COALITION FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE
THE KING'S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
EDMONTON, CANADA
PROJECT: Pave it or Preserve it: Land Ethics in the Rural-urban Fringe of Edmonton, Canada
INVESTIGATOR: Harry Spaling, Ph.D.
EMAIL: hspaling@KingsU.ab.ca
© Harry Spaling
Do not copy, distribute, quote or cite without author's permission


ABSTRACT

What is the land ethic that underlies conversion of prime farmland to urban-related development? This paper proposes a general framework to characterize and classify land ethics in the urban fringe and applies this framework to rural-urban land conversion in Edmonton, Canada. The framework distinguishes three ethical perspectives on land in the urban periphery. An econocentric ethic is based on a utilitarian view that acknowledges the market as the most effective mechanism for maximizing social utility and for determining allocation, distribution and use of land. A biocentric view implies that land has intrinsic worth independent of the value that humans place on it. This worth is usually defined by some biophysical characteristic of the land resource. A theocentric land ethic adopts a stewardship perspective and is derived from biblical teachings about the land, including principles of divine ownership, fruitfulness and Sabbath rest. The Edmonton case examines rural-urban land conversion in light of a massive annexation of prime farmland to the city (1981) for eventual urban development. The focus is on two local farm organizations (TOPSOIL, Earthkeeping) that have intervened in the land planning process to advocate preservation of prime farmland within the City's jurisdiction. A theocentric land ethic is firmly held and acted upon by both groups, and is presented as an alternative to the prevailing econocentric perspective and the emerging biocentric view on land. The case study demonstrates how Christians are actively participating in local public policy to promote a biblical model of land stewardship in an urbanizing world.



PAVE IT OR PRESERVE IT: LAND ETHICS IN THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE OF EDMONTON, ALBERTA1

Global population growth and the expansion of human settlement, particularly the trend toward urbanization, are contributing to the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Various national, regional and local studies have documented the amount and rate of rural-urban land conversion (e.g., Bryant and Johnson 1992, Warren et al. 1989, NALS 1981, Steiner and Theilacker 1984). A common focus of these studies is the conversion of prime farmland; land that is characterized by high soil fertility or unique agroclimatic conditions or both. Prime farmland is often converted because returns from its agricultural use are generally less than returns from other land uses, particularly urban development.

Loss of prime farmland is a societal concern because of perceived consequences for food self-sufficiency, food security and land degradation. Foodland is a finite resource and its loss may diminish agriculture's ability to meet future demands for food. It may also increase a nation's dependence on external markets and risk exposure to fluctuating prices. Agricultural intensification of remaining lands may contribute to increased erosion and further decline in soil fertility.

Policy makers have responded to the loss of prime farmland in various ways. These include financial incentives (e.g., preferential property taxes, transfer of development rights), land use planning (e.g., zoning, subdivision control, official plans) and prescriptive policies and legislation (e.g., foodland preservation guidelines, agricultural land reserves). All policy responses to the conversion of prime farmland, as well as a policy of no response, are based on distinct ethical perspectives on land and its use. Instruments such as the transfer of development rights are indicative of an land ethic that acknowledges the role of a market mechanism in determining the economic value of land, preserving the right of land ownership and influencing land use. Agricultural land reserves such as those established in British Columbia reflect, in part, a biocentric view that values the biophysical characteristics of the land resource for a particular use over and above market dictates.

Ethical dimensions are inherent in all land use decisions. Allocation of land, whether based on market forces (e.g., price), prescriptive policy (e.g., zoning) or structural transformation (e.g., land reform), is always characterized by a land ethic. This ethic is derived from a set of deeply held values that an individual, group or society has about the land, and human responsibility for it. A land ethic is a fundamental determinant of land ownership, land allocation and land use.

This paper classifies and characterizes land ethics in the urban fringe, and examines land ethics underlying rural-urban land conversion in Edmonton, Canada. "Ethics" refers generally to matters of right and wrong, good and bad, and duty and obligation. "Land ethics" denotes application of these normative values to the relationship between humans and the land. The paper is focused on ethical perspectives on the preservation of farmland near expanding urban centers. A plurality of land ethics is recognized: econocentric, biocentric and theocentric. Each is described, but the Edmonton case study demonstrates application of the theocentric land ethic.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR LAND USE ETHICS

The interface between ethics and land has been the subject of increased writings since the 1970s. Some have examined the philosophical integration of ethics and land, particularly from biocentric (Leopold 1949, Callicott 1989) and theological (Fager 1993, Weber et al. 1987) perspectives. Others have conceptually linked ethics to land policy and planning (Beatley 1994, Kaufman 1980). Still others have advocated a specific land ethic for particular land uses such as farmland (Ebenreck 1983, Sample 1989) and forestry (Wood 1991). Together, these writings have contributed to land use ethics as a new field of study.

Land use ethics has been generally defined as "... the study of the ethical and moral bases of actions and policies intended to influence the use and management of land and land resources" Beatley (1994:11). Of critical importance are the values that underlie ethical rationale and moral choices that affect land. Values represent deeply held convictions or beliefs about land and its use. These values are reflected in response to questions such as: Why is land important? What should land be used for? Who should occupy land? How should land be distributed? Values about land are shaped, in large part, by social and economic forces, political ideology and religious beliefs.

Values are the subject of study in moral philosophy. Moral theories commonly distinguish values as utilitarian, duty-based, anthropocentric, or non-anthropocentric. Beatley (1994) has constructed a conceptual framework that relates moral theories of values to various ethical positions on land use (Figure 1). A utilitarian perspective holds that a land use choice is morally correct if it maximizes social benefits or utility. The market is generally accepted as the most effective mechanism for maximizing utility, and for determining ownership, distribution and use of land. A duty-based view is characterized by obligations or rights that outweigh consideration of maximum social utility. For example, a moral standard of justice (e.g., right of individual to own land) or stewardship (e.g., command from God to care for land), or to keep a promise (e.g., family inheritance of land), may take precedence over the collective interests of society.


The framework also distinguishes moral theories of values as anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric (Figure 1). Anthropocentric values derive meaning or importance solely from a human perspective. Thus, land is valued by its worth to humans. Non-anthropocentric values recognize that nonhuman life forms and inanimate objects may also merit ethical consideration. From this perspective, land has intrinsic worth independent of the value that humans place on it. Christian stewardship is based on obligations and responsibilities, including accountability, to a divine Creator outside the human-land domain, as is thus also non-anthropocentric.

Moral theories of value are likely to vary among groups within a society, and among societies. For example, organic farmers are likely to value land more from a duty-based, non-anthropocentric view than conventional farmers who adopt more of a utilitarian, anthropocentric perspective on land. Among societies, an individualistic, self-interested perspective on land is characteristic of western culture, whereas many aboriginal groups hold to a communal, biocentric view. A group or society may also experience a shift in the moral theory of value over time and its ethical position on land use. The land ethic espoused by Aldo Leopold (1949) in A Sand County Almanac has contributed significantly to the emergence of a set of values that recognize non-human entities as integral members of a community for which humans have moral obligations.

CLASSIFICATION OF LAND USE ETHICS

Land use ethics may be broadly grouped into three categories: econocentric, biocentric, and theocentric. Each category is described further below, and briefly assessed with reference to the above conceptual framework and its implications for farmland preservation.

Econocentric

An econocentric land use ethic considers land an economic commodity whose value is ultimately determined by the choices of sellers and buyers in the market. Value is expressed in monetary form (i.e., price). Choice is presumed to be based on individual rational self-interest. Land that is bought and sold for an agreed price reflects a choice that maximizes satisfaction (i.e., utility) for both seller and buyer. The collective choice of many buyers and sellers is assumed to represent society's value of land.

Closely related to the idea of land as commodity, is the notion of land as property. Unlike the common resources of air and water, land may be owned by individuals. Ownership is entrenched in a deed or title, granting an individual the legal right to land as property.

The notion of individual ownership of land may be traced to John Locke's theory of property first proposed in 1690. This theory replaced historical land tenure systems based on royalty, inheritance or communal property with an individual's right to own and use land. Individual ownership and right of use of land are determined by that individual's labor on the land. A person's labor on, or improvement to, the land constituted an unequivocal right of ownership. Locke's theory established land ownership as an individual right independent of social context. Society has little or no say in the management of an individual's land, except to protect the right to private property.

Commodification of land and individual property rights are key attributes of an econocentric land use ethic. This ethic is the prevailing view of land policy in western, industrialized countries. It is also the dominant ethic underlying land use change and the transition in land ownership in the urban fringe.

Since an econocentric use land ethic is predicated on utilitarianism, it does not incorporate other moral theories of value such as equitable distribution of land, obligations to future generations, or a notion of land stewardship that recognizes a divine Creator as ultimate owner (Figure 1). Land in the urban fringe is allocated, and its use is determined, by the maximum utility (i.e., return) accrued to the owner. Since agriculture is rarely the land use that generates the greatest utility in the urban fringe, farmland is readily converted to other uses with higher economic utility. Land use decisions based solely on an econocentric ethic inevitably leads to loss of farmland.

Biocentric

A biocentric land use ethic values land, not for its economic utility, nor for any human purpose, but for its own intrinsic worth. Land has value independent of its significance to humans. Humans are one component, among many, in the land community. This ethic is obviously non-anthropocentric, but is also duty-based in that humans are to extend moral standing and consideration to other organisms and living communities (Figure 1).

An example is the well-known land ethic of Aldo Leopold (1949) in A Sand County Almanac. According to Leopold, humans are members of the broader land community and, because community implies reciprocal relationships among its members, humans are bound by ethical obligations to all the entities that comprise the land community: soil, water, plants and animals. Human membership is not hierarchical (i.e., as master or conqueror of the land), but based on a biotic citizenship that extends equality to all members of the community. Regarding human actions, the moral maxim of the land ethic is: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold 1949:262).

An application of the biocentric ethic to farmland preservation is evident in Sara Ebenreck's (1983) notion of a partnership farmland ethic. She rejected the stewardship land ethic because of its anthropomorphic bias and hierarchical structure between owner and land, and argued that land has intrinsic value in itself, which humans must respect and care for. A partnership farmland ethic is based on a reciprocal relationship between humans and land, each taking from, and giving to, the other. Just as humans use land, so the land uses humans to maintain its integrity and functioning. Partnership includes "... a bonding with the land which is manifested by a kind of participation in community with it" (Ebenreck 1983:42). Three principles summarize a partnership farmland ethic: 1) respect for the intrinsic value of the land, 2) human use that does not destroy this value, and 3) returning something of value to the land in exchange for human use.

Theocentric

A theocentric land ethic is informed by a Judeo-Christian interpretation of the land. It is based on biblical teachings, particularly from the Old Testament, that emphasize equitable land distribution and sustainable land management.2 These teachings include prohibitions against taking land from the socially marginalized (widows, orphans) and the accumulation of large landholdings, as well as guidelines to care for the land as a renewable resource. A theocentric land ethic is characterized by a non-anthropocentric view of land ownership and an obligation in the form of accountability to a divine Creator to care for the land (Figure 1).

Consider the following biblical instruction:
The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:23-24)

This admonition summarizes three tenets central to a theocentric land ethic: ownership, earthkeeping, and restoration. Western society typically views ownership of land as a right that establishes an absolute relationship between an owner and the land. A theocentric perspective places limits on ownership. Limits are not defined by restricting the quantity that may be owned (although there are biblical warnings against excess accumulation), but by acknowledging a divine owner and attaching responsibility to ownership. The biblical view declares that the earth is the Lord's (Psalm 24:1). Land ultimately has value because of divine ownership, which overrides any human ownership of land. Divine ownership means that both the earthly owner and the object of ownership (the land) are subject to their Creator. The land belongs to its Creator, but it is entrusted to humans. Humans are accountable to the Creator for their relationship with the land.

Biblically speaking, the responsibility attached to human occupancy of land is stewardship or earthkeeping (De Vos 1990). Earthkeeping is a biblical norm for managing the land in such a way that its created potential continues to be fulfilled. Land is to be used according to its created intent. Applied to farmland, this implies preservation of prime agricultural land for the continued production of food and fiber. Earthkeeping does allow for the conversion of land from one use to another, but it requires careful consideration of moral obligations other than maximizing economic utility (e.g., food self-sufficiency, livelihood of farmers).

Restoration means that humans may enjoy the fruit of the land, but they may not diminish its fruitfulness (DeWitt 1995). Humans may harvest the land, but may not reduce its productive capacity. Closely related to the notion of fruitfulness is the biblical idea of Sabbath. Once in seven years the land is to be given a Sabbath rest:

For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather your crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the Lord (Leviticus 25:3-4).

This is less a literal edict than a principial instruction intended to renew and restore the productive capacity of the land at regular intervals. The instruction is directed to humans, but the benefit accrues to the land.

In summary, a theocentric land ethic places limits on human ownership of and rights to land because of divine ownership. As stewards, humans are accountable to the Creator for the way in which they use and care for the land. The fruitfulness principle suggests that land best-suited for the production of food and fiber should be used for that purpose. Sabbath rest or restoration is a key element of a stewardship approach that maintains the land's fruitfulness.

DEMONSTRATION OF A THEOCENTRIC LAND ETHIC: THE EDMONTON CASE

The case study examines land ethics underlying rural-urban land conversion in Edmonton, Canada. Edmonton is selected as the geographic focus because of its history of annexation of farmland to the city, particularly the annexation of 1981. The focus is on the land ethic of two local agricultural organizations: Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL3. Both have advocated preservation of farmland in the public land planning process.

The case begins with the massive 1981 annexation. It summarizes the responses of Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL to this annexation, and their subsequent interventions to influence the City's land policy for the annexed agricultural lands. Various documents (briefs, position papers, internal records) that record the responses and interventions of each organization were analyzed to characterize their land ethic.

1981 Annexation

As most cities of North America, Edmonton has a long history of land annexation to accommodate its urban growth (Figure 2). The 1981 annexation, however, far surpassed any previous extension of its urban boundaries into adjacent rural land. The City initiated an annexation application to the provincial government to overtake the boundaries of surrounding municipalities in 1979. Interestingly, one of the reasons given for the annexation application was management of prime farmland. The City argued that it could better avoid urban sprawl and low density urban development, and thereby preserve highly productive agricultural land, if it had control of development over surrounding rural lands.

The Local Authorities Board (LAB), a provincial agency, initiated a process to review the application, including holding public hearings. The Board's final recommendations modified the City's initial application somewhat, but not nearly as extensively as the boundaries finally approved by the provincial cabinet, notably the inclusion of a huge block of agricultural land to the northeast (Figure 2). This block, and other annexed rural land, added almost 35,000 ha to the City's existing 31,600 ha, more than doubling its total urban area.



The annexed land is particularly well-suited for agriculture (Figure 3). More than 70 per cent of it is designated as classes 1 and 2, which indicate the highest agricultural capability in the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) (Table 1). In addition, local climatic conditions include a period of 100 frost-free days, compared to 90 days in other nearby locales. It was annexation of this prime farmland, unique for its soil fertility and micro-climatic, that prompted both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL to act on their land ethic. A chronology of their actions is listed in Table 2.


Response to the Annexation

Both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL participated in the public hearings held by the Local Authorities Board (Table 2).4 In its very first brief, Earthkeeping confronted an econocentric land ethic presumed to underlie the City's annexation application. It opposed the notion of economic factors being the controlling ethic by which land is to be annexed and developed. Earthkeeping informed the Local Authorities Board that:

Land is not a commodity to be disposed of at the inclination of

the owner to the highest bidder for any use whatsoever. Land is

essentially a finite resource and society as a whole has a considerable

interest in its designated uses. Land ownership must include a great

deal of public responsibility and accountability. (CFFA 1980:2-3)

Earthkeeping did not oppose annexation per se, recognizing the realities of urban expansion, and recommended that land to the west, east and southwest be annexed due to its lower capability for agriculture. Its primary aim was to instill an ethical responsibility for the preservation of prime farmland. "The quality of the agricultural land resource involved is such that we see it as a overriding concern" (CFFA 1980:6).

TOPSOIL's submissions to the LAB hearings echoed the sentiments of Earthkeeping (Table 2). It too challenged the commodification of land:

Land should be viewed as a creation resource, not a commodity.
When we make decisions we must commit ourselves to things which
are of real value. If we reduce our land merely to a capital
investment we also reduce our view of how we relate to our
environment. We must always think about what gives meaning
to ourselves as a person and how our environment is a real
factor in providing that meaning. It is not too late to save
some of the remaining fertile land. But specific decisions to
safeguard its loss must be made now. (TOPSOIL 1980:6)

TOPSOIL argued that the "real value" of the land petitioned for annexation is to be found in its ability to provide food and fiber, not in the economic value attached to it by the speculation of urban development. TOPSOIL appealed not to annex productive farmland, particularly in the northeast, but to leave it under the current jurisdiction of rural municipalities, with the added designation as an agricultural land preserve. Much of the appeal rested on the land's unique soil and climatic attributes.

In November 1980, the Local Authorities Board (1980) issued its recommendations to the provincial government (Table 2). These reduced the overall area to be annexed, but with little regard to the location of prime farmland. This unexpected recommendation led Earthkeeping to prepare a brief for the members of the provincial legislative assembly imploring "... that the preservation of prime agricultural land be an important factor in the government's decision regarding the Edmonton annexation" (CFFA 1981: 2).

Post-annexation Actions

In June 1980, the provincial government announced its final decision regarding Edmonton's annexation application (Table 2). As with the LAB recommendation, minimal regard was given to agricultural land and large areas of primeland were included within the area annexed to the City. With a huge area of prime farmland (Table 1) now under City jurisdiction, both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL turned their attention to influencing urban land policy and planning, and have continued to do so for the last 15 years. Only a few selected actions are highlighted to further demonstrate their land ethic.

Submissions were presented by both groups for an urban growth strategy initiated by the City to establish broad goals and directions for development over the next 30 years. Again, the fundamental aim of both groups was to preserve areas of prime farmland, particularly the 70 per cent designated as classes 1 and 2 for their agricultural capability (Figure 3).

Unlike either the LAB recommendations or the government's annexation decision, the City's Planning Department addressed the issue of agricultural land conservation in its urban growth strategy: "the City of Edmonton will conserve lands within its boundary ... which have unique potential for agricultural production and which are not required for urban uses for at least two decades" (City of Edmonton 1982:15 - UGS). While this aim indicated some progress toward the goals of Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL, it failed to establish a permanent agricultural reserve.

TOPSOIL (1982) expressed dissatisfaction with the City's urban growth strategy because a final decision for urban development on prime land was delegated to the future. It advocated a stewardship ethic for the management of agricultural lands within the City's urban growth strategy, and hinted at a theocentric basis for this ethic in these words:

The City of Edmonton could be a good steward of agricultural lands. Let us hold fast to those things which are of ultimate value. Let us maintain the land, the gift from God to provide our daily bread (TOPSOIL 1982:12).

Earthkeeping supported its case for a permanent agricultural reserve by distinguishing between productive and consumptive uses of land, pointing out that such a reserve is necessary in light of farmland's inability to compete with other uses:

As a general rule, consumptive uses of land (e.g., industry, housing) can always outbid productive uses when there is a competition ... the highest and best use of prime food land is for the production of food and fiber. The value of land as a resource is determined by its capability and fertility, not the marketplace (CFFA 1982:5 emphasis in original).

A subsequent submission to the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission, clearly identified Earthkeeping's commitment to a stewardship land ethic rooted in a theocentric perspective:

[Earthkeeping] is committed to a stewardship view of agricultural land. People (or governments) are not absolute owners, but are called to exercise stewardship over land for a short time on God's behalf. The highest and best use of prime food land is for the production of food and fiber ... In reviewing the proposed regional plan, [Earthkeeping's] principle aim is to promote the stewardly and equitable use of the agricultural resources of the Edmonton metropolitan region (CFFA 1983:1).

In 1989, both organizations also provided input into the General Municipal Plan (GMP). Like the urban growth strategy, this plan also attaches a temporal condition to the preservation of agricultural land. City policy is to "maintain land in the agricultural classification until it can be demonstrated that such land is essential for orderly and economical urban development" (City of Edmonton 1989:25). Again, both Earthkeeping (1989) and TOPSOIL (1989) reiterated their stewardship ethic that the best farmland must be designated as a permanent agricultural land reserve.

Involvement of both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL has continued through the 1990s (Table 2). These included further submissions to the City (Earthkeeping 1991, TOPSOIL 1990), and participation in the NorthEast Edmonton Agriculture Study (Can-Ag Enterprises et al. 1994), which documented and quantified various biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics of agriculture in this region. There were also interventions in specific proposals for urban development that contravened the agricultural land policy of the General Municipal Plan (Edmonton Journal 1996).

Evaluation of Land Ethic

Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL share a similar land ethic with regard to preservation of farmland. Key shared principles and viewpoints are shown in Table 3. Land is not viewed as a economic commodity, but as a resource intended for the production of food and fiber. A determinant of land value is soil capability, as manifested in the inherent biophysical characteristics of land (soil fertility, climate). This capability overrides economic factors in determining the ultimate use of land. Both groups advocate limits on ownership of land, recognizing that there are societal obligations to ensure an ongoing supply of prime foodland for the future.


With respect to the three types of land use ethics characterized previously, both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL reject an econocentric land ethic. In fact, they consistently confronted this ethic in their submissions. Both groups oppose the commodification of land, and defer to ethical obligations of maintaining and caring for land through stewardship, as well as a duty to consider land needs of future generations. Rights of land ownership are not absolute, but tempered by broader societal needs and intergenerational obligations.

There is no evidence of a biocentric land use ethic. Reference is made to biophysical value of land, which supersedes its economic value, but there is no appeal to the ontological unity of humans and land, or to a moral standing of the land community or its constituent parts.

The land ethic of Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL is rooted in a theocentric perspective. Stewardship is the common ethical framework for allocation, use and management of farmland. Land is considered to be owned by a divine Creator. Humans are trustees granted the responsibility of stewardship. There are limits to human ownership of land, not just because of imposed societal interests, but because absolute ownership belongs to the Creator and land owners are ultimately accountable to the Creator for the use of their land. Preservation of farmland reflects the principle of fruitfulness. Conversion of foodland to non-agricultural uses destroys the fruitfulness of the land that is converted. Its productive capacity for food and fiber must be preserved whenever and wherever possible.

CONCLUSION

The paper has shown that various land ethics underlie rural-urban land conversion. It has developed a classification of land ethics distinguished by an interpretation of the relationship between humans and the land. An econocentric land ethic interprets this relationship mainly from a human perspective. A biocentric land ethic is focused on respect for, and well-being of, the land community of which humans are only one member. A theocentric land ethic acknowledges a stewardship relationship with accountability outside the human-land domain to a divine Creator.

The classes are not exclusive. For example, a farmer usually makes decisions about the management of a land unit based on a blend of economic (livelihood), biocentric (soil conservation) and, perhaps, theocentric (Sabbath rest) considerations. Governments too typically protect the rights of private land ownership, but may also impose obligations (e.g., zoning, agricultural land reserves) that ensure a continued supply of productive land for society in the future. Despite these interactions and compromises in reality, the classification has heuristic value in identifying and characterizing various land ethics in the urban fringe.

In western societies, the econocentric land ethic has usually prevailed at the urban periphery. Although this ethic has also predominated the rural-urban interface of Edmonton, the case study has demonstrated the application of a theocentric land ethic by two agricultural groups. Both Earthkeeping and TOPSOIL have acted on their ethical convictions by persistently participating in and influencing urban land policy and planning, particularly with regard to the annexed prime farmlands within the City. Both groups have decidedly rejected an econocentric land ethic as an acceptable ethical framework from which to base land use decisions, and neither has adopted tenets of a biocentric land ethic, emerging elsewhere. Together, the two groups have shown that a theocentric land ethic is strongly held, and publicly acted on, to impact land policy in the urban periphery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper has received support from The King's University College, and the Pew Foundation through the Global Stewardship Initiative of the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities. Allan Fij and Allan Gowan-Smith provided valuable technical assistance.

REFERENCES

Beatley, Timothy 1994. Ethical Land Use: Principles of Policy and Planning. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brueggemann, Walter 1977. The Land. Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

Bryant, Christopher R. And Thomas R.R. Johnston 1992. Agriculture in the City's Countryside. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Callicott, J. Baird 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press.

Can-Ag Enterprises Ltd., Marv Anderson and Associates Ltd. and Lovatt Planning Consultants 1994. Northeast Edmonton Agricultural Study. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta) 1980 July. Presentation to the Local Authorities Board on the City of Edmonton's Annexation Proposal. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta) 1981 April. Annexation and Agricultural Land. Prepared for Members of the Legislative Assembly. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta) 1982 May. Submission on the Urban Growth Strategy of the City of Edmonton. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta) 1983 March. Statement on Proposed Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Plan. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta). 1989 July. Submission to Edmonton City Council on the GeneralMunicipal Plan. Edmonton.

CFFA (Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta) 1991 March. Submission to the Steering Committee for an Economic Development Strategy for Edmonton. Edmonton.

City of Edmonton 1981. Urban Growth Strategy Phase I Final Report. Planning and Development Department, Edmonton.

City of Edmonton 1989. Edmonton General Municipal Plan. Planning and Development Department, Edmonton.

Ebenreck, Sara 1983. A Partnership Farmland Ethic. Environmental Ethics Vol. 5:33-45.

Edmonton Journal 1996. Proposal pits farmers against land developer. February 13:B3.

Evans, Bernard F. And Gregory D. Cusack (eds.) 1987. Theology of the Land. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press.

Fager, Jeffrey A. 1993. Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Furuseth, Owen J. and John T. Pierce 1982. Agricultural Land in an Urban Society. State College, Pennsylvania: Commercial Printing Inc..

Habel, Norman C. 1995. The land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Hart, J. 1987. Land, theology and the future. In Weber, L., W. Bruggeman, C.D. Freudenberger, J. Hart, R. C. Austin, B. Evans and G. Cusack (eds.) 1987. Theology of the Land. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, pp.85-102.

Kaufman, Jerome L. 1980. Land Planning in an Ethical Perspective. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 35 no.6 pp. 255-258.

Leopold, Aldo 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford (reprinted 1966).

National Agriculture Lands Study 1981. National Agriculture Lands Study Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Sample, Tex 1989. Why Save Rural America: A Theological/Ethical Perspective. The Rural Sociologists. Vol. 9 no.1(Jan) pp. 19-26.

Sampson, R. Neil 1984. The Ethical Dimension of Farmlands Protection. In Frederick R. Steiner and John E. Theilacker (eds.) Protecting Farmlands. Westpoint: AVI Publishing Company, Inc., pp.45-52.

Steiner, Frederick R. and John E.Theilacker 1984. Protecting Farmlands. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing, Inc.

Topsoil (To Please Save Our Irreplaceable Land) 1980 July. Submission Presented to Local Authorities Board Regarding its Edmonton Annexation Hearing. (Submitted as Property Owners in the North East Region East of Highway 15 and West of the River). Edmonton.

Topsoil (To Please Save Our Irreplaceable Land) 1981 October. A Submission Concerning the Land Use Policy for the North East Land Recently Annexed to the City of Edmonton. Edmonton.

Topsoil (To Please Save Our Irreplaceable Land) 1982 May. A Submission Concerning Amendments to the General Plan Regarding the Annexed Lands for the Special Meeting of Council May 12,1982. Edmonton.

Topsoil (To Please Save Our Irreplaceable Land) 1990 June. A Submission to Her Worship the Mayor Jan Reimer and the Council of the City of Edmonton. Edmonton.

Warren, C.L. and A. Kerr and A.M. Turner 1989. Urbanization of Rural Land in Canada, 1981-86. In A State of the Environment Fact Sheet(No. 89-1). Ottawa: Environment Canada.

Weber, L., W. Bruggeman, C.D. Freudenberger, J. Hart, R. C. Austin, B. Evans and G. Cusack (eds.) 1987. Theology of the Land. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.

Wood, Paul M. and R.P.F. 1991. The "Greatest good for the greatest number": Is this a good land-use ethic?. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 67 no. 6 pp.664-67.



1. This paper was presented, and received the Caring for Creation award, at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation and Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, July 26-29, 1996, Victoria University, Toronto.

2. Contributions to a theologically based land ethic include Brueggeman 1977, Weber et al. 1987, Fager 1993, Habel 1995 and Sample 1989.

3. Earthkeeping was formerly the Christian Farmers Federation of Alberta. Despite historical inconsistency, the former is retained for simplicity. TOPSOIL is an acronym for To Please Save Our Irreplaceable Land, and was preceded by a loosely knit group known as Property Owners in the North East Region (Sturgeon County).

4. Members of both organizations, and TOPSOIL in particular, owned and farmed property in the annexed lands, especially the northeast block (Figure 3).

To Montreat College

Please mail any comments to Dr. Mark Lassiter.