ecological claims is particularly important.

We may have to reject many of our present ideas about economic

growth and our relationship to nature if we are to have a

livable environment. See Roszak (1973) and Boulding (1966).

The idea of ecological claims is implicit in the thoughts of

many environmentalists and is possibly the only justification

for maintaining an adequate amount of environmental protection.

This is not to say ttiat environmental considerations

necessarily conflict with economic goals. Social claims may

be underestimated, as they are difficult to evaluate and are

only infrequently registered in economic markets. A basic

principle of economics is the law of diminishing marginal

utility which states that as more of any good is consumed,

additional units of the commodity are worth less to the consumer.

According to this reasoning, one would expect increases in con-

sumption of economic goods in general to be less and less important

as society becomes wealthier. The theory works in reverse as

well. If) as appears to be the case, the production of additional

goods and services to supply a larger population with higher

levels of consumption is achieved at the expense of environ-

mental quality, environmental goods will become more scarce

and more valuable relative to consumer goods. There is no

reason why environmental objectives should not be gained at the

expense of economic growth.

Berry's empirical findings support this hypothesis. The

survey of Medford residents revealed a substantial demand for

open space. Furthermore, open space was evaluated like other

goods to be consumed. Less value was given to additional

acreage as more land was preserved. People with higher incomes

bid more for open space than ttiose with lower incomes. People

who had recently moved to Medford were willing to pay more to

preserve open space than ttiose who had lived there for many

years.

The last observation is somewhat disturbing. The recent

arrivals had previously experienced less open space amenities

and so valued them a great deal, but it seems that the people

who were used to these same amenities had a tendency to take

their good fortune for granted. As Michael Ontko pointed out,

it may often be necessary to put the "common good" ahead of

"local interests" in order to preserve the environment. This

is also an interesting, but not surprising, insight into the

views of those in developing nations and economically disadvan-

taged areas in this country.

Although Berry's method for measuring demand worked quite

well it unfortunately may not be applicable for many other

problems. In the case of environmental quality, what people

are willing to pay may often depend on how well tney perceive

and understand what they are buying. Certain types of air

pollution, for example, may be damaging to health but not

recognized as such.

People also tend to lack interest in things that do not

directly affect them or that they feel they cannot control.

One might have difficulty evaluating environmental problems like

the effects of energy generation on worldwide meteorological

conditions, for instance. Even given perfect knowledge, adequate

understanding and ability to evaluate problems fully, there is

no guarantee that the amount of environmental preservation that

can be purchased after aggregrating everyone's demand is adequate

ecologically or even in relation to what may be generally con-

sidered desirable on the basis of social claims. The methods

used in Medford measure only social claims. Accounting for

ecological claims requires the type of study suggested by

Michael Ontko for the Pine Barrens to specify the amounts of

critical natural resource features that would have to be pro-

tected in order to insure the continued existence of plant and

animal species and other natural processes.

Such a study is essential for any serious effort to save

the Pine Barrens from destruction. A lack of specific goals

can be an impediment to achieving environmental objectives.

It is one thing to say that the Pine Barrens should be saved

and quite another to say exactly what should be done. This

would seem to be a topic for geographers to explore. The

project should not present insurmountable problems. Emphasis

would properly be placed on defining areas adequate in size

and configuration to preserve all the valuable ecologies in

the Barrens, rather than on extremely detailed descriptions of

the natural processes occurring in the area.

Of course) it is quite another thing again to produce

results, and perhaps this is the most difficult problem. Ontko

gave an excellent description of the political difficulties

involved in saving the Pine Barrens, a comprehensive survey of

the controls that are available to curb development, and an

outline of a practical strategy that may be effective in managing

the resources of the area.

What seems to be absent when the problem of preserving

the Pine Barrens is discussed is some social or institutional

mechanism to register the demands for environmental quality and

evoke a supply response. Much of the problem is related to

the nature of environmental goods in contrast to economic goods.

One distinction is the "public good!' aspect of open space.

Another difference that may be significant is that

environmental quality in many cases requires an absence of

human activity, rather than any effort similar to that required

to produce almost all economic goods. Certain environmental

goods may be produced in the usual way (for example, zoos pre-

serve rare animal species, and there are game preserves run

profitably as tourist attractions), but no one is going to get

rich preserving the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Consequently a

lack of motivation exists. The combination of the need for

both collective action and prohibition of activity makes the

problem extremely difficult.

My only criticism involves some rather peripheral points.

Successful planning requires a clear understanding of the

economic forces that govern land use. Mr. Ontko refers to

the scarcity of land as being "partly artificial since we, of

course, have enough land for our economic needs." Surely there

is plenty of acreage in the United States. Land, however,

embodies different attributes that are relevant to its suita-

bility for different uses. Not the least important attribute

of land is its location in relation to markets, jobs, trans-

portation, and production facilities. Local and regional land

markets may be delineated and the price of land in such markets

is determined by supply and demand conditions. Scarcity is

considered to be the normal state of affairs in economics and

the reason for allocating resources. Market mechanisms perform

the function of allocating resources to alternative uses. A

shortage would exist only if price could not adjust properly

and more land were demanded at a given price than could be

supplied. An unlimited supply of land would imply a price of

zero, and there would be no reason to be concerned with allocating

land to different functions. Although such a condition may still

exist in some remote areas it is not typical of the Eastern parts

of trie United States.

At another point he says, "As prices rise, however, the

economic land use alternatives ate reduced." Again competitive

market mechanisms under ideal conditions insure the efficient

allocation of scarce resources. If the market fails to account

for significant demands, such as public demand for open space,

because collective action necessary to effect such demands is

absent the configuration of land uses decided by the markct will

be less than optimal. The role of government may be viewed as

augmenting the market and providing an institutional framework

to correct the market allocation in such a situation. If such

collective action is taken but the collective bid for land is

not adequate to purchase land, other uses are more valuable to

society. However, tne usual governmental and collective valuation

of the land has traditionally been made on the basis of only

11social claims" and efficiency criteria. Government planning

should also include attention to "environmental claims." Berry's

paper presents a maximin procedure for such decisions based on

considerations of equity rather than efficiency. This approach

may lead to quite different and more desirable allocations of

resources.

The comment is obviously meant to apply to the fact that

rising land prices tend to tax government ability to exercise

land use planning under existing programs. While this may be

true, it may imply a lack of responsiveness to environmental

and social claims for open space. If there is widespread

public demand for open space and other types of environmental

amenities then any changes that increase government sensitivity

to public desires will be useful.

Finally, I might add one suggestion to the inventory of

policies and legislation. It was mentioned that preservation

of open space is hampered by local governments competing for

development and that municipalities should be compensated for

loss of revenues when land is acquired by state or regional

programs. Perhaps changes in government revenue collection

methods might be helpful. If the state levied all property taxes

and allocated the money to municipalities, the local pressure

to compete for ratables would decrease and a major impediment

to cooperation would be removed. This idea has been considered

in New Jersey for entirely different reasons (namely equalizing

the quality of education offered in different municipalities

and making property taxes more equitable). Other variants of

the idea might be selective regional, state, or federal taxes

in addition to local taxes applied to control development.

References

Boulding, Kenneth E. "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
Earth," in Henry Jarrett, ed., Environmental Quality in a
Growing Economy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966.

Roszak, Theodore. Where the Wasteland Ends, Doubleday &
Company, Garden City, New York, 1972.

COMMENTARY II -- by Dick Scott

As a resident of "South Jersey" who is at least moderately

informed concerning the high and increasing "pressure" the area

is under for suburban development, I should like to commend the

organizer of this series of papers for selecting a topic that

is of prime importance to all residents of the Greater Phila-

delphia Metropolitan Area. Hopefully, there is still time to

avoid the "Cherry Hillization" of the Pinelands, and for that

matter, other valuable natural and agricultural areas of

Southern New Jersey. Frankly, I am not optimistic. Simple

geography leads one to the conclusion that the already high

level of pressure for further urban development in the South
Jersey area will reach extreme levels in the near future.1

Most mechanisms that would offer the possibibility of limiting,

or channeling this development are still in the discussion or

planning stages.

Comments on Berry's Paper

Comments concern three aspects of Berry's paper. First,

I will make a few points related to the "man-nature" philosophy

underlying the paper. Second, I have a few questions concerning

Berry's interpretation of his questionnaire data on willingness

to pay for open space. Finally, I will comment briefly on

Berry's ideas concerning just compensation to landowners for

land taken for public use.

Underlying the preservationist thrust of the paper is a

particular view or philosophy of the character of the relation-

ship between "man" and "nature." Here, two possible views of

the "man-nature" relationship will be outlined, and the impli-

cations of each view for "development" of natural areas will

be discussed. One possible view of the relationship between

man and nature is that the two are separate, but interacting

entities. Man and nature are distinct. This standpoint, I

believe, comes closest to the philosophical thrust of the first

part of Berry's paper. Here, nature is to mankind something

which is "out there., it a single part of the total human environ-

ment. In this view, the world may be divided into two types

of areas: 1) those places that have been molded significantly

by the hand of man, and are, therefore, not a part of nature,

and 2) those places that are relatively "untouched' by human

hands, and are, ttien, a part of the natural world. Operational

definitions of "natural" and "human" areas are matters that need

not be considered in detail here, but such definitions would

certainly become central issues in any attempt to formulate,

or implement a preservation policy for the Pine Barrens based

on arguments having a philosophical root in this view of man-

nature relationships.

If one argues, as Berry does, that in the Pine Barrens,

plants and animals "merit protection because they exist tnere

and have existed there for some time in harmony with each

other and their physical environments," and that, "The right

to continued existence with minimal human intrusions is based

on this natural occupation of the land," then one is, at least

implicitly, accepting a world view in which man and nature are

separate -- though possibly equal. Anyone who supports the

notion that on the one hand man is distinct from nature, and

that on the other hand nature has equal rights to continued

existence and non-interference from humans also supports a

spatial status quo whenever the questLon of development of a

natural area occurs. Restated in terms of the twofold division

of the human environment outlined above, Berry's view is that

those areas of the earth defined as natural have equal rights

to exist along with those areas of the earth that are desig-

nated as non-natural (man-molded). Additionaily, since natural

and non-natural areas have equal rights to continued existence,

then neither should invade the territory of the other, and

thereby transform that territory into the opposite state. This

view further requires that one forget history, or that one

consider the expansion of the area of the earth settled by

man, which has been necessary as a result of the growth of the

human population throughout history, to be interpreted as a con-

tinual immoral onslaught by men determined to diminish the

area of the earth that nature has an equal right to claim.

While the position of "equal rights" for nature is commendable

in principle, it is an extreme view, and will never be workable

in practice -- especially in a place exposed to extreme

development pressures.

There are several practical problems involved in any

development or preservation policy based on a man-apart-from-

nature world view. First, is the definitional problem already

mentioned, and the regionalization problems whicti would flow

from definitional difficulties. Second3@ use of this world

view in formulating decision criteria for development versus

preservation may result in the failure to consider other factors

which should be given equal consideration. For example, if one

uses this world view as a basis for development decisions, then

one knows tnat "natural" areas must be left untouched, and that

any development must, therefore, take place in man-formed

regions. But this view only tells us that man has a right to

build in "his" area; it fails to tell us which parts of the

"man-formed" region we should build upon. Should we use parks,

or farmland? In short, overreliance on preservationist-based

decision criteria may lead to neglect of factors which should

be considered the equal of "naturds rights" in making develop-

ment decisions.

Berry's ecological claims for protecting the environment

raise some interesting questions concerning the "state of nature."

For example, he claims that plants and animals exist in harmony

with each other, and with their environments, and these plants

and animals have a "right to continued existence" which is

"based on this natural occupation of the land." Is nature

really so harmonious? Is it not a fact that the continued

existence of those species present in the Pine Barrens precludes

the existence there of other species which could thrive in that

environment if certain predators or competing species were

removed. In short, this view of the condition of nature requires

one to accept the mix of species found in a "natural area@' as

the best possible mix for that area. This acceptance of the

status quo is, seemingly, based on ecological arguments relating

to balance and harmony in nature. One question raised by this

view relates to the possibility that careful human interference

in the ecosystem could improve the symbiotic relations of the

flora and fauna of the Pine Barrens, and increase the biomass

in the process. Rational evaluation by humans, and possibly

human interference may improve on the work of "mother nature."

A second question concerns the claim that balance and harmony

exist among the species of the Pine Barrens. While it is

claimed that the ecological claims are "not anthropocentric",

one wonders about things such as "harmony." Is this not, at

least in part, an anthropocentric, possibly even romantic,

view of an ecosystem. Would not a specification of relation-

ships among system elements define the "nature" of the place

better than claims about "harmony."

If the view that man and nature are separate has short-

comings (not tne least of which is the inherent anthropocentricity

which results when we separate man from the system and assign him

to the role of viewer ot the world) as a basis for formulating

developmental policies, then a logical next step would be to

examine other possible views of the man-nature relationship, in

terms of suitability for a basis of development policy. One

obvious alternative, which on the face of it seems to overcome

the inherent anthropocentricity of the view previously discussed,

is to consider man to be an integral part of nature. Here one

may still discuss the "environment" of man, but that discussion

will proceed from the standpoint of the relations between one

element of "nature, 11 man, and the environment in which man

lives. Any other element of the natural system could be dis-

cussed analogously, and in the latter case man is a potential

member of the "environment."

The "man as part of nature" view, though, is also problematic.

First, as far as we know, humans are,basically different from

other animals and plants. We comp u1sively organize and systema-

tize what we see, and we communicate extremely complex messages

via language. In these ways we differ, at least in degree, from

other organisms. Also, most westerners view "man-nature" as a

dichotomy. For this reason the dichotomist view may be a useful

analytic device whenever one is attempting to understand the

behavior of humans in relation to their environment. That is,

if most western men believe themselves to be apart from nature,

and if they behave accordingly toward nature, then one mignt

profitably adopt the "man-nature" dichotomy in research.

In the final analysis, unless there are reasons indicating

a need for adopting an anthropocentric view, it seems that logic

beckons one toward the world view which places man in nature.

We are) after all, part of the web of life, and we have a

biological continuity with living things that goes back millions

of years. If one maintains that we are not a part of nature,

then it is necessary to explain when and how we became separate.

One may object, "but we have culture," and I would respond to

this that culture is as natural to men as honeycombs are to bees.

On the one hand, culture is part of our behavior, and other

animals do not seem to exhibit behaviors encompassed in the

usual definitions of culture. On the other hand, the organisms

we so easily place in a single class under the rubric "nature"

exhibit an extremely wide variety of behaviors. Certainly, the

fact that men have cultureseparates us less from some of the

animals usually considered to be a part of nature, than those

species,are separated, in terms ot behavior, from other animals

and plants. Those who are closest ought to be in a similar

class.

If one feels compelled to adopt a world view in wnich man

is considered as an element of the natural world, then the next

logical question in tnis discussion is, "what kinds of principles

.for development decision criteria would such a view suggest."

If man and his culture are part of nature, then his interactions

with his environment are natural acts. The fact that man may

destroy part of the land or the creatures and plants living on

the land, in the process of getting land on which to play or

live is, in this view, no more "unnatural" or wrong than the

fact that the current flora and fauna of an area may exclude

other living things which could survive in the environment in

that area. That man behaves as a predator is, in this view,

no more llwrong@' than the fact that rabbits must die if eagles

are to fly. Any act of man is part of the "natural harmony"

existing in nature. By now it must be obvious that this second

view is useless as a guide to making decisions about developing

any part of the earth surface. The only possible guide would

be as follows: Whatever men do to the environment is acceptable

because any acts are in the natural ordeL of things.

In summary, neither view (man as separate from nature, or

man as part of nature) taken by itself seems very useful as

a guideline for decisions related to the development of an

area. The first, man as separate from nature, leads logically

to decisions in favor of a spatial status quo whenever the

question of the development of a natural area is faced. The

second view, man as a part of nature, seems to allow no sins

on the part of man. All types of development consist of

natural acts,, and are therefore in harmony with the environment,

and allowable. The entire earth may be covered with McDonald's

stands and other noble accomplishments.

Evidently, development decisions need to be based upon

criteria other than various types of claims for environmental

protection of the "natural world." However, these claims need

not, nor should not) be excluded from consideration. Just what

the "other criteria" ought to be need not (thankfully) be of

concern here., except to say tnat it is an issue that needs

(and is getting some) frank,honest, open discussion, and solid

thinking.

I would now like to turn to a brief discussion of some of

the Medford questionnaire findings. Berry's second statistically

significant regularity is that the longer a person lives in

Medford, the less he is willing to pay for preserving open

space. It is suggested that this regularity probably occurs

because recent settlers are more aware than long-term residents

of the types of suburban sprawl problems associated with the

"inner ring of suburbs" around Philadelphia. I have no quibble

with this interpretation but do have a few questions. One,

was income held constant among new, mid-length, and old residents?

It is possible that newer residents have higher incomes than

older resiaents and because of this income difference are willing

2
to pay more for open space. Two, it is also possible that

older residents are holders of larger tracts of land than newer

residents. Those who already "own" considerable open space

may frown on paying increased taxes to preserve that commodity
as a public good.3 Additionally, those who own large tracts

of la nd may view any attempt to create public open space as a

threat to the profit they might gain if the land were sold to

a developer. One expects that the holder of 100 acres of

potentially developable land would be less than enthusiastic

about potential restrictions to future development of that land

whether the restriction comes as a program to preserve open

space, wilderness, or agricultural lands. This source of

resistance,of course, may be neutralized by various programs

to remunerate landholders for all or part of these potential

losses.

Final comments concern Berry's excellent discussion of

the intricacies and difficulties involved in decisions relating

to compensation to various interested parties. The development

of philosophical, theoretical, and practical knowledge concerning

"development rights" and compensation is crucial and Berry has

made a creditable start in this direction in the brief final

section of his paper.

Comments on Ontko's Paper:

It is well known that of all the states, New Jersey has

the highest population density - roughly 1040 persons per square

mile. As is usual in those states which have urban-industrial

economies,, the population is highly concentrated in space. This

means that relatively small areas of the state have densities

far above average, while large areas are very low in population

density. One's mental images of New Jersey as an urban, strife

torn continuous city, are forever shattered upon a first visit

to the Pine Barrens, or for that matter to any of the state Is

agricultural areas. There is a lot of open land out there, and

there are obviously development designs for much of that land.

William H. Whyte's warning signs of land being held for specu-.

lation are rampant in South Jersey -- grown up fields, abandoned

orchards, and the ubiquitous "LAND FOR SALE" signs. Just as

there are developers who would turn all of South Jersey into

one great housing tract, so also are there proposals around

which advocate the preservation of much of the state's remaining

open space.

"Keep agricultural land agricultural" says the Commission

on a Blueprint for Agriculture, which has suggested that a tax

be levied on real estate transactions in order to provide revenues

which would enable the state to purchase the development rights

to 1,000,000 acres of New Jersey's farm land. This is a noble

goal. Farming is a very important industry in the state, and

certainly "run away" development could do (and is doing) harm

to the agricultural sector of the economy.

The Pine Barens also have advocates who wish to protect

this valuableresource from further development. Possibly, a

million acres of the Pine Barrens should be left undeveloped,

or at low densities of development. Finally, the remaining un-

developed tidal lands of the state are, hopefully, protected.

Certainly, of all "natural" lands in the state,, the arguments

for preservation of wet lands are exceedingly strong.

All of this is reason to pause and wonder about the effects

such widespread preservation would have on the state. Obviously,

we would have a lot of open space. My rough arithmetic indicates

that if all potential preservation schemes are implemented, and

if we add to this potential total, land which is already pro-

tected from development, then the total area to be preserved

comes to about fifty percent of the land area of the state.

To remove this much land from development in a state which

saw an eighteen percent increase in population between 1960 and

1970,,, and which is likely to see continued population growth

for some time, could have interesting ramifications for the

market value of land which is already built up, or which (in

spite of limitations) may be developable in the future. Cer-

tainly, the already skyrocketing real estate prices in the state

would be boosted further if population growth continues while

large areas of land are removed from the market.

.David Berry's paper outlines a philosophical base for think-

ing about decisions concerning development, and for establishing

fair rates of compensation to parties injured by any decisions

which are made. Michael Ontko's paper outlines the issues re-

lating to development versus non-development of areas such as

the Pine Barrens, presents techniques which are available for

the preservation of various types of open space, and suggests

steps which should be taken to implement these techniques.

All of this discussion is very useful and informative, but

it does seem that there is one major element missing in the

papers taken as a whole. It is clear to this writer that land

will be needed for the population growth which New Jersey is

going to experience. Equally clear is the need to provide for

use limitation or outright preservation of important marine

related, agricultural, and wilderness areas. These two needs

are, of course, contradictory to one degree or another. First,

of all, if high proportions of the state are held for preser-

vation,, then the market value of land will be driven to extremely

high levels, thereby excluding large numbers of the population

from the housing market, or at best confining them to vertical

human filing cabinets. This eventuality raises the question

11preservation for whom,11 or the even more ominous question

11preservation of whom." In the second place, continued popu-

lation growth will, at some point, result in demands for

11opening up land" for settlement. That is, as numbers of people

increase and non-preserved land is fully settled, then it is

likely that pressure to allow settlement of preserved land areas

will become intense. In the long run, keeping as much as fifty

percentof the state's land as open space is politically untenable.

Therefore, it is imperative that priorites for development, and

priorities for preservation be established in the near future.

Neither of the papers being reviewed here deals with this issue

fully.

Any priority assignment system will likely be of a nor-

mative nature. Once norms for development-and preservation are

drawn up, then someone can construct a decision model which will

allow the norms to be reflected in day to day land use decisions.

This immediately begs the question "who sets the norms and con-

structs the decision model?" Several possibilities seem to

stand out: 1) reliance on expert opinion, 2) measures based on

the will of the people or public opinion, and 3) the "free

market." In turn, each of these has its advantages and disad-

vantages.

Experts presumably know more than the public about what

types of existing land are ecologically, economically, estheti-

cally, or otherwise important for preservation. Similarly,

experts ought to be able to provide guidelines concerning where

development ought to take place. On the other hand, reliance

upon expert opinion is by its very nature undemocratic, and

would for this reason be unpopular.

A more democratic procedure would be to go to the citizens

and ask what types of land should be preserved in what quanti-

ties., and to determine opinions concerning where development

should take place and in what categories. Such an approach

would presumably give each citizen an equal voice in decision

making. This approach also has problems. First, the citizens,

not being experts, may make decisions that result in severe

environmental or other harm. Second, the citizen may have

little conception of the true range of alternatives and may

therefore select a development and preservation configuration

which is needlessly suboptimal. Third, the system would be

administratively unwieldly. Finally, it would possibly violate

the rights of minorities, unless such rights were explicitly

preserved.

The so called "free market" system would overcome the

problems associated with administration--the invisible hand

does it all. However, to the extent that land is a public good,

each citizen or group of citizens should have, as a minimum,

equal opportunity to determine land use policy. The market

system is set up such that each individual's vote is multiplied

by the amount of money he has, and as long as income and wealth

are distributed unequally, then there will not be equal oppor-

tunity to influence land use policy under this system. Also to

the extent that the market does not take environmental, social,

and other noneconomic factors into account it is an imperfect

mechanism for making land use decisions. In narrowly defined

economic terms (i.e. ignoring externalities) the highest and

best use of the marsh lands is an oil refinery, or a high

density housing area. The market does not normally incorporate

environmental impacts, while man can incorporate them, using

other institutions, and would thus be neglegent to leave land

use decisions solely to the market.

Obviously, neither experts, nor public opinion, nor the

free market is, by itself, adequate for making rational deci-

sions concerning development and preservation. Possibly, the

best parts of the three systems can be combined. For example,

the role of experts could be limited to outlining the alterna-

tives, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each

alternative. The various choices could then be placed before

the citizens in the form of a carefully administered public

opinion survey. The results of such a survey could serve as a

major input to the development of a land use plan by appropriate

agencies. The plan formulated by the agency, in light of the

opinion survey, could then be placed before the voters for

approval. This method would allow the best features of the

"expert" and "public opiniod' approaches to be incorporated into

the decision process. The " fr e e mar ke t' might be allowed to

operate in areas not saved from development, although there

might be design or density restrictions.

Nothing said here actually tackles the tough nut of setting

priorities for preservation or development. At best, a

mechanism is outlined which shows how priorities might be set

through the interaction of experts and the public. I should

emphasize that there is no claim that the mechanism outlined

here is in any way optimal or even practical. The intention

has been to suggest possibilities in order to stimulate thought.

Footnotes

1. For example, two major limited access highways connect South
Jersey with central and northern areas of the state that are
presently highly built up. Recently, the Con odore Perry
Bridge between Chester,. Pa. and Bridgeport, N.J. was completed.
This connection makes relatively underdeveloped areas of South
Jersey much more accessible to the more heavily developed
western margin of the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The
Lindenwold-Philadelphia High Speed Line already connects the
Philadelphia CBD with the fringes of the Pine Barrens, and a
Gloucester County branch of the speed line which will terminate
in Glassboro is planned. All of these transport links connect
areas that are presently highly urbanized (i.e., Philadelphia,
and already built up areas of New Jersey) with areas of New
Jersey that are presently largely agricultural or wilderness.
2. Note in response: Using the X 2 test, the probability of a
statistically significant dependence between income class and
length of residence is less than .01. That is, newer residents
do not have higher or lower incomes than longer term residents.

3. Note in response: Many large tracts of undeveloped land are
held by developers or speculators. No test was made to see
if holdings by respondents (if any) varied with length of re-
sidence, however.

A Selective Pine Barrens Bibliography*

Berry, David and R.E. Coughlin, Economic implications of Pre-
serving Ecologically Valuable Land in Medford, New
Jersey, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadel-
phia, Pa., 1973.

Center for Ecological Research in Planning and Design, "An
Ecological Planning Study of Medford Twp., New Jersey"
Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., 1973.

Feinstein, Miles R., "The Origins of the Pineys," Unpublished
Masters Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1963.

Haines, Loraine B., "Cranberries in New Jersey," Unpublished
Masters Thesis, Trenton State College, Trenton, New
Jersey, 1959.

Harshberger, John W., The Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine-
Barrens, Christopher Sower Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 1916.

Kury, Theodore, "Iron as a factor in New Jersey Settlement",
Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the New
Jersey Historical Commission, Trenton, New Jersey,
Dec.5, 1970.

Lutz, H.J., "Concerning a Geologic Explanation of the Origin and
Present Distribution of the Pine Barrens Vegetation,"
Ecology, 15 (1934).

"For a more complete listing of regional and historical works on
New Jersey which include references to the Pine Barrens see
McGarvey, Robert, "The Pine Barrens: Isolation and Image"
listed in this bibliography.

McCormick, Jack, The Pine Barrens: A Preliminary Ecological
Analysis, New Jersey State Museum, Report Number 2,
Trenton, New Jersey, 1970.

McGarvey, Robert, "The Pine Barrens: Isolation and Image"
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pa., 1972.

McPhee, John, The Pine Barrens, Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
New York, 1968.

McPhee, John and William R. Curtsinger, "The People of New
Jerseys Pine Barrens," National Geogra2hic Magazine,
Vol. 145, No. 1(jan, 1974), 52-77.

National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, "The Pine
Barrens of New Jersey - a Study in Alternatives,"
Feb. 1969,(unpublished report).

Pinelands Advisory Committee, "Report to the Freeholders of
Burlington County," July 1970.

Rhodehamel, Edward C., "A Hydrological Analysis of the New
Jersey Pine Barrens,"U.S.G.S., Department of the
Interior, 1966.

Smith, Herbert H. and Associates, Future Development Plans-The
New Jersey Pineland Region, Pinilands Regional Planning
Board, Trenton, New Jersey, 1964.

Thomas, Lester S., "The Pine Barrens of New Jersey,"Pamphlet of
Dept. of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Parks,
Trenton, New Jersey, 1971.

Townley, Rod, "Deliverance in the Pine Barrens, "The Philadel-
p1ji:a Inquirer, Sunday Magazine Section, Tugu7st 26, 1973.

RECENT REPORTS OF THE
REGIONAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

PHILADELPHIA REGION INPUT-OUTPUT STUDY,, by Walter Isard, Thomas W.
Langford, Jr., and Eliahu Romanoff, WORKING PAPERS, Volumes I and 2:
January 1967, Volume 3: January 1968, Volume 4: July 1968. FINAL
COEFFICIENT TABLE, 1970. Complete set, $19.75.
PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR THE UPPER EAST BRANCH OF THE BRANDYWINE,
by Robert E. Coughlin, J. R. Myers, and Benjamin H. Stevens (with
John C. Keene and Ann Louise Strong of the Institute of Environmental
Studies, University of Pennsylvania) June 1967. $2.00.

RELATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON PENJERDEL OF TWO ALTERNATIVE JETPORT
PROPOSALS IN NEW JERSEY, by Robert E. Coughlin and Thomas W. Langford,
Jr., June 1969. $3.00.
FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE IN THE BALTIMORE REGION, by
Robert E. Coughlin and Heber Tappata, March 1970. $2.50.
REPORT ON THE BALTIMORE REGION INPUT-OUTPUT STUDY,, by Thomas W. Langford,
Jr., and Robert E. Coughlin, May 1971. $5.00.
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED 1976 PHILADELPHIA BICENTENNIAL EXPOSITION ON
PRODUCTION, INCOME, AND TAXES, by Benjamin H. Stevens and Robert E.
Coughlin, March 1972. $2.00.
THE INFLUENCE OF WATER QUALITY IN THE EVALUATION OF STREAM SITES, by
Ursula Scherer and Robert E. Coughlin, October 1971. $2.00.
DECISION MODEL FOR CAPITAL BUDGETING FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, by
Benjamin H. Stevens and Robert E. Coughlin, November 1972. $5.00.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF THE WISSAHICKON WATERSHED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, PART I: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, by Robert E. Coughlin
and Thomas R. Hammer, June 1973. $6.00.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF PRESERVING ECOLOGICALLY VALUABLE LAND IN
MEDFORD., NEW JERSEY, by David Berry and Robert E. Coughlin, September
1973. $6.00. .0
EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON STREAM CHANNELS AND STREAM FLOW, by Thomas
R. Hammer,, November 1973. $6.00.
THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF NEWARK: A GENERAL SYSTEM PLANNING STUDY, by
Robert E. Coughlin and Barbara Grinnell, September 1973. $6.00.
STREAM QUALITY PRESERVATION THROUGH PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT, by
Robert E. Coughlin and Thomas R. Hammer, May 1973. $2.25.

RECENT DISCUSSION PAPERS
OF THE
REGIONAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

No..12 AN INVESTIGATION OF LOCATION FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
ECONOMY OF THE PHILADELPHIA REGION,, by Benjamin H. Stevens,
Carolyn A. Brackett, and Robert E. Coughlin, March 1967.
$3.00.

No. 29 IMPACT OF VIET NAM WAR EXPENDITURES ON THE PHILADELPHIA
ECONOMY, by Walter Isard and Thomas W. Langford, Jr.,
May 1969. $3.00.

No. 41 GOAL ATTAINMENT LEVELS IN 101 METROPOLITAN AREAS, by Robert
E. Coughlin, December 1970. $3.00.

No. 42 AIR QUALITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMIC, METEOROLOGICAL,
AND OTHER STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN AREAS IN THE
UNITED STATES, by John Welson and Benjamin H. Stevens,
December 1970. $2.50.

No. 43 SOME EXPERIMENTS IN QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF LANDSCAPE
QUALITY, by Carla B. Rabinowitz and Robert E. Coughlin,
March 1971. $2.00.

No. 44 DUALITY THEORIES IN LINEAR, QUADRATIC AND CONVEX PROGRAMMING:
A SURVEY, by Nazir G. Dossani, May 1971. $2.00.

No. 45 LAND VALUES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE RURAL-
URBAN FRINGE, by Robert E. Coughlin and James Fritz, May
1971. $2.00.

No. 46 RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCES AND CHOICE: SOME PRE-
LIMINARY EMPIRICAL RESULTS RELEVANT TO URBAN FORM, by Mark
D. Menchik, March 1971. $3.00.

No. 47 COST-BENEFIT AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES: THEIR APPLI-
CATION IN EVALUATING INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN URBAN PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES, by David A. Good, June 1971. $2.00.

No. 48 REGIONAL HEALTH FACILITY SYSTEM PLANNING: AN ACCESS OPPOR-
TUNITY APPROACH, by Jerry B. Schneider and John G. Symons,
Jr., July 1971. $2.50.

No. 50 THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED
STREAMS IN SUBURBAN PHILADELPHIA, by Robert E. Coughlin,
Sallie Sheldon and Thomas R. Hammer, September 1971. $2.00.

No. 51 THE EFFECT OF A LARGE URBAN PARK ON REAL ESTATE VALUE, by
Thomas R. Hammer, Edward T. Horn, IV, and Robert E. Coughlin,
September 1971. $2.00.

RECENT DISCUSSION PAPERS - Contined

No. 52 THE CELL-COUNT THEORY OF STOCHASTIC POINT PROCESSES, by
Tony E. Smith, February 1972. $3.00.

No. 53 PERCEPTION AND USE OF STREAMS IN SUBURBAN AREAS: EFFECTS
OF WATER QUALITY AND OF DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE TO STREAM,
by Robert E. Coughlin, Thomas R. Hammer, Thomas G. Dickert,
and Sallie Sheldon, March 1972. $2.00.

No. 54 ON THE RELATIVE-FREQUENCY INTERPRETATION OF FINITE MAXIMUM-
ENTROPY DISTRIBUTIONS, by Tony E. Smith, April 1972. $2.00.

No. 55 STREAM CHANNEL ENLARGELENT DUE TO URBANIZATION, by Thomas
R. Hammer, May 1972. $2.00.

No. 56 ON THE TRANSFORMATIONAL INVARIANCE OF MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD
ESTIMATORS, by Tony E. Smith, July 1972. $1.00.

No. 57 EMPIRICAL ESTIMATION OF FLOOD DETENTION CAPACITY NEEDED TO
OFFSET EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON PEAK STREAMFLOW, by
Thomas R. Hammer,'July 1972. $2.50.

No. 59 A PILOT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OF PERCEPTION AND USE OF A LARGE
PARK, by Ursula Scherer and Robert E. Coughlin, December
1972. $2.00.

No. 60 ON THE EXISTENCE OF MOST PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES, by Tony
E. Smith, December 1972. $2.00.

No. 61 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND COLLECTIVE ACTION: THE CASE
OF URBAN OPEN SPACE, by David Berry, January 1973. $2.00.

No. 62 RATIONALITY OF INDECISIVE CHOICE FUNCTIONS, by Tony E.
Smith, February 1973. $1.00.

No. 63 IMPACT OF URBANIZATION ON PEAK STREAMFLOW, by Thomas R.
Hammer, June 1973. $2.50.

No. 64 PROPERTY VALUES AND OPEN SPACE IN NORTHWEST PHILADELPHIA:
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS,, by Robert E. Coughlin and Tatsuhiko
Kawashima, July 1973. $2.00.

No. 65 PERCEPTIONS OF LANDFILL OPERATIONS HELD BY NEARBY RESIDENTS,
by Robert E. Coughlin, Harriet Newburger, and Cary Seigner,
August 1973. $2.00.

No. 66 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF UNSEWERED HOUSING, by William T.
Howard and Thomas R. Hammer, September 1973. $2.00.

RECENT DISCUSSION PAPERS - Continued

No. 61 ON THE SPECIFICATION OF AUTOCORRELATED ERRORS, by Tony
E. Smith, September 1973. $1.00.

No. 68 EFFORTS AT INTERMUNICIPAL COOPERATION FOR SOLID WASTE DIS-
POSAL: WHY THEY FAIL, by Jane Gilbert, October 1973. $2.00.

No. 69 THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE IN REGIONAL PLANNING: SOME POLICY
IMPLICATIONS, by David Berry, November 1973. $1.50.

No. 70 SOLID WASTE GENERATION COEFFICIENTS: MANUFACTURING SECTORS,
by Gene Steiker, December 1973. $3.50.

No. 71 SINGLE-PERIOD STATIONARITY IN OPEN SYSTE24S OF REGIONS, by
Tony E. Smith, March 1974. $2.00.

No. 72 A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, by Gene Steiker, April 1974. $2.00.
No. 73 THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE IN THE NEW JERSEY PINELANDS,
by, D. Berry, M. Ontko, D. Scott, M. Silberfein and G.
Steiker, May 1974. $3.50.

Subscriptions to the 1974 Series are available at the price of $18.00
in U.S. funds, payable in advance. Checks should be made out to the
Regional Science Research Institute and mailed promptly to the Re-
gional Science Research Institute, GPO Box 8776, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19101.

09L8 MOO 8999 E
111111 1@ 111111111111 N;

83g3e N
!@@ TR ,@, @r tj
,.@r kl lln 4 ,
Z@, Y.,
3461 -I'd iuiu 05