IMPACT OF LAND FRAGMENTATION ON THE RULAR

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

By

Sarthika Singhal

21LLB141

Semester III

Name of the Program: 5 Years B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)

Professor (Dr.) Abhisekh Sinha

Date of Submission: 26 October 2022

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYPRSTHA, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................3
SYNOPSIS.................................................................................................................................4
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................5
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................6
SCOPE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................................7
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................7
RESEARCH QUESTIONS....................................................................................................7
MODE OF CITATION..........................................................................................................7
Section 9 | General Duties of Partners...................................................................................8
Section 10 | Duty to indemnify for loss caused by fraud.......................................................9
Section 11 | Determination of rights and duties of partners by contract between the partners.
Agreements in restraint of trade...............................................................................................10
Section 11(1):.......................................................................................................................10
Section 11(2):.......................................................................................................................12
SECTION 12 | THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS..........................................................13
Section 12(a):.......................................................................................................................13
Section 12(b):.......................................................................................................................14
Section 12 (c):......................................................................................................................14
Section 12(d):.......................................................................................................................14
SECTION 13 | MUTUAL RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES.......................................................15
Section 13(a):.......................................................................................................................16
Section 13 (b):......................................................................................................................17
Section 13(c):.......................................................................................................................18
Section 13(d):.......................................................................................................................19
SECTION 14 | THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM..................................................................21
SECTION 15 | APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM.................................23
SECTION 16 | PERSONAL PROFITS EARNED BY PARTNERS......................................25
Section 16(2):.......................................................................................................................26
SECTION 17 | RIGHT AND DUTIES OF PARTNERS........................................................28
Section 17(a) & (b)...............................................................................................................28
Section 17(c):.......................................................................................................................29
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My thanks and admiration are due to Dr. P. Jogi Naidu, our Contracts professor, for his
important guidance and support during the paper’s development. This project could not have
been accomplished without his assistance.

I want to thank the academic division and library of DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY for their continued support and the materials they make
available; without them, it would not have been possible to complete this study within the
allocated time frame.

I also want to express my gratitude to my parents and my classmates for their constant
support, as well as for their ideas and viewpoints, which helped me move my project further.

Thankyou.

Sarthika Singhal
 SYNOPSIS

Abstract
Generally speaking, land tenure is the institutional relationship among people, as individuals
or groups, with respect to land. Normally, this relationship is defined and regulated via the
legislation of a country which consists of a series of rules. Land tenure is an important part of
social, political and economic structure of a country. While it is focused on social, technical,
economic, institutional, legal and political aspects, there is one aspect which is mainly
geographical since it pertains directly to the spatial organisation of land holdings. This is land
fragmentation which refers to small and spatially dispersed parcels of a holding and their
associated features. Despite that mostly land fragmentation considered as a problem which
prevents the rational agricultural development, it is not a problem by definition for all cases.
It seems that many parts of the world concern about this prominent matter since it affects
their socioeconomic development.

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

LITERATURE REVIEW

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used primary as well as secondary sources of data to provide support to
this paper. It is a composite research paper where the researcher has used descriptive,
narrative, expository and analytical methods to analyse the legal provisions regulating
relation of partners’ interest.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The paper has been confined to the study of partnership act with respect of India only.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

MODE OF CITATION
Oxford mode of citation 4th edition is being used in this research paper

Fragmentation of land ownership refers to the number of land owners using their land
themselves. Fragmentation of land use refers to the number of users which are tenants of
land. Internal fragmentation focused on the number of Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation The
development of an integrated planning and decision support system for land consolidation 3
parcels exploited by each user and considers as main issues: parcels size, shape and distance.
Separation of ownership and use involves the case where there is a discrepancy between
ownership and use. Van Dijk (2004, p.13) notes that, “reduction of fragmentation occurs by
definition when the number of owners and/or users declines, the number of parcels per farm
falls and when the share of owners that use the land themselves raises”. It appears that
Western Europe has addressed only the second and third types of fragmentation since the
other two types can be regarded as problems for ex-socialist central European countries, as a
result of privatisation process after the collapse of the socialism in these countries in 1990.
This chapter focused on internal fragmentation.

Debate on land fragementation

Land fragmentation is not a problem by definition since there are contradictory

considerations about these issues and a multidisciplinary debate has been carried out. Bentley
(1987, p.31) comprehensively reviewed this debate. He points out that land fragmentation
considered by agricultural policy makers as “the blackest of evils” which must be prevented
by legislative actions as one would attempt to stop crime. On the other hand, economists,
although they believe that land fragmentation is “adaptive” under certain conditions, they
recognise that is becoming “non-adaptive” as technology improves and the relevant costs
change (Johnson 1970; McClosky 1975; cited in Bentley 1987). Europeanist geographers
tend to agree with economists since they support that indeed “land fragmentation is not well-
suited to the twentieth century machines and labour costs”. In contrary, non-Europeanist
geographers suggest that land fragmentation can be really “adaptive” although some of them
recognise a series of advantages and disadvantages. Anthropologists, see land fragmentation
as a positive situation under which farmers can cultivate many environmental zones,
minimise production risk and optimise schedule cropping activities. Environmentalists,
consider that any intervention to land tenure structure to remove land fragmentation may
have serious environmental effects in nature and even social effects in land owners.
Ethnographers, who made a reference to land fragmentation, consider it neither as a problem
nor as an adaptation. Van Dijk (2004, p.9; 2003, p.2) addresses two critical questions: “Is
really land fragmentation a problem?” and “Under what conditions and to whom precisely
land fragmentation becomes a problem?” Van Dijk (2004, p.10) attempted to give a
comprehensive answer to both questions: “An unambiguous economic qualification on land
fragmentation in terms of good or bad is hard to give, since there are positive as well negative
sides that have different weights according to the economic and political Chapter 2: Land
Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and decision support system for
land consolidation 4 climate and that suggests that the qualitative rating may have an
optimum somewhere in the middle instead of an extreme”. He also concludes that land
fragmentation provides opportunities as well and threats. Bentley (1987, p.61) also argues
that “benefits and disadvantages of land fragmentation depends entirely upon the local
economic and natural environment thus each community should be considered as a unique
case before a government decides to change country’s land structure”.

nother contrary example is the case of China, whereas two studies, argue that land
fragmentation has not any significant impact on agricultural production and vice-versa
correspondingly. However, these studies do not constitute a reliable sample for interpretation
since they focused mainly to regions where rice is the main crop. It is realised that the
potential disadvantages and advantages of land fragmentation and their magnitude, depend on
the kind of the cultivated crop. Opposite arguments, for and against, about the impacts of land
fragmentation in agriculture and particularly regarding the farm size in Eastern European
countries noted by (Kanchev 2000; Koester and Striewe 1999 cited in Cimpoies, 2008)
correspondingly. Cimpoies (2008, p.1) reached to the conclusion that “there is no conclusive
evidence that large farms are more productive and more efficient than small farms or vice
versa”. Summarising the above contradictious views it can be extracted the robust conclusion
that the potential benefits and disadvantages of land fragmentation depend entirely on many
factors such as the local agricultural, economical and environmental characteristics of a
region. Thus, each community should be considered as unique case before deciding to change
its land tenure structure.

Problems related with land fragmentation

he main problems associated with land fragmentation can be outlined as the

followings: Distance among parcels and farmstead, many boundary lines, small size

and irregular shape of parcels and lack of access.

Distance among parcels and farmstead

According to Bentley (1987) the discussion about this problem began in 1826 with the

publication of Johan Von Thunen’s titled “The isolated state”. Von Thunen’s basic

thought was the simple statement that “costs of farming increase with distance”.

Particularly, when parcels are spatially dispersed, then travelling time and hence costs

in moving labour, machines etc. from one parcel to another are increased (Karouzis,

1977; Bentley 1987, Burton, 1988; Niroula et. al. 2005). A consequent drawback is that,

parcels at greater distance are cultivated less intensively (Van Dijk, 2003).

Many case studies proved in practise the consequences of this problem. For instance,

Thompson (1963 cited in Bentley 1987) for Greek farms, Karouzis (1971) for Cypriot

landholdings, DeLisle (1982) demonstrated that distance has a relationship to intrafarm

cropping patterns in Manitoba (Canada), Blaikie (1971 cited in Bentley 1987)

illustrated Von Thunen’s principle for four Indian villages.

Many boundary lines

Land fragmentation involves a complicated boundary network among parcels (hedges,

stone walls, ditches etc.) which cause waste of land (Karouzis, 1977; Bentley 1987;
Burton, 1988). As a result, a part of a holding (especially in the small parcels) remains

uncultivated at the marginal sides of the parcels. Additionally, cost of fencing and

neighbouring conflicts between landowners increase due to this problem.

Small size and irregular shape of parcels

This problem is the dominant of land fragmentation. Yates (1960, cited in Bentley 1987

p.45) states that “this is the worst of the European farmer’s afflictions”. The use of

modern machinery is difficult or may be impossible in tiny parcels and may require an

excessive amount of handwork in the corners and along the boundaries (Karouzis,

1977 and 1980; Bentley 1987, Burton, 1988). Furthermore, irregular parcel shape

prevents the proper cultivation of land, especially for some crops (e.g. vines, olives)

which need to be cultivated in series. Also, the implementation of soil conservation

works is hard and the construction costs are higher, more fencing needed and roads

which usually adjusted to the shape of parcels have low geometrical (horizontal and

Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation

The development of an integrated planning and decision support system for land
consolidation

vertical) standards. As a result, this problem decreases productivity and hence the

income of farmers. Thus, this situation stresses the need for agricultural

commercialization via large farm sizes for attaining the economies of scale. However,

although the above thoughts are straightforward and many authors revealed the

positive relationship between farm size, productivity and net income (Wattanutchariya

and Jitsanguan, 1992; Jian-Ming, 1997 cited in Niroula et. al. 2005) some other authors

(Schultz 1964; Berry and Cline 1979 cited in Niroula et. al. 2005) supported an inverse

relationship between farm size and productivity. Niroula et. al. (2005) argue that this
situation was a reality in the past but not at present.

Lack of access

Lack of road agricultural network is inevitable, especially in highly fragmented areas.

Access to a parcel is a primary factor which enhances its value. Small fields, often

have no road access (Yates 1960, Thomson 1963, Blaikie, 1971; Morgan 1978 cited in

Bentley 1987). Many parcels without access are abandoned and remained uncultivated

(Karouzis, 1977). Furthermore, lack of an agricultural road network prevents the

introduction of other agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation and drainage systems.

Additionally, this problem causes conflicts among neighbouring landowners, which may

clog up the local courts, because a part of a “front” parcel may be used as a road

access or a path, of the “back” parcel.

It is generally accepted that, all the above problems associated with land fragmentation

usually act as an obstacle to rational agricultural development. At present, this

situation, which is even more intense because of the high agricultural market

competition and the high industrialization of the agricultural sector, reduces

considerably more farmers’ net income.

Causes

Even though causes of land fragmentation may vary from country to country and from

region to region, authors (King and Burton, 1982; Bentley, 1987; Niroula et. al. 2005;

Tan et. al. 2006; Van Hung, 2007) tend to agree that the main factors triggering this

situation are mainly four: inheritance, population growth, land markets and

historical/cultural perspectives. Other factors noted by various authors for more specific

situations are: social and administrative fiat, long established cultivation, shortages of

land and nucleated settlement, the piecemeal conversion of forests and moorland to
arable land, privatisation transition process (e.g. in ex-socialist central European

countries). The main factors contributing to land fragmentation are briefly described

below.

Inheritance

It is accepted that inheritance is the primary cause for land fragmentation. Inheritance

laws applied in most countries facilitate or demand the subdivision of holdings into

equal parts among all heirs or in some countries among only sons. This tradition has

deep historical roots in old world countries laws (e.g. the Napoleonic and Islamic

inheritance laws) based on which the equal distribution of patrimony among heirs was

a requirement (King and Burton, 1982). As a result, land fragmentation has become a

continuous process since land holdings and land parcels getting smaller and smaller

and dispersed to the next generations (Mearns and Sinha, 1999 cited in Niroula et. al.

2005). There is empirical evidence that, inheritance is the prominent factor for land

fragmentation in many places such as in medieval England (Houston, 1953; Koebner,

1966; cited in Bentley 1987), in Netherlands (Vanderpol, 1956 cited in Bentley 1987), in

Cyprus (Burton and King, 1982). This strong relationship between inheritance and land

fragmentation has been demonstrated in a Portuguese study (Silva, 1983 cited in

Bentley 1987).

Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation

The development of an integrated planning and decision support system for land
consolidation

10

Population growth

Population growth which is linked with inheritance (Binns 1950; Papageorgiou 1956;

Lipton 1964; McCloskey 1975; Smith 1978; cited in Bentley 1987) involves increasing
demand for land acquisition. O’ Riordan (1976, cited in Niroula and Thapa 2005)

supports that “population growth would accelerate pressure on land resources”.

However, there are some contradictory views about this issue. Particularly,

(Boserup1965; Geertz 1963; Tiffen el. al.1994 cited in Niroula and Thapa 2005) claim

that population increase is a contributing factor towards better land management and

increasing agricultural production. Similar views expressed also by Homans (1941 cited

in Bentley 1987). These views are in contestation from the majority of other scholars

and they may cause some confusing.

Land markets

Since land is a multi-purpose resource, land markets play an important role in the

whole process of ownership restructuring, because people wish to acquire a piece of

land not only for agricultural activities, but also for other reasons such as investments,

enhancing personal prestige and status, secure current and future living conditions of a

family etc. Grigg (1980 cited in Bentley 1987) uses the expression “the passion for

land” which really represents many people in many societies in all over the world. In

principle, land markets contribute to further fragmentation of the existing holdings

since, mostly, farmers purchase land which is not continuous to their existing holdings

or they (or other people) may purchase a piece of land as share in other parcels.

However, in some cases, land purchasing may reduce land fragmentation when

farmers acquire neighbourhood piece of land to expand their holdings.

Historical and cultural perspectives

Historical and cultural perspectives, which they were prevailing in old communities

(such as in Europe), inevitably were caused land fragmentation. Some authors

consider that the current problem of land fragmentation is a result of the historical
legacy of an ancient field structure (Bentley, 1987). Those times, land fragmentation

was adaptive in those prevailing conditions i.e. small fields for acquiring family’s

nutrition, hand or animal cultivation, cheap labour, small production etc. However,

these conditions are not well suited to the current modern agricultural mechanization

demands.

IMPACT OF LAND FRAGMENTATION

Negative:

Disadvantages of land fragmentation Most authors consider fragmentation of land holdings as

a serious obstacle or “disease” to rational agricultural development because it hinders
mechanisation, causes inefficiencies in production and involves large costs to alleviate its
effects. The most prominent disadvantage is the increase of economic costs because of the
time wasted and extra expense involved in the movements of labours, machines etc. since
parcels of a holding are scattered in various locations. As a result, agricultural productivity
and hence income reduced. The late Head of the Land Consolidation Department of Cyprus,
G. Karouzis (1971) found that farmers (in a region in Cyprus with an average 22 plots per
holding) need about to travel 3935 kilometres annually to visit there scattered parcels.
Another economic drawback is that, fragmentation limits the wishing of a farmer to
modernize or rationalise his holding by introducing new agricultural techniques such as
machinery, irrigation systems, fencing and also prevents the introduction of new crops,
disease control etc. This is due to the small parcels’ size. A remarkable example is that a
tractor may spend up to one third of its time turning round on a one hectare parcel (Naylon,
1959 cited in Bentley 1987). King and Burton (1989) support that additionally to economic
impacts fragmentation may have social and psychological impacts with consequent wider
repercussions in agricultural sector or a certain community as a whole. Particularly, an
organised land tenure structure in a rural community may raise the status of certain farmers
and improve communication and cooperation among them. Also, it may reduce inequalities
among farmers which have less agricultural problems due to fragmentation. King and Burton
(1982) also stress the social tension caused by disputes over ownership, especially in the case
of joint ownerships (a parcel belongs to more than one land owners) or multiple ownerships
(trees and/or water rights are separated form the piece of land since they belong to other
landowners). As a result, such litigation leads sometimes to serious conflicts and to courts.
Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and decision
support system for land consolidation 12 An analysis of the associated fragmentation
problems which cause the above disadvantages is given in a sequent section. Advantages of
land fragmentation While most studies focused on land fragmentation negative impacts in
agriculture, sometimes land fragmentation offers benefits. According to King and Burton
(1982, p.485), “in certain circumstances fragmentation may be desirable or even necessary”.
Literature concentrates on three main benefits: risk management, crop scheduling and
ecological variety. Some other benefits may be non-economic and social (Bentley, 1987).
Risk management Risk management refers to the potential that has a farmer which owns
fragmented parcels to minimise the risk due to climatic and natural disasters (e.g. storms,
frosts, fire, floods etc.) because risk is spread spatially (Shaw, 1963; King and Burton, 1982;
Bentley, 1987; Tan et. al. 2006; Van Hung et. al. 2007). Also, risk management involves the
logical reduction of risk by giving a farmer a variety of soils, crops and growing conditions,
because of the spatial dispersion of parcels (Van Hung et. al. 2007). This situation is
especially a reality in Alpine and monsoon areas. Bentley (1987) argues that anthropologists
observed that, fragmented holdings in the Swiss Alps really contributed to decrease risk.
(Netting 1972 and Friedl 1974 cited in Bentley 1987), point out that a field with a high yield
one year may have a low yield in the next year. So, having scattered fields of the same crop,
disperse risk and as a result, it may ensured a stable production each year. Such areas with a
microenvironment exist everywhere, even in small regions. For instance, in areas with the
same altitude, they can be observed substantial differences of wind, insolation, soil type,
moisture etc. so multiple ecozones are generated. Risk reductions also illustrated for
fragmented farms in mountainous Greek peninsula. Particularly, wheat production for each
parcel widely varied among the period from 1962 to 1974, while the overall yield from each
farm was remained almost stable (Bentley, 1987). A particular crop which is in favour of
fragmentation is grape vines because they are very sensitive to heat and moisture, thus they
are usually cultivated in wet and dry areas. As a result, in wet years the dry area produces
well, while in dry years the wet one does and consequently crop may remain stable for each
year (Forbes, 1976 cited in Bentley 1987). Many other studies for various regions of the
world have shown the advantage of risk management via the land fragmentation. Chapter 2:
Land Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and decision support system
for land consolidation 13 Crop scheduling When parcels are scattered to various locations
having a variety of altitudes, then crops ripen at different times. So, a farmer may adjust its
labour force according a schedule avoiding labour bottlenecks. For example, crop scheduling
through altitude zones, was very important in some villages in Swiss Alps, for the mowing of
hay. Also, crop scheduling is possible in the island of Pantelleria (Italy) for grapes ripen at
different times. Particularly, a household with scattered parcels may harvest all its grapes
without extra labour (Galt, 1979 cited in Bentley 1987). The advantages of crops scheduling
is not limited in mountainous areas. For instance Fenoaltea (1976 cited in Bentley 1987)
refers that crops scheduling allows farmers in England to maximise their self-employment
and minimise the hired labours. Ecological benefits Fragmentation may also offer ecological
benefits by formulating a natural mosaic of parcel shapes and crops. Regular parcel shapes,
especially in semi-mountainous and mountainous areas are not so feasible with the landscape
and they may create a “foreign” aesthetic value. Additionally, small parcels are exposed less
to winds and hence to crop diseases and to soil erosion. Sometimes, land consolidation
experts are in “fight” with environmentalists and ecological groups for these reasons. Some
non-economic and social benefits of fragmentation offered by the fact that scattered parcels
are easier to be distributed to heirs of a holding. Thus, the subdivision of large parcels (with
the consequent disadvantages) can be avoided. Also, in some communities in which
cultivation is still a need for ensuring family food, then fragmentation really offers the
advantages mentioned above.

Solutions

Once a government assess that land fragmentation constitutes a problem for rational
agricultural development, there are three strategies to be followed: The first one is to promote
such legislation regarding aspects affects land fragmentation (e.g. inheritance, minima parcel
size in subdivisions etc.) so as to prevent worsening of the problem. According to Van Dijk
(2003, p.47), “this strategy is susceptible for misuse, unwanted side effects and it is hard to
assess its effectiveness”. The second strategy is to apply specific land management
approaches to tackle specific problems in particular agricultural areas (e.g. land
consolidation). The third strategy is to apply specific land protection policies/programs to
prevent agricultural land in the case is pushed away Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation The
development of an integrated planning and decision support system for land consolidation 14
from land development because of urban sprawl. This strategy has been applied in United
States in regions/zones where there is a mixed land use i.e. agriculture and housing. Available
“tools” for each strategy are considered below. 2.3.1 Legal provisions Legal provisions,
which most of them are restrictions, involve changing legislation regarding inheritance,
minimum size of dividing up parcels, absentee landowners, prevention of transfer to non-
farmers, leasing, imposing a maximum limit of a holding etc. Although some of these legal
restrictions have been applied in some EU countries in the past, at present they could be
considered as non-democratic and unconstitutional based on the current institutional
framework of EU. For example, it would be considered as a violation of human rights to
prevent the transfer of land to a nonfarmer, or prevent any heir of a holding to obtain a piece
of land or set a maximum holding’s size must hold by a landowner. Such restrictions were
applied in ex-socialist countries and they failed with the whole system. Some applicable legal
provisions could be regarding the minimum size of a new parcel resulted from a partition,
inheritance and land leasing. For example, in Cyprus, the minimum permitted size of any new
parcel results from a subdivision of a larger parcel is one, two and five donums
(1donum=1337.78 square meters) depending on the land use and the existence of irrigation
for the new parcel. Also, adopting a proper legislation to promote leasing so as to reduce the
risk faced by tenants is necessary. Despite the above thoughts, some other strict restrictions
applied in non-European counties such as India and Nepal, provide that “any parcel of land
less than one unit of the standard area set by the state government is considered a fragment
that cannot be transferred to anybody” (Niroula et. al., 2005 p.367). Another provision is that
farmers willing to sell any parcel must first offer it to the neighbourhood landowners.
Otherwise, the neighbourhood landowner may claim his rights in courts (Shrestha 2001 cited
in Niroula 2005). In the Kingdom of Bhutan (South Asia), the Land Act provides a land
ceiling. Particularly, any landowner who holds more than 10 ha of land cannot buy additional
land. Similarly, nobody can buy land from a household with only 2 ha or less land (Blaikie
and Sadeque 2000 cited in Niroula et. al. 2005). Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation The
development of an integrated planning and decision support system for land consolidation 15
2.3.2 Land management approaches The main land management approaches used to battle
land fragmentation in agriculture are: land consolidation, land funds and land banking,
voluntary parcel exchange and cooperative farming. Land Consolidation Land consolidation
is the prominent land management measure applied as a solution of land fragmentation.
Burton (1988, p.132) notes that, “land consolidation offers a solution to the fragmentation
problem. Consolidation, essentially a spatial problemsolving technique seeks to repair the
tears made in the agricultural fabric through successive subdivision”. Land Consolidation is a
powerful tool which aims at increasing productivity and hence agricultural income through
the reorganisation of space by reconfiguring land tenure structure in terms of parcels and
landowners. It does not only involve new spatial arrangement but also new ownership rights
for hundreds or even thousands of land owners. It is the main approach has been applied in
Western Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc.) after the Second War to prevent land
fragmentation. According to Van Dijk (2003, p.50), “Land consolidation by law emerged
mainly about 1900, although Denmark was extremely early to prepare a central Act in 1781
that was completed in 1805”. Its main aims are the reduction/elimination of land
fragmentation, increase of the farm size, creates parcels with regular. Further to land
readjustment measures, land consolidation provides other agricultural development
infrastructure such as roads and irrigation networks. Despite its general acceptance, that it is a
large scale project with successive results towards agricultural development, its success and
its benefits are sometimes under debate; especially regarding economic, social and
environmental issues. It is also remarkable that nowadays, land consolidation has broader
objectives regarding the environmental protection, economic and social development of rural
areas etc. which are strongly linked with sustainable development. An extended review of
land consolidation is carried out in a separate chapter of this thesis. Land funds and land
banking Land banking is the process when a landowner does not interested in growing its
land but to distribute it to other established farms. Thus, in such case, his land may be used as
a land buffer which is available for the improvement of other farms, without Chapter 2: Land
Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and decision support system for
land consolidation 16 conflicting with other people’s interests. A land buffer can be also used
for the construction of agricultural infrastructure such as roads, irrigation and drainage
systems. The land buffer itself is a land fund which can be used as an agricultural policy tool
and its use called land banking (Van Dijk, 2003). The success of such policy depends on the
degree of concentration of the available land buffer. Clustered and scattered amount of land
have each its advantages and disadvantages which define the success of this tool. Land funds
and land banking mainly used in Western Central European countries such as Germany,
Netherlands etc. An example of a land fund is shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: A
concentrated land fund (right side) that by transferring a farm into it results in a diffuse land
fund (left shaded parcels side). (Adapted from Van Dijk 2003, p.48) Voluntary land exchange
Voluntary parcel exchange involves the exchange of parcels among three or more landowners
resulting in a more efficient spatial layout since the aim is to group adjacently the parcels of a
landowner. This process does not involve any change of the size and shape of parcels (Van
Dijk, 2003). Comparing to voluntary land consolidation projects this process is simpler, less
expensive and less time-consuming. However, it cannot offer the benefits of a voluntary land
consolidation project, which involves a broader cadastral rearrangement. Other disadvantages
of this process is the potential agreement among land owners since soil quality and other land
value parameters may significantly differ, even though parcels are very close each other.
Another disadvantage is the danger of misuse. (Van Dijk, 2003). Nevertheless, some Western
Central European countries such Germany and Netherlands have used this measure long time
ago. Hungary has taken a relevant provision in its legislation for the application of this
measure. A schematic example of voluntary land exchange is shown in Figure 2.2. Chapter 2:
Land Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and decision support system
for land consolidation 17 Figure 2.2: An example of a parcel exchange (Adapted from Van
Dijk 2003, p.53) Cooperative farming This land management measure involves the joint
cultivation of land by a group of households. It was considered by some Asian countries such
as India and Nepal until 1970, as an effective solution of land fragmentation, through the
creation of economically operational farm units. However, according to Niroula et. al. (2005),
the practical experience shown negative results, mainly because of the reluctance of
landowners to participate to these programs. Reluctance is due to conflicting interests and
perceptions among landowners and the fear for losing their rights. As a result, the whole
attempt collapsed. 2.3.3 Land protection policies Brabec and Smith (2005) assessed the
effectiveness of three dominant land protection policies applied in eastern United States to
prevent agricultural land fragmentation because of urban sprawl. These policies are: a
purchase of development rights (PDR) program, a clustering program and a transfer of
development rights (TDR) program. A PDR program involves the use of public funds for
purchasing and funding eliminating the development rights on agricultural land. It is a
farmland conservation tool which is considered very effective, fair to landowners, providing a
permanent solution. The most common disadvantage is its high cost of implementation. A
TDR program which is applied in a regional scale, concerns a specific area to be protected
from development (sending area) and an area where development will be allowed to occur
(receiving area). The program involves the transfer of the development rights of a parcel
located in the sending area, to be transferred to another parcel of the receiving area. This
program which is mandatory, considered as the most aggressive in terms of preserving
farmland. Chapter 2: Land Fragmentation The development of an integrated planning and
decision support system for land consolidation 18 In contrast to the other two policies i.e.
PDR and TDR which refer to a regional scale, cluster development programs focused with
development on a site by site basis. Cluster programs work with the underlined zonings
density, reducing minimum parcel sizes and ensuring that a part of the site remains as open
space. Despite that this strategy is popular among various communities; it is not regarded as a
very effective tool to protect agricultural land bases. Brabec and Smith (2005) evaluate the
performance of each policy based on two main criteria: the erosion of the farmland base by
recording the amount of the area protected and the parcels’ fragmentation in terms of size and
continuity. The study showed that TDR and PDR programs are the most successful in terms
of the total area of land protected. The clustering program proved unable to achieve the
protection of a large amount of land. On the other hand, TDR and PDR programs achieved
better results regarding the increase of the size and the continuity of parcels than the
clustering program. A very important point stressed by Van Dijk (2003) is the fact that any
land policy applied in one country may not be able to be applied with the same way in
another country. Thus, a government before considering the adoption of a land policy should
be aware of the prevailing conditions and circumstances of its country, otherwise many
problems can be arise and failure will be inevitable.

Conclusion

Despite that land fragmentation is not a problem by definition it is mostly considered as a

serious obstacle which prevents the rational agricultural development. It is a fundamental
rural spatial problem which mainly refers to small and dispersed parcels of holdings. In
particular, the associated problems with it are the distance among parcels and farmstead, the
existence of many boundary lines, the small size and irregular shape of parcels and the lack
of access. Thus, the main parameters defined the problem are: holding size, number of
parcels belongs to a holding, size of each parcel, shape of each parcel, the spatial distribution
of parcels and the size distribution of parcels.

While research about land fragmentation begun early, there is no standard measurement of it.
Some indices developed for this purpose are single-parameter and multi-parameter. However,
each of them has limitations and weaknesses because they ignore important fragmentation
parameters and especially they overpass at all nonspatial parameters. Furthermore, they
assume an equal weight for each parameter which is a simplification. Among the expected
contribution of this thesis is to overcome these deficiencies and fill this research gap by
developing a comprehensive methodology for measuring land fragmentation, using Multi-
criteria decision methods (MCDM) and GIS. Such indices can be used for assessing land
consolidation projects as well.
ost parts of the world concern about this prominent matter since it affects their socioeconomic
development. Although causes of land fragmentation vary from country to country and
sometimes from region to region in the same country, the most common are: inheritance,
population growth, land markets and historical/cultural perspectives. As pointed out earlier,
land fragmentation is not a problem for all the cases so it has advantages and disadvantages.
Its main disadvantages are that it hinders mechanisation, causes inefficiencies in production
and hence involves large costs to alleviate its effects. Additionally, to economic impacts it
may have social and psychological impacts with consequent wider repercussions in
agricultural sector or a certain community as a whole. Sometimes land fragmentation offers
benefits such as regarding risk management, crop scheduling and ecological variety.
However, benefits and disadvantages depend entirely upon the local economic, social,
environmental prevailing conditions of each society. Thus, each community should be
considered as a unique case before a government decides to change land tenure structure in
an area. In such case, currently they are common three strategies to be followed: changing
legal provisions, apply specific land management approaches such as land consolidation and
apply specific protection policy programs.