Evaluation of Land Consolidation Process by Rural Stakeholders

Open access

Abstract

The paper is focused on the current status of land consolidation in Czechia. The survey is based on a questionnaire distributed electronically to municipalities and related subjects (agricultural organizations, farmers) in areas where the land consolidation has been completed, is in progress, or is under preparation. Small farmers and municipality representatives perceive the land consolidation as a measure facilitating permeability of the landscape and protection from erosion and/or from flooding. Land consolidation is important for companies in clarification of the land ownerships and as a remedy for the landscape needs. About half of the respondents believe that the measures have rather brought benefits, whereas 41% of respondents mainly highlight problems. The negative side of the land consolidation is mostly seen in the time delays and demanding administration; agribusinesses also point out complications with land management. Nevertheless, 75% of small farmers and municipalities and 62% of agribusinesses are interested in land consolidation. The main differences between small farmers and large companies consist in their attitude to reduction of the acreage of large plots and their division by common facilities.

Souhrn

Příspěvek je zaměřen na současný stav pozemkových úprav v Česku. Výzkum vychází z dotazníkového šetření, distribuovaného elektronicky do obcí a k relevantním subjektům (zemědělské organizace, rolníci) v územích, kde pozemkové úpravy proběhly, probíhají nebo jsou připravovány. Individuální rolníci a představitelé obcí vnímají pozemkové úpravy jako opatření k průchodnosti krajiny, její ochranu před erozí a záplavami. Pro podniky jsou pozemkové úpravy důležité kvůli ujasnění vlastnických otázek a obnovení potřeb krajiny. Asi polovina respondentů je přesvědčena, že opatření přinášejí spíše pozitiva, zatímco 41% v nich spatřuje především problémy. Negativa, spojená s pozemkovými úpravami spočívají především v časových prodlevách a náročné administrativě; v případě podniků také v komplikacích s obhospodařováním půdy. Nicméně 75% malých rolníků a obcí a 62% zemědělských podniků mají zájem na pozemkových úpravách. Hlavní rozdíly mezi malými rolníky a zemědělskými podniky spočívají v postoji ke snižování rozlohy pozemků a jejich rozdělování společnými zařízeními.

References

  • [1] Binek, J., Svobodová, H., Chabičovská, K., Holeček, J., Galvasová, I. & Martének, J. (2011). Synergie ve venkovském prostoru. Brno: GaREP.

  • [2] Bonfanti, P., Fregonese, A. & Sigura, M. (1997). Landscape analysis in areas affected by land consolidation. Landscape and Urban Planning 37(1-2), 91-98. Doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00373-8.

  • [3] Brink, van den, A. (1999). Sustainable development and land consolidation. In. Dixon- Gough, R. W., ed., Land Reform and Sustainable Development (pp. 61-68), Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • [4] Castro-Coelho, J., Aguiar Pinto, P. & Mira da Silva, L. (2001). A systems approach for the estimation of the effects of land consolidation projects (LCPs): a model and its application. Agricultural Systems 68(3), 179-195.

  • [5] Crecente, R., Alvarez, C. & Fra, U. (2002). Economic, social and environmental impact of land consolidation in Galicia. Land Use Policy 19(2), 135-147.

  • [6] Dijk van, T. (2004). Land consolidation as Central Europe’s panacea reassessed. In Symposium on Modern Land Consolidation. Københaven: International Federation of Surveyors.

  • [7] Dijk van, T. (2007): Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central Europe. GeoForum 38(3), 505-511. Doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.11.010.

  • [8] Filip, R. & Podhrázská, J. (2010). Land need assessment for the project of common facilities and its dependence. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 58(5), 97-105. (in Czech)

  • [9] Hartvigsen, M. (2014). Land mobility in Central and Eastern Europe land consolidation context. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research 10(1), 23-46.

  • [10] Huylenbroeck van, G., Castro Coelho, J. & Pinto, P. A. (1996). Evaluation of land consolidation projects (LCPs): a multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Rural Studies 12(3), 297-310.

  • [11] Karásek, P., Stejskalová, D. & Ulčák, Z. (2014). Analysis of Rural Social Aspects in the Context of Land Consolidations and Land Use Planning, the Case Study, Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 62(3), 507-515.

  • [12] Konečná, J. (2013). Hodnocení realizací protierozních a vodohospodářských opatření v pozemkových úpravách [doctoral thesis]. Brno: Mendel University in Brno.

  • [13] Kupidura, A., Łuczewski, M., Home, R. & Kupidura, P. (2014). Public perceptions of rural landscape in land consolidation procedures in Poland. Land Use Policy 39, 313-319. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.005.

  • [14] Lisec, A., Primožič, T., Ferlan, M., Šumrada, R. & Drobne, S. (2014). Land owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction with the results - Slovenian experiences. Land Use Policy 3, 550-563. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.003.

  • [15] Miranda, D., Crecente, R. & Flor Alvarez, M. (2006). Land consolidation in inland rural Galicia, N. W. Spain since 1950: An example of the foundation and use of questions, criteria and indicators for evaluation of rural development policies. Land Use Policy 23(4), 511-520. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.003.

  • [16] Muchová, Z. & Petrovič, F. (2014). Impact of land consolidation on the visual characteristics (scenery) of a landscape. Journal of Central European Agriculture 15(1), 76-85. Doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/15.1.1414.

  • [17] Pašakarnis, G. & Maliene, V. (2010). Towards sustainable development in Central and Eastern Europe: applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy 27(2), 545-549. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.008.

  • [18] Pašakarnis, G., Morley, D. & Maliené, V. (2013). Rural development and challenges establishing sustainable land use in Eastern European countries. Land Use Policy 30(1), 703-710. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.011.

  • [19] Riddell, J. & Rembold, F. (2002). Farm land rationalization and land consolidation: strategies for multifunctional use of rural space in Eastern and Central Europe. International Symposium on Land Fragmentation and Land Consolidation in CEEC: A Gate Towards Sustainable Rural Development in the New Millennium, München: FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.

  • [20] Rogners, J. & Sky, P. K. (1998). Mediation in the Norwegian land consolidation courts. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

  • [21] Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2002). Consolidation initiatives after land reform. Responses to multiple dimensions of land fragmentation in eastern European agriculture. Journal of International Development 14(7), 1005-1018. Doi: 10.1002/jid.905.

  • [22] Šilarová, K. (2010). Pozemkové úpravy [bachelor thesis]. Brno: Masaryk University.

  • [23] Skaloš, J., Molnárová, K. & Kottová, P. (2012). Land reforms reflected in the farming landscape in East Bohemia and Southern Sweden - two faces of modernisation. Applied Geography 35(1-2), 114-123. Doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.003.

  • [24] Sklenička, P. (2006). Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 23(4), 502-510. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.03.001.

  • [25] Sklenička, P., Hladík, J., Střeleček, F., Kottová, B., Lososová, J., Číhal, L. & Šálek, M. (2009). Historical, environmental and socio-economic driving forces on land ownership fragmentation, the land consolidation effect and the project costs. Agricultural Economics - Czech 55(12), 571-582.

  • [26] Sklenička, P., Janovská, V., Šálek, M., Vlasák, J. & Molnárová, K. (2014). The farmland rental paradox: Extreme land ownership fragmentation as a new form of land degradation. Land Use Policy 38, 587-593. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.006.

  • [27] Sky, P. K. (2015). Land consolidation in Norway in an international perspective. Spanish Journal of Rural Development 6(1-2), 81-90.

  • [28] Thomas, J. (2006). Property rights, land fragmentation and the emerging structure of agriculture in Central and Eastern European countries. Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics 3(2), 225-275.

  • [29] Tlapáková, K., Stejskalová, D., Karásek, P. & Podhrázská, J. (2013). Landscape metric as a tool for evaluation of landscape structure - case study Hustopeče. European Countryside 5(1), 52-70. Doi: 10.2478/euco-2013-0004.

  • [30] Vitásková, J., Toman, F. & Šťastná, M. (2006). Development of the land cadastre in Czechia and the current issue of transition of simplified land records into maps. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 54(2), 193-202. (in Czech)

  • [31] Vitikainen, A. (2004). An overwiev of land consolidation in Europe. Nordic Journal of Surveying and and Real Estate Research 1(1), 25-44.

  • [32] Weber, M. (2007). Evropská úmluva o krajině a možnosti její implementace v oblasti koncepčních a plánovacích nástrojů pro realizaci krajinných politik. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj 10(1), 42-46.

  • [33] Wexler, M. N. (1996). A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. International Review of Modern Sociology 26(1), 91-110.

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.190
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.896

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 23 23 23
PDF Downloads 4 4 4