Communities and Land
Working Together Toward a Shared Vision
“Communities” is one of the four components of the integrated vision for New England land conservation outlined by the Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities initiative. What do we mean by communities? How do land conservation efforts support communities? And, how can development and community efforts support land conservation? These are some of the questions we set out to answer in this issue.
The challenge with defining communities is the inherent complexity of relationships between individuals and between the built and the natural environment. These relationships can be place-based—as in a shared neighborhood, village, town, or city—or culturally-based—as in shared background, language, race, religion, politics, or lifestyle, for example. In recent decades, technology has helped people find communities outside of their immediate physical neighborhoods, expanding their circles of friends and allies. One can identify with many different communities, seeking connection and common purpose locally and more broadly.
As we consider the nuances of “communities” in the context of land conservation, we are careful not to focus on any particular community—social or geographical—and its priorities. Instead, we consider many communities and their unique relationships to one another and to land. A person who is part of an Indigenous community may have priorities shaped by many generations of spiritual connection to land, or by a shared memory of the loss of land that came with European settlement. A person living in an urban neighborhood may have priorities shaped by the joys of an urban community garden, or the discomfort of unbearably hot temperatures.
Non-human communities are intertwined with human communities–they support us with clean air, clean water, spiritual renewal, abundant wildlife, and the millions of organisms that make the earth what it is. They are as important in our conservation vision as are the human communities we feature in this issue. Our first consideration, when considering human communities and their well-being, is often how ecological communities affect them, and vice versa.
Focusing on different human communities and their different supporting ecological communities yields different directions for conservation work. Land use policy for communities of color might emphasize interventions towards redistributing resources; conservation efforts in collaboration with Indigenous groups might look to repair generational damage caused by land theft or expropriation; and neighborhood groups might work with local government officials to conserve shared space to meet immediate and material needs. Conservation of ecological communities considers their rarity; their sensitivity; their history; the humans that interact with them; and the resources that we choose to extract from them, like wood and food.
In this issue we look at communities and land conservation from many angles while acknowledging the impossibility of representing all human and non-human communities and all conservation priorities. Instead, our hope as editors is to spark conversations that help explore human communities and their relationship to land, their role in its conservation, and the ways in which leaders and community members can explore solutions together. While this is our first issue that focuses explicitly on communities, this important aspect of conservation has threaded through every issue.
In this opening piece, David Foster explores the needs and challenges that emerge when balancing the priorities of built and natural environments, allowing for nuanced discussion of human and non-human communities, lifting up solutions to the many crises facing both. – The Editors
⎯
The inaugural issue of From the Ground Up articulated the core vision of Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities: To address the three crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequity in human well-being that face New England and the globe, we need an integrated approach that simultaneously protects natural systems; stewards our food- and resource-producing lands well; and builds and supports resilient communities of people, place, and structure. Patient collaboration among all sectors of society is essential to reconciling the many tensions among seemingly opposing forces—Wildlands versus woodlands; forests versus farmland; conservation versus development; urban versus rural; and native versus settler. As an alternative to this kind of polarization, we proposed “strength through unity.”
We see the importance of addressing both the common elements and the deep dissimilarities that exist across New England in natural and social conditions. Examples of these contrasts include the challenges to affordable housing and food access in Boston compared to Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom; the challenges inherent in farming in the Merrimack Valley versus the suburbs of Providence; and the health and viability of woodlots in Fairfield County, Connecticut, compared to Maine’s industrial forests. Though distinct, all parts of New England can realize the benefits to nature and society that derive from thoughtful planning and care for all species and every human being. Advancing the protection of nature while exercising care in its use requires working in tandem, rather than in opposition.
A group of people learning about forest management. Photo © Liz Thompson
In previous issues of this magazine, we have explored the resolution of certain tensions, from wildland conservation and ecological forestry to the integration of farmland and urban neighborhoods. In this issue we look more closely at the tensions that arise when seeking to broaden our conservation mission to include human communities—those parts of nature that have been transformed to house us, transport us, and support our business endeavors. How do we shape and reshape these places in ways that minimize their expanding impact on nature and managed resource lands, while simultaneously building an environment better suited to meeting the evolving and diverse needs of its inhabitants?
Below, we set the stage by framing the needs, challenges, and opportunities of advancing a joint program of land planning that advances conservation and community development together. Later, in the New England Policy Chronicle, we note specific examples where these efforts are showing progress across the six New England states.
Community planning is a key strategy in achieving the vision of WWF&C. Photo courtesy of Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
The need for land planning that integrates conservation and development is obvious from the Canadian border to Long Island Sound. The New England region is dominated by largely uncoordinated land use and its manifestations: the loss and degradation of natural and actively managed lands and habitat; elevated risk from climate change and other environmental hazards; and congestion, emotional distress, and exposure to pollution. Urban and rural communities alike suffer from environmental degradation; deterioration of infrastructure; injustice; and a lack of equal access to food, health, economic opportunity, and housing. In Massachusetts, the densest and wealthiest of the six states, an estimated 222,000 homes will be needed in the next decade. Meanwhile, inequity in home ownership is profound: 70 percent of white households own their homes compared to 37 percent of Black households and 32 percent of Hispanic households.
Escalating costs in thriving cities drive gentrification, forced migration of current residents, and longer travel times to work for all. Suburban residents are increasingly disconnected from the land and its value for wood products and food. Rural and undeveloped areas, as well as the open sea, are unexpectedly threatened by our much-needed energy infrastructure—solar arrays, wind turbines, and transmission lines.
More and more ridgetops are being developed for wind-generated energy. Photo © Liz Thompson
In the far north, where a quarter of the region is dominated by industrial forest lands, the ongoing turnover in investor ownership has fueled decades of intensive harvesting and declining timber stocks, as well as a gradual loss of local jobs and manufacturing to global competition. In Maine, the first two decades of this century witnessed the closure of two-thirds of the primary mills and a loss of 40 percent of the wood products jobs, while the annual area of harvested forest doubled to 530,000 acres per year, the volume of timber removed remained steady, and revenues declined.
Throughout the region, parcelization and fragmentation of land ownership continues, thwarting natural processes, conservation, planning, and effective management.
The challenges to planning are many, but there are solutions. Transforming land use requires engaging all interested and affected parties in every municipality, state, and region, including the people and communities who have lacked power, influence, and involvement in the past. Our complex societal land system is made even more complex by the need to improve outcomes including justice, sustainability, and climate resilience. The many sectors that shape the landscape—economic development, housing, energy, transportation, health, and conservation—operate so often in silos, with only limited examples of the policy integration that we so badly need.
“Though distinct, all parts of New England can realize the benefits to nature and society that derive from thoughtful planning and care for all species and every human being.”
One particular challenge that looms for all states and all communities is the desperate need for more housing—specifically the need for affordable, accessible homes in thriving communities, in proximity to protected open space and food access, and with ample employment opportunities. How do we accomplish this societal need without destroying more land?
Some clear answers emerge. We can begin by revitalizing existing developed space, starting with the hundreds of small mill towns that lie along recovering waterways. These are hopeful examples of nature substantially restored from the degradation of the industrial revolution. These revitalized mill towns offer clear opportunities to cluster new and mixed-use (commercial/residential) construction to integrate homes and neighborhoods around these recovering ecosystems.
Photo © Liz Thompson
This dense, clustered development, supported by the infrastructure of water and sewer systems, leaves forests and farmland as intact as possible. As we concentrate on rebuilding existing cities and suburbs, we can repurpose buildings and space, making for denser, greener, healthier, and more attractive places to live. We can reinvest in built infrastructure, upgrade outmoded and failing systems, and incorporate natural systems and solutions to solve environmental challenges and prepare for climate change. Effective redevelopment and new development can be paralleled by strategic removal of poorly placed infrastructure and the consolidation of parcels to connect, expand, and integrate land conservation.
The challenges of, and solutions to, affordable housing and integrated land planning are inextricably linked to transportation. We must reclaim space and lives from the automobile while capitalizing on mass transit and active transportation. Multi-use redevelopment can center around public transit and bikeways. Parking and rooftops can support solar infrastructure, reducing fossil fuel demand and minimizing new transmission line and pipeline construction. As we reconnect population centers and reduce the footprint of our car-centric infrastructure, we can add more trees to urban areas to cool apartments, houses, and streets, while reducing energy costs, cleaning the air, reducing flooding, and enhancing biodiversity. Urban farms and gardens can help meet local food needs while connecting city dwellers with the land and with each other. Connecting urban greenspace with suburban open land—especially along rivers and streams—increases ecological connectivity and benefits the people in both areas.
This community garden is part of the Cambrian Rise neighborhood in Vermont, a project intentionally developed to provide mixed-income housing and open space. Photo © Liz Thompson
Meanwhile, the conserved forests and farmlands in suburban and rural landscapes must be supported by more populated areas while producing benefits in return. Safe, clean water supplies are key to the economic sustainability of all cities, towns, and villages. Intact forests are the best sources of clean and abundant water, and they provide substantial wood resources for redevelopment using sustainable products. The vast food-producing lands of rural and especially northern New England can support healthy lives with healthy foods at a regional scale, while reducing our dependence on precarious international supply chains and fossil fuel-intensive production techniques.
An integrated approach to conservation is based on the interdependent roles of forests, farms, rural communities, suburbs, and cities in shaping a regional New England landscape. It promotes the complementary use of the forest and agricultural landscapes with thoughtful and efficient development of rural villages and towns, suburbs, and cities. This vision embraces the idea that well-managed forests and farmlands, expansive wildlands, smart growth, and economic development are compatible and mutually reinforcing. It also embraces a need to reduce consumption and conserve resources. New England—and indeed the globe—have real limits in space, resources, and capacity to support humans. Reducing resource and energy consumption and using land as efficiently as possible can lessen impacts on natural systems and increase our options for meeting future social and environmental challenges.
Farmers markets throughout the region provide access to fresh, locally-grown food. Photo © Liz Thompson
The WWF&C vision sets a bold goal of protecting 85 percent of the region to ensure that our region’s natural and working lands can support both ecological and economic goals. Specifically, in this vision at least 70 percent of the landscape is protected in a mixture of natural wildlands and productively managed woodlands, and up to another 15 percent is protected as farmland. Achieving this vision will mean reinforcing land conservation and planning with strong “no net loss” regulations to reward responsible development and discourage sprawl.
Benefits of all this work and care must—and will—accrue to all.
David Foster is an ecologist, Director Emeritus of the Harvard Forest, and President Emeritus of the Highstead Foundation. He co-founded the Wildlands and Woodlands Initiative in 2005 and was lead writer of Wildlands in New England: Past, Present, and Future in 2023. David has written and edited books including Thoreau’s Country: Journey Through a Transformed Landscape; Forests in Time: The Environmental Consequences of 1,000 Years of Change in New England; Hemlock: A Forest Giant on the Edge; and A Meeting of Land and Sea: The Nature and Future of Martha’s Vineyard.