7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
1/38
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
A report on land use trendsrelated to agriculture.
J anuary 2007
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
2/38
CONTENTS
Introduction.. 1
Background. 2
Land Use Trends 6
Michigan and Kalamazoo Agriculture. 11
Kalamazoo County Land Use Changeand Projections... 17
Planning for Agriculture. 23
Toward Smarter Growth 29
Works Cited 34
Acknowledgements 36
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use ii
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
3/38
INTRODUCTION
The 2001 Michigan Land Resource Project study projectedthat if current land use patterns continue, by 2040 ageneration from now Michigans built or developed areaswill increase by 178 percent. That would mean that 17percent of Michigan would be developed compared to thepresent 9 percent.- Michigan Land Use Leadership Council, 2003, p. 11
State and local leaders face the challenge of understanding how the
consequences of poorly managed growth and development impact the
environmental, economic, and social foundations of the state of Michigan. The
challenge also involves recognition of what changes to current land use policy
are needed to set Michigan on a course of prosperity.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use explores the trends in land use as they
relate to Kalamazoo Countys and Michigans agricultural land base and
economy. The document is intended to serve as a resource for local land use
decision makers to inform the land use dialogue and to foster more sustainable
and prosperous land use policies throughout the Kalamazoo region and the state
of Michigan.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 1
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
4/38
BACKGROUND
Generally, there are four areas of concern for farmland loss - food supply,
local economics, the efficiency of development patterns, and the loss of
environmental amenities (Norris and Deaton, 2001).
Food Supply
Concerns about the food supply have been voiced for more than 200
years, but the fact remains, agricultural producers continue to substitute physical,
biological, and intellectual capital for land and labor (Norris and Deaton, 2001).
While more and more of the nations farmland acreage is developed or has been
taken out of production, innovation in agriculture facilitates more intensive
farming on the farmland that remains. Even the USDA has suggested that
patterns of land use change do not currently represent a threat to food production
in the U.S. (USDA, 2000). However, there is evidence that the rate of agricultural
innovation is slowing and current farmland loss could someday cripple the agri-
food system. A 1990 Resource Conservation Act study concluded that by 2030,
the rate of increase in food supply could fall short of the rate of increase in food
demand (Libby, 1993).
The loss of farmland for the production of specialty crops is however, a
particular concern, especially in Michigan. The state of Michigan leads the nation
in the production of tart cherries, blueberries, and pickling cucumbers, is second
in the production of carrots and celery, and is third in apple, asparagus, and
Niagara grape production (USDA, 2006). The problem is that many of the areas
in the state that are well suited for specialty crop production are the same areas
attractive for residential development. A report by the American Farmland Trust
listed two fruit and vegetable production areas in western Michigan among the
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use2
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
5/38
nations twenty most threatened farmland areas (Sorensen et al., 1997). Fruit
production land alone in Michigan is projected to dwindle by 25 percent in the
next 40 years (Public Sector Consultants, 2001).
Local Economics
There are also economic concerns of dwindling farmland. Michigans agri-
food system employs over one million people and produces just over $60 billion
in economic activity annually, making Michigans agricultural sector the second
largest in the state (Peterson et al., 2006). With approximately 10 percent of this
economic boon coming directly from on-farm production, 50 percent from
agricultural support industries, and the remaining 40 percent from indirect and
multiplier effects, losses in productive farmland can translate into significant
losses in processing plants and farm support industries (Peterson et al., 2006).
The local economies of farming dependent communities are particularly
vulnerable. If a county is home to one or more agricultural support industries,
such as processing plants, that county may be more dependent on agriculture
and therefore more susceptible to farmland loss (Norris and Deaton, 2001).
Efficiency of New Development
Farmland preservation is often cited in discussions related to land use
planning and growth management. In fact, preserving farmland and open space
is one of the 10 Tenets of Smart Growth. Farmland preservation programs, in
combination with effective land use controls for maintaining medium and high
densities and directing development where services already exist, can limit the
financial obligation of local units of government for service provision. Studies
from across the nation have concluded that for every dollar paid in property
taxes, residential property consumes more in services, while working/open land
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 3
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
6/38
consume less, making farmland a net contributor to local revenues (American
Farmland Trust, 2004).
Homeowners also save with farmland preservation and a more compact
spatial pattern of development. With water, sewer, drainage, and streets costing
on average $250 per foot, higher density development results in lower per unit
infrastructure costs. Typically, average cost pricing is used to recover costs for
services such as water and sewer. With this approach however, users in outlying
neighborhoods pay less than their true cost of service provision, while users in
urban areas pay more essentially subsidizing low density development. When
communities finance infrastructure and development in outlying areas, they not
only do it at the expense of farmland and open space, but also at the expense of
urban reinvestment.
Environmental Amenities
The loss of environmental amenities and ecological services is also cited
as a concern of farmland, forest, and open space loss. In fact, in several states
residents have declared equal or greater concern for the loss of environmental
amenities as compared to the loss of agricultural production capacity resulting
from farmland loss (Bergstrom et al., 1985; Halstead, 1984; Kline and Wichelns,
1994; Rosenberger, 1998). Farmland including crop, pasture, and forested acres
often serve as wildlife habitat, natural areas, ground water recharge areas, and
buffers along watercourses that help maintain surface and ground water quality.
Habitat loss for edge species, such as white-tailed deer, is of particular concern
with farmland loss. However, not all types of agriculture or agricultural
management practices are created equal. That is, not all farmland provides the
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use4
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
7/38
same environmental amenities, and local concerns over farmland loss will
depend on its location relative to existing development.
The concerns for farmland loss are widespread. Residents of Michigan not
only face the consequences of lost agricultural production capacity, but also face
consequences associated with fewer locally provided foods, dwindling
agricultural employment, inefficient development, and loss of environmental
services. All of Michigans residents are vulnerable to the effects of land use
change and the loss of productive agricultural land. In the next section,
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use takes a closer look at the land use changes
occurring in Michigan.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 5
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
8/38
LAND USE TRENDS
The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (MLULC) (2003) states in its
final report quite simply, At our expected growth rate, it may not take Michigan
long to catch up to New J ersey, currently Americas most built state with 26
percent developed area (p. 11). In Michigan, such growth is not solely the result
of increases in population Michigans population grew by only 6.1 percent
between 1990 and 1999, ranking 34 out of the 50 states in terms of percent
change in population (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). More critical is the fact that
Michigans population density is falling in the early 1980s average population
density was 3.8 persons per acre, but dropped to 2.8 persons per acre by the
late 1990s (Norris and Soule, 2003). In fact, the ratio of land development to
population growth in Michigan is 8:1, meaning that on average throughout the
state, land is developed eight times faster than the population grows (MLULC,
2003).
With expanding urban areas come increases in rural real estate values.
This relationship plays a particularly strong role in the conversion of agricultural
land to other uses. For instance, many farmers witnessed downward trends in
real net cash income through the 1990s. In contrast, the average farm real estate
value per acre in 2001 was $2,250, double the value 10 years earlier (PSC,
2001). With farm income low and property values high, farmers are faced with a
difficult decision when looking to retire or simply trying to pay the bills in order to
remain farming. Often the decision to sell ones farmland perpetuates the cycle of
rural land conversion, referred to as the Impermanence Syndrome on the
following page.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use6
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
9/38
The Impermanence Syndrome
Rural characterattracts newresidents
Increased housingdevelopment
Higher land pricesConflicts in land useIncreased trafficMore nuisance complaints
Pressures on farmoperation and viabilityLoss of farmsuppliers/processors
Conversion offarmland toother land uses
Area becomesmostlyresidential
Rural characterattracts newresidents
Increased housingdevelopment
Higher land pricesConflicts in land useIncreased trafficMore nuisance complaints
Pressures on farmoperation and viabilityLoss of farmsuppliers/processors
Conversion offarmland toother land uses
Area becomesmostlyresidential
SOURCE: Derived from Berry, 1978.
Michigan lost almost 1.5 million acres (over 13 percent) of agricultural land
between 1982 and 1997 (Norris and Soule, 2003). In the following five years,
between 1997 and 2002, Michigan lost an additional 301,000 acres (three
percent) of farmland (USDA, 2002d).1 In southwest Michigan, farmland loss from
1997 to 2002 was as high as 8.3 percent in Calhoun County, 7.5 percent in Van
Buren County, and 6.8 percent in Berrien County.
Farmland Loss in Southwest Michigan: 1997 to 2002County Acreage Change Percent Percent
1997 2002 Change FarmlandAl legan 529,578 250,185 243,270 -6,915 -2.8 45.9Barry 355,926 178,311 181,766 3,455 1.9 51.1Berrien 365,440 185,809 174,009 -11,800 -6.8 47.6Branch 324,744 249,326 253,690 4,364 1.7 78.1
Calhoun 453,578 259,840 239,913 -19,927 -8.3 52.9Cass 314,995 185,418 189,127 3,709 2.0 60.0Kalamazoo 359,593 154,185 148,206 -5,979 -4.0 41.2St. Joseph 322,382 230,145 230,624 479 0.2 71.5Van Buren 390,951 189,432 176,260 -13,172 -7.5 45.1SW Michigan 3,417,187 1,882,651 1,836,865 -45,786 -2.5 53.8Michigan 36,354,446 10,443,935 10,142,958 -300,977 -3.0 27.9
Acres of Farmland
SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.
1 In 1997 several types of commodity production (including maple syrup and Christmas treeproduction) were added to the definition of farmland totaling 170,000 acres statewide.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 7
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
10/38
With 301,000 acres lost from 1997 to 2002, Michigan is losing farmland at
a rate of 8 acres per hour. Considering the average farm size in 1997 was 195
acres, the state lost almost an entire farm every 24 hours over the five year
period (USDA, 2002d). Nationwide, Michigan ranks ninth for loss of farmland due
to d
evelopment (Sorensen, 1997).
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
The map above forces an unmistakable conclusion: If current trends
continue, Michigan will become more urbanized over the next 35 years. The
impact of this land use change will not only be felt in agriculture, but also in other
land resource-based uses and industries. This land use change is displayed on
the following page in tabular form with classes of land use by actual acreage in
1980 and that projected in 2040.
Projected Land Use Trend: 1980 to 20402040
2020
1980
uiltgriculturether vegetationorestakeetland
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use8
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
11/38
Land Uses: 1980 and 2040 Acreage Project ionsClass of Land Use 1980* 2040* Change* Change
Private Forestland 18.2 16.9 -1.3 -8%Other Vegetation 2.9 2.2 -0.7 -24%Wetland 1.8 1.4 -0.2 -10%Developed (Built) 2.3 6.4 4.1 178%
*million acres
Agriculture 11.0 9.1 -1.9 -17%
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
According to the Michigan Land Resource Project, the state will lose 1.9
million acres of farmland by 2040 a 17 percent loss from 1980. Approximately
25 percent (475,000 acres) of this farmland loss is projected to occur within
Michigans metropolitan counties, which have, on average, 42 percent of their
land base in farmland (PSC, 2001).2
Kalamazoo County, which is considered a
metropolitan co DA, 2002d).
Projected Agricultural Land Use Change: 1980 to 2040
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
unty, has 41 percent of its land base in farmland (US
20401980
AgricultureOther land use
2 Metropolitan counties are counties within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). A MSA, asdefined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, contains a core urban area of 50,000 ormore population.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 9
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
12/38
With projected losses in farmland, Michigan also faces projected losses in
agriculture diversity by 2040. Projected losses in some of Michigans most
valuable agricultural products are highlighted below.
Projected Acreage Loss by Product: 1980 to 2040Type of Agricultural Land ChangeOrchard land -25%
Dry bean acreage -36%
Potato acreage -16%
Vegetable acreage -13%
Acres of corn, soybeans, wheat,
and sugar beets 0% SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
In spite of the projected Michigan Land
esou e Project predicts that increased yields per acre will more than offset
reduce
040,
s food security is not
rojected to b ver, other
concerns over farmland loss remain, including the effects on local economics, the
efficiency of development patterns, and concerns about environmental amenities.
Residents of Michigan have witnessed substantial land use change over
the last 50 years. Whil , much of this
hange
ocial
status quo or steering the state toward a more prosperous future.
declines in crop acreages, the
R rc
d acres harvested. Also, according to the MLRP, dairying will shift out of
metropolitan counties and cow numbers will drop by at least 25 percent by 2
but total milk production will continue to increase. Thu
p e a problem for Michigan over the next 35 years. Howe
e population growth has been a factor
c was the result of urban decentralization and expansion. Given current
land use trends in the state, the conversion of rural land to urban land is
projected to continue for at least the next 35 years with losses to agricultural land
over one million acres (PSC, 2001). With growing realization of how state policies
and individual actions collectively affect the environmental, economic, and s
health of the state, decision makers are faced with the choice of maintaining the
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use10
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
13/38
MICHIGAN AND KALAMAZOO AGRICULTURE
In 2004, agriculture contributed $60.1 billion to Michigan's economy
making
rkers.
2006).
production o
commo
(USDA
o
s the proprietors primary occupation
ver
an the average farm in the state. Smaller than
eristic Kala er
it the second largest industry in the state. Employing 1.05 million people
directly and indirectly, the industry accounts for 24 percent of Michigans wo
Of the states 727,000 people directly employed in the agri-food system, over
72,000 are farm proprietors or wage/salary farm workers (Peterson et al.,
Michigans agricultural economy is extremely diverse. Over 50 food crops
and over 200 agricultural commodities are produced commercially in the state,
making Michigan second in the nation behind California in terms of agricultural
product diversity. Michigan leads the nation in the production of 12 commodities
and ranks in the top 10 in theMichigan leads in the production o f: Beans, dry, black, cwt (hundre Beans, dry, cranberry, cwt
d weight)
Beans, dry, light red kidney, cwt
Beans, dry, small red, cwt
Cherries, tart, pounds
f 25 other agriculture
dities. The production and
sale of milk, corn, soybeans, cattle,
hogs, annual bedding plants, and
woody ornamentals provide the
highest cash receipts for the state
Beans, dry, navy, cwt
Blueberries, pounds
Cucumbers (for pickles), tons
Flowering hanging baskets, number Geraniums (seed and cuttings), pots Impatiens, flats Petunias, flats
, 2006). In terms of total market value of agricultural products sold,
Michigan ranks 22ndamong the states (USDA, 2002f).
Michigan has approximately 10.1 million acres of farmland and is home t
53,315 farms, 29,071 of which serve a
(USDA, 2002d). In 2002, the a
acres smaller than just five years befo
County are slightly smaller th
average farm size is a charact
age farm size in the state was 190 acres, five
re. On average, farms in Kalamazoo
mazoo County shares with oth
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 11
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
14/38
metropolitan counties, as peripheral farmland is often first developed by lot splits
and land divisions that reduce the size of farms, but enable farmers to remain in
production. As depicted in the following chart, farmland loss in Kalamazoo
County from 1997 to 2002 (approximate
ly 6,000 acres lost) only contributed to
the los
Kalamazoo and Michigan Farms
s of one farm; however, the average size of farms in Kalamazoo County
declined more sharply than the average farm in the state.
1997 2002 1997 2002Number of Farms 809 808 53,519 53,315
Land in Farms (acres) 154,185 148,206 10,443,935 10,142,958
Average Farm Size (acres) 191 183 195 190
Percent in Farms 41.2% 27.9%
Kalamazoo County Michigan
SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.
As a metropolitan county, one might then expect that Kalamazoo County
has relatively more small farms than the rest of the state. In fact, almost 54
percent of Kalamazoo County farms have fewer than 50 acres, compared to a
statewide average of 41 percent. In contrast, only one percent of the countys
farms are larger than 1,000 acres (USDA, 2002d).
Percent of Farms by Size
1.1%
8.4%
3.7%5.4%
0%
10%11.3%
25.5%
53.7%
15.0%
34.9%
41.1%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 499 500 to 999 >1000
Kalamazoo County Michigan
SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use12
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
15/38
While there are relatively more small farms in Kalamazoo County, as
compared to the rest of the state, those small farms comprise a little over six
ercent of the countys farmland, a number consistent with the statewide
average. Farms greater than 1,000 acres held almost 18 percent of the countys
farmland, substantially less than the statewide average of nearly 35 percent. The
bulk (46 percent) of Kalamazoo County farmland is contained within farms of 500
to 999 acres in size (USDA, 2002d).
Percent of Acres by Size
p
17.5%
45.6%
17.7%
12.8%
6.3%
19.5%22.9%
5.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
34.6%
17.9%
40%
5
1 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 499 500 to 999 >1000
Kalamazoo County Michigan
While Kalamazoo County continues to loose farmland and farm size
continues to fall, like other places in t
SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.
he state and nation, the agricultural land
maining has been farmed more intensively and the value of products sold
continues to rise. Over the last 15 years, the value of agricultural products sold in
the county has increased steadily. As revealed in the graph on the following
page, much of this increase in agricultural value is the result of growth in crop
value, which accounted for $109 million (70 percent) of Kalamazoo Countys
$155 million worth of agricultural products sold in 2002. Agricultural product sales
rank Kalamazoo fifth among counties statewide (USDA, 2002b).
re
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 13
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
16/38
Kalamazoo County Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold
SOURCE: USDA, 2002b, 1997 (adjusted to 2002 prices).
Of the 808 farms in Kalamazoo County, approximately 106 farms
comprise the local nursery, greenhouse, and floriculture industry
0
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20
1987 1992 1997 2002
Crop Value Livestock Value
M
illionDollars
(USDA, 2002e).
s revealed in the table below, Kalamazoo County has a substantial
oncen
Michigan) and has
relative locational adv
Location Quotients for Farms by NAICS*
A
c tration of these farms (as compared to other counties in southwest
over twice the concentration of nursery, greenhouse, and
floriculture farms as is found statewide.3 Kalamazoo also has a relative
concentration of oilseed and grain farms, which include seed corn, commercial
corn, and soybean farms. The location quotients for Kalamazoo suggest a
antage for these types of farms in Kalamazoo County.
County Greenhouse, Nursery,
& Floriculture Farms Grain Farms
Al legan 1.43 0.61Barr
Oilseed &
y 0.43 0.72Berrien 1.78 0.85Branch 0.19 1.41Calhoun 0.48 1.48
Kalamazoo 2.21 1.11Cass 0.73 1.31
St. Joseph 0.50 1.41Van Buren 1.22 0.58Michigan 1.00 1.00*North American Industry Classification System
SOURCE: USDA, 2002e.
3 Location quotients show a regions specialization in an industry. Those above are calculated asthe ratio of farms by type out of total farms in a county, to the comparable ratio in the state. LQ =1 means the county has the same concentration of that type of farm as is found statewide.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use14
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
17/38
In 2002, nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod sales compris
percent of Kalamazoo Countys total agricultural product sales. Once known as
The Celery City, the countys greenhouse industry one of the strongest i
nation has put Kalamazoo agriculture back on the map.
ed 55
n the
Market Value of Agr icul tural Products SoldTotal Sales $154,580,000Average per Farm $191,312
Crops $109,007,000Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas $20,309,000
Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes (D)
Fruit, tree nuts, and berries $912,000
Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod $85,385,000
Short-rotation woody crops $90,000
Other crops and hay (D)
Livestock, Poultry and Their Products $45,573,000Poultry and poultry products (D)Dairy products $3,805,000
Cattle and calves $11,456,000
Hogs and pigs $6,829,000
Sheep, goats, and their products $224,000
Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys $353,000
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms
Other animals and their products (D)
SOURCE: USDA, 2002b.
Nurseries and greenhouses typically have a relatively high dollar yield per
cre as compared to row crop and even specialty crop farms. In fact, with the
fewest acres of agricultural land in s
the region in terms of the market value of agricultural products per acre with a
value nearly three times that of the statewide average (see table on following
page). Moreover, the net cash farm income of operations in Kalamazoo County is
almost 2.3 times greater than the statewide average (USDA, 2002c).
In 2002, the market value of agricultural products sold in Kalamazoo
County was nearly $155 million (USDA, 2002b). This figure represents the value
of farm gate sales; however, it is an underestimate of the true economic impact
a
outhwest Michigan, Kalamazoo County leads
of the agricultural sector in the Kalamazoo economy.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 15
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
18/38
Southwest Michigan Market Values and Values per AcreCoun ty 2002 Mrkt Value 2002 Acres Mrkt Value/
Ag Prods. Sold of Farmland AcreAl legan $230,268,000 243,270 $947Barry $47,842,000 181,766 $263Berrien $96,716,000 174,009 $556Branch $64,904,000 253,690 $256Calhoun $64,443,000 239,913 $269
Cass $64,272,000 189,127 $340Kalamazoo $154,580,000 148,206 $1,043St. Joseph $93,660,000 230,624 $406Van Buren $96,724,000 176,260 $549SW Michigan $913,409,000 1,836,865 $497Michigan $3,772,435,000 10,142,958 $372
SOURCE: USDA, 2002b, 2002d.
Evaluating the value of tewide, researchers
stimate that only about 10 percent is directly attributable to on-farm production,
while 5
t
n. While
only es tor
nd a heritage of
knowledge ue,
diverse, and profitable agricultural industry in the county. However, as evident in
the following section, agricultural land and the agricultural economy in
Kalamazoo County is not immune from the pressures of urban expansion and the
resulting effects of land use change.
the entire agri-food system sta
e
0 percent is derived from agricultural support industries, and the
remaining 40 percent is generated through indirect and multiplier effects
(Peterson et al., 2006). Applying these figures to Kalamazoo County, the market
value of agricultural products sold in 2002 represents only 10 percent of the
countys $1.5 billion agri-food system. Under this scenario, agricultural suppor
industries in the county contribute $773 million and the circulation of these dollars
through the economy as multiplier effects add an additional $618 millio
timates, these figures reveal that the net impact of the agricultural sec
in the Kalamazoo marketplace is not measured solely by farm gate sales.
Agriculture in Kalamazoo County is a dominant player in the region and
state. Fertile soils, moderate summer temperatures, a
able and hardworking producers have all contributed to a uniq
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use16
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
19/38
KALAMAZOO COUNTY LAND USE CHANGE AND PROJ ECTIONS
1980 2040
The picture of land use change in Kalamazoo County tells a similar story
to that
by
f 20
me
more
recent
, 2002d).
ttern of
2020
of the state as a whole. According to the Michigan State University
Department of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems, from 1978
to 1999 the amount of land considered urban in Kalamazoo County grew
24,478 acres (47 percent) (MSU, 2004). In other words, over the course o
years, more land than is contained in one standard township was converted to
urbanized land.4 With this urban expansion around the City of Kalamazoo ca
the net loss of 12,209 acres of agricultural production land and 12,155 acres of
grass, shrubs, and forest land.5
In total, Kalamazoo County lost 34,942 acres (22
percent) of agricultural land between 1978 and 1999, including loses to urban
land. Therefore, a net 22,733 acres of agricultural land was converted to other
land covers including grass, shrub, forest, and wetland during this time. In
years, from 1997 to 2002, Kalamazoo County lost nearly 6,000 acres (4
percent) of farmland to developed uses and natural land covers (USDA
At face value, the conversion of agricultural land to grass, forest, and
wetland does not seem to be directly attributable to urban expansion.
Considering the value of ecological diversity and wildlife habitat, this pa
4 A standard township is 23,040 acres.5 Additionally, 116 acres of wetland were lost to urban land and 2 acres of urban land wereconverted to water, on net.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 17
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
20/38
land use succession may even be viewed as favorable. However, the succession
of farmland to naturally vegetated land is almost always indicative of future urban
expansion. For instance, development at the urban-rural interface induces rising
land prices which often entice farmers to forego farming and sell their land.6
When agricultural land changes hands and is taken out of production, it is often
left undeveloped until permitting has been approved or market conditions are
right for a particular business or franchise location. Therefore, agricultural land is
often only converted to grass, shrub, forest, or wetland in the short-term, before
ultimately being converted to urban land uses.
continu s,
change.In
Kalamazoo County Land Use Change Projections
SOURCE: Gage and Skole, 2001.
Projections of land use change in Kalamazoo County suggest the
ation of trends from the last 25 years. In fact, for some land use classe
what is happening in reality may even be outpacing projected land use
1999, Kalamazoo County was approximately 21 percent urban or built-up land
cterized by land use fragmentation, which isolates smallermore
onomically viable.
6 The urban-rural interface is also charatracts of farmland, making nuisance complaints more frequent, the movement of equipmentdifficult, and farming less ec
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use18
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
21/38
(MSU, 2004). According to the graph on the previous page, Kalamazoo County is
already nearing the amount of built land projected for the year 2020
(approximately 23 percent built). Agricultural land in the county comprised 41
percent of the land area in 2002, a figure that has already fallen below what i
projected in 2020 (approximately 43 percent built) (USDA, 2002d). If this trend
continues, Kalamazoo County will lose another 12,000 acres of farmland by
2040. While these projections suggest further farmland loss in the County, the
projections for forest, wetland, and other vegetated land overestimate the
realized land use change for these lands.
s
Of course, some of the conversion of rural land uses to urban ones is
planned for necessarily because of population growth in Kalamazoo and other
cities and villages in the county. However, like many other areas of the state, the
urban expansion around Kalamazoo is not solely the result of gains to the citys
population. As depicted in the chart below, the population of the City of
Kalamazoo has actually declined since 1990, while the population of Kalamazoo
County has grown modestly. In fact, Kalamazoo is experiencing decentralization
and a falling population density while the balance of the county is supporting a
growing population in rural and suburban areas.
Kalamazoo Population Change
7
1980 1990 2000 2005City of Kalamazoo 79,722 80,277 77,145 72,700
% Change 0.70% -3.90% -5.76%
Kalamazoo County 212,378 223,411 238,603 240,536% Change 5.19% 6.80% 0.81%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 1995, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c.
7 The amount of wetland and other vegetated land in Kalamazoo County actually remainedrelatively stable from 1980 to 1999 while the amount of forestland actually increased from 23percent of the county in 1980 to 26 percent in 1999 (MSU, 2004). The increase in forestland is
nted trees or allowed natural succession to occur.
the result of many factors, including conversion of marginal farmland, state and Federalconservation programs for farmland, tree planting on non-residential parcels, and large-lothousing development in which homeowners pla
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 19
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
22/38
A spatial analysis of the population change in Kalamazoo County also
reveals a trend of decentralization. The population of the City of Kala
been falling since at least 1990, with population gains in peripheral townships
such as Cooper, Oshtemo, and Texas upwards of 15 percent in just five years.
mazoo has
Kalamazoo County Population Change: 2000-2005
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c.
Much of the deve support these
peripheral increases in population is relatively low density. In fact, the ratio of
land development to population growth in and around Kalamazoo is 2.5:1,
eaning that land is developed 2.5 times faster than the population grows
d
lopment and housing being built to
m
(MLULC, 2003). A Michigan study of the costs associated with alternative
densities of development found that higher density development, when compare
to less compact spatial patterns of development, results in public utility costs
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use20
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
23/38
saving
ng
rivate housing units authorized by building permits within Kalamazoo Countys
urban areas has declined over time. The balance of the county experienced just
the opposite trend, with the issuance of building permits on the rise in 2005.
New Private Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits
s of 14-18 percent, 12 percent savings in road costs, and 7 percent in
housing costs (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 1997).
Kalamazoos urban expansion is also evident in the distribution of buildi
permits for private home construction. Since at least 1980, the number of new
p
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
200520
032001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
Urban Areas* Balance of County
*Urban areas include Kalamazoo City & Twp., Portage, Parchment and Galesburg
SOURCE: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 2006.
As housing and o rural areas of the
county d
to
e
from
or
ther development has increased in
, real estate values have also climbed. Adjusted for inflation, farmlan
values per acre in Kalamazoo County increased 81 percent from 1992 to 2002
approximately $3,500 per acre (see graph on following page). The statewid
average farm real estate value in 2002 was $2,700 per acre, up 84 percent
1992 (USDA, 2002d).8 As real estate values continue to rise and approach
surpass the economic return from farming, a farmer finds himself debating the
8 In 2006, the statewide average farm real estate value was $3,500 (USDA, 2006).
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 21
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
24/38
better investment for his familys future continued production or the sale of
farmland. Generally, as farmland begins to be sold in areas of growth, inflated
land pr
Kalamazoo County Average Real Estate Value per Acre
ices accelerate farmland conversion. Once sold and converted to another
use, farmland is seldom converted back to production agriculture.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,500
$3,500
$3,000
,
$2,000
1987 1992 1997 2002 SOURCE: USDA, 2002d, 1997 (adjusted to 2002 prices).
As the agricultural statistics in earlier sections revealed, despite fairly
substantial losses to farmland and farm size over the last 25 years, the
agricultural economy in Kalamazoo County has remained one of the most robust
in southwest Michigan. However, even
fluences and pressure ting swings in the real
estate
ss
a profitable farmer is subject to the
in s of population shifts and the resul
market. Considering land use and population trends suggest further
expansion of urban areas in the county, based on current policies, farmland lo
in Kalamazoo County is likely to continue.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use22
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
25/38
PLANNING FOR AGRICULTURE
The land use and agricultural trends and conditions presented in
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use describe a situation in which decisions and
policies are undermining the agricultural and natural resource foundations of the
tate. While
environmental, economic, and social health of all of Michigans residents. State
and local leaders face critical decisions regarding the use of Michigans land-
based resources.
In Michigan, local leaders have a tremendous opportunity to influence the
utilization of our land-based resources and the nature of our landscape through
local land use policy. Such policy is implemented through each local unit of
governments au higan Zoning
e
he
rt or
estrict or limit non-farm uses and the
onstruction of non-farm dwellings. There are two general types of agricultural
oning that are applicable for farmland preservation: exclusive agricultural zoning
nd area-based allocation.
s maintaining the status quo is an option, it is one that threatens the
thority to plan and zone for uses of land. The Mic
Enabling Act states in Section 201(3), A local unit of government may provid
under the zoning ordinance for the regulation of land development and t
establishment of districts which apply only to land areas and activities involved in
a special program to achieve specific land management objectives and ave
solve specific land use problems 9 With respect to agricultural land use, if
preserving farmland is a goal of a local unit of government, as outlined in the
local land use plan, that government may take steps to retain farmland by
creating agricultural zoning districts which r
c
z
a
9 P.A. 110 of 2006 (M.C.L. 125.3101-125.3702).
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 23
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
26/38
Exclusive Agricultura
o other
.
Area-B
r
At
to
el
an allowable minimum and maximum size and are
quired to be adjacent to one another. Sliding scale zoning is suited for areas in
l Zoning
Exclusive agricultural zoning restricts the conversion of farmland t
uses and the construction of new non-farm dwellings within the district. This
technique is most useful when farming is the dominant land use and parcels
remain in large, contiguous blocks with few non-farm dwellings. Exclusive
agricultural zoning not only effectively retains larger, more economically viable
agricultural parcels, it also helps preserve farmland by minimizing conflicts
between land uses
ased Allocation
Area-based allocation is a zoning technique that sets an allowable numbe
of building lot splits based on the size of the parent parcel (the lot of record).
fixed scales, area-based allocation might permit two building lot splits per 40
acres.10 Typically, the lot splits have an allowable minimum and maximum size
and are required to be adjacent to one another to retain the parent parcels
potential for continued farming. As opposed to exclusive agricultural zoning,
area-based allocation permits some non-farm uses in agricultural areas and is
therefore less effective at preserving farmland.
Area-based allocation can also be applied with a sliding scale, called
sliding scale zoning. This technique allows the number of building lot splits
increase as the size of the parent parcel increases, but at a decreasing rate. For
instance, a sliding scale zone might allow one building lot split if the parent parc
is 10 acres or less, but only allow five splits if the parcel is between 80 and 160
acres. Again, lot splits have
re
10 When building lot density in such a zone is based on 40 acres, the zoning is often referred to
640 acre section of land).as quarter/quarter zoning (40 acres is of of a
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use24
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
27/38
which farmland is fragmented and development is already occurring and should
not be
s,
that
e limited effectiveness for farmland preservation because,
nly applicable to land that is zoned for residential use.
When
ired
f
e as
ral
ent to be concentrated on a
portion g
on
applied in areas that are predominantly agricultural if retention of large
blocks of productive farmland is the goal.
There are other types of zoning that help limit or reduce the pressure to
develop agricultural land through the regulation of non-agricultural land use
most notably residential land uses. These zoning techniques include large lot
zoning and open space/cluster development. However, it must be stressed
these techniques hav
by definition, they are o
a community zones predominantly agricultural land for residential use, it
has already planned for the fate of the land within the district.
Large lot zoning is the practice of increasing the minimum lot size requ
in residential zoning districts where farming still exists. Depending on the goals o
the community, the minimum lot size may be as small as 10 acres or as larg
640 acres. Large lot zoning can be successful at maintaining some level of ru
character in a zoning district, but will not always effectively preserve farmland.
Clustering allows for residential developm
of the parent parcel with smaller lot sizes than are typical in the zonin
district. This technique is also referred to as conservation design or conservati
development because it allows for development while retaining farmland and/or
open space. Clustering is a technique used in residential zones and, in Michigan,
can only be initiated by the landowner.11 This technique may be somewhat
effective for farmland preservation if buffers are retained between residential
uses and agricultural uses in order to reduce land use conflicts.
11 See Section 506 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (P.A. 110 of 2006, M.C.L. 125.3101-125.3702) for specific statutory details.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 25
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
28/38
In addition to the statutory authority to plan and zone for uses of land,
local leaders can establish state approved farmland preservation programs. In
2000, Public Act 262 was signed into law expanding farmland preservation
opport
e
a
lecting farmland
parcels
farmland preservation programs have been certified by the MDA for participation
unities in Michigan by authorizing the establishment of local purchase of
development rights (PDR) programs.12 The statute created the structure for th
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) to award grants to local units of
government for the purchase of development rights on qualified farmland.13 In
general, to be eligible to receive grant funding from the state for the purchase of
farmland development rights, a county or local unit of government must adopt
development rights ordinance establishing the local PDR program. The
ordinance must include an application procedure, criteria for se
for preservation, and a method to establish the price to be paid for a
landowners development rights. Additionally, a participating local unit of
government must have a land use plan that has been reviewed and/or updated
within the last five years and includes agricultural preservation as a significant
goal.14 As of September 2006, 14 countywide programs and 16 township
in the PDR program (see map on following page). Numerous other counties,
including Cass, St. J oseph, and Branch Counties in southwest Michigan, are
currently developing farmland preservation programs to participate in the PDR
program.
(M.C.L. 324.101-324.90106).rams refer to the
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27751/FS_PACE_9-98.pdf.14 The MDAs Policies and Procedures for the Michigan Agricultural Preservation Fund are
A_REVMAPFBApplicationProcess_117312_7.pdf.
12 Now Part 363 of 1994 P.A. 451, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
13 For more information on the details of purchase of development rights progfact sheet produced by the American Farmland Trust, available at:
available at:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MD
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use26
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
29/38
SOURCE: Michigan Department of Agriculture, 2006.
Researchers and public policy officials have begun to target specific ar
for farmland preservation in the state. Michigan State Universitys Land P
Institute developed a number of indicators for identifying the most productive and
resilient farmland acres for preservation. A total of 22 indicators comprise four
broad categories for measuring agricultural resiliency, including
agricultural/ecological factors, economic factors, social factors, and land use
characteristics. Each of Michigans 83 counties was evaluated with the individ
indicators. The scores were then aggregated to create an overall measure of
agricultural resiliency. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being least resilient and 10
being mos
eas
olicy
ual
t resilient), Kalamazoo County received an aggregate score of 9. Only
13 other counties received scores of 9 or greater (see map on following page).
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 27
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
30/38
Aggregate Resiliency Scores for Michigan Count ies
SOURCE: Derived from Adelaja et al., 2006.
The leading counties, in terms of agricultural resiliency, are generally
found in south central, southwest, and southeast Michigan. Based on agronomic
conditions, proximity to markets, and the concentration of viable commodities,
Kalamazoo is one of the states most desirable counties in terms of targeting for
farmland preservation (Adelaja et al., 2006). Of course, it is ultimately up to local
leaders and the community to decide whether farmland preservation is a
desirable and beneficial local land use policy. It is the objective ofKalamazoo
Agricultural Land Use not to suggest specific changes in local land use policies,
but to inform land use decision makers about the impacts to the agricultural land
base and economy. The goal of informing the current land use dialogue is to
strengthen existing efforts and initiate new efforts toward achieving smarter
growth for Kalamazoo County.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use28
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
31/38
TOWARD SMARTER GROWTH
In J anuary of 2003, Kiran Cunningham and Hannah McKinney released
Smarter Growth for Kalamazoo County, a report focused on the preservation of
unique and special places in Kalamazoo County. Cunningham and McKinney
(2003) suggest the key to smarter growth is to understand where development
should take place and where
natural features should be
preserved. Developed through
the Convening Our Community
project, the report includes the
results of a countywid
which more than 50 percent of
respondents expressed concern
for further farmland loss. The
report also makes a number of recommendations for Kalamazoo County to
achieve smarter growth, some of which are currently being pursued by
Kalamazoo County, local units of government, and citizen organizations in the
county. Readers are encouraged to review this report and its recommendations
for Kalamazoo County.
In pursuing smarter growth for Kalamazoo County, it must be stressed
the importance of inter-municipal communication and cooperation in planning for
and implementing successful land use policies. This is not an easy task given the
structure of land use decision making in Michigan. For instance, in Kalamazoo
County there are four cities, five villages, and 15 townships making land use
decisions as independent local units of government. This is typical of counties in
The Tenets of Smart Growth:1. Mix land uses.2. Take advantage of compact building design.3. Create a range of housing opportunities and
choices.4. Create walkable neighborhoods.5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a
strong sense of place.
6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beautyand critical environmental areas.evelopment towards
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices., fair
SOURCE: The Smart Growth Network.
7. Strengthen and direct dexisting communities.
e survey in
9. Make development decisions predictableand cost effective.
10. Encourage community and stakeholdercollaboration.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 29
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
32/38
central and southern se decisions are
ies. Howeve
,
re ipal
l
nder the Michigan Department of Agricultures Farmland
and Op s
Michigan in which the majority of land u
made at the local level.15 Of course, no one is more knowledgeable and familiar
with a communitys goals and aspirations, its community character, and its
residents and land owners than the local unit of government. Having such a
sound understanding of the pulse of the community speaks volumes for the
success of local land use polic
local. The proverbial phrase
single land use decision can ha
the local unit of government and
quantity are not the only regiona
economic development, and farml
given regional consideration if th
With amendments to the P
Legislature took steps to ensu
lines with respect to local land use planning.16 Local units of government are
encouraged to take advantage of these new opportunities to review and
comment on neighboring municipalities comprehensive plans. Also, many loca
units of government are collaborating at the county level by establishing farmland
preservation programs u
r, land use issues are inherently non-
we all live down stream, refers to this notion that a
ve far reaching effects on neighbors, both within
in neighboring jurisdictions. Water quality and
l issues tied to land use transportation,
and preservation are all issues that must be
e policies to address them are to be successful.
lanning Enabling Acts in 2002, the Michigan
a basic level of communication across munic
en Space Preservation Program. The creation of such programs enable
local units of government to receive grant funding for the purchase of agricultural
conservation easements on priority farmland. Still more opportunities and
In total, the state of Michigan has over 1,850 local units of government exercising the authoto make land use decisions through planning and zoning. The average state in the U.S. has
16 Being the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285 of 1931; M.C.L. 125.31-125.41), the TownshipPlanning Act (P.A. 168 of 1959; M.C.L. 125.321-125.333), and the County Planning Act (P.A. 282
15 rity
between 300 and 500 such local units of government.
of 1945; M.C.L. 125.101-125.115).
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use30
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
33/38
structures exist for communication and collaboration across municipal lines; bo
the Regional Planning Act (P.A. 281 of 1945; M.C.L. 125.11-125.25) and the
J oint Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 226 of 2003; M.C.L. 125.131-125.143)
authorize the formation of regional planning commissions for the developmen
regional plans or the administration of joint municipal zoning. These statutes
create new opportunities and tools for local units of government to actively
pursue more environmentally, economically, and socially healthy communities.
By capitalizing on such opportunities with respect to local land use policy,
community leaders can set Kalamazoo County and the state of Michigan on a
course of prosperity.
Readers are encouraged to also review the recommendations made in
Smarter Growth for Kalamazoo County, Michigans Land, Michigans Future:
th
t of
Final R
eport of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council, and the Michigan
Land Resource Project, all referenced at the end of this document and available
on the Internet.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 31
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
34/38
Is your municipality on its way toward Smart Growth?
Wh
Wh
Wh d?
How lder lots inthe
Is th actcenters to l
Where are commercial/industrial and residential uses located in relation to each other?
How has your municipality planned for future streets?
What actions is your municipality taking to protect natural areas?
What local commissions and/or organizations
Do
How
Wh
What strategies does your comprehensive plan have for protecting farmland?
Does your comprehensive plan map the location of farms and prime agricultural soils?
What densities of development does your zoning permit on farmland?
Is there local support for farming and/or forestry through tax abatements, and/or dedicatedfunding to help purchase or protect prime working land?
How do lo l regulations provide for meeting diverse housing needs?
How does local zoning encourage business development in city/village centers?
How active is your community in planning?To what extent was the public involved in developing the comprehensive plan?
Are citizens active in community planning, development, and resource protection throughother organizations?
SOURCE: Derived from The Vermont Forum on Sprawl, 2000.
ere is most commercial and industrial growth occurring?
ere is most new residential growth occurring?
ere are your current municipalitys public buildings, and where are they planne
do sizes of newer lots in your municipality compare to the typical sizes of osame area?
ere a distinct pattern to densities in local zoning - from higher densities in compower densities in outlying areas?
are active in environmental protection?
residents have local access to open space for hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.?
do local regulations provide for open space in new developments?
ere is most development in your municipality located?
ca
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use32
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
35/38
Places to Turn:
American Association of Planning Smart Growth Codesttp://www.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes)
d Management
orm-Based Codes Institute (http://www.formbasedcodes.org/resource.html)
.gvmc.org/landuse/index.shtml)
dex.html)
SU Land Policy Institute (http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/index.html)
e.cc)
e.msu.edu/wexford/LU)
mart Growth America (http://www.smartgrowtha
mart Growth Readiness Assessment Tool (http://www.citizenplanner.msu.edu)
he Smart Growth Network (http://www.smartgrowth.org)
(h
Convening for Action (http://www.kzoo.edu/convene)
Economic Research Service Land Use, Value, an
(http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse)
Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities(http://www.fundersnetwork.org)
FGrand Valley Metropolitan Council (http://www
Kalamazoo County Department of Planning and Community Development(http://www.kalcounty.com/planning/index.htm)
ichigan Association of Planning (http://www.planningmi.org)MMichigan Department of Agriculture Farmland Preservation(http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_2558---,00.html)
Michigan Environmental Portal (http://www.environment.msu.edu/mep/index.php)
Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (http://www.michiganlanduse.org/in
Michigan Legislature (http://www.legislature.mi.gov)
Michigan State University Extension Citizen Planner Program(http://www.citizenplanner.msu.edu)
MSU Extension Land Use Area of Expertise Team(http://ntweb11.ais.msu.edu/luaoe/index.asp)
M
Partnerships For Change (http://www.partnershipsforchang
Planning and Zoning Center at MSU (http://www.pzcenter.msu.edu)
Resolving Land Use Disputes Lincoln Institute of Land Policyttp://www.resolvinglandusedisputes.org)(h
Schindlers Land Use Page (http://web1.msu
Sierra Club Stopping Sprawl (http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl)
Smart Growth EPA (http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth)
S merica.org)
S
T
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 33
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
36/38
WORKS CITED
, S. Gage, and M. Heller. Marchrmland Preservation in Michigan: Targeting
re Report by The MSU Land Policypolicy.msu.edu/reports.
st of
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf
nity Values ofse of Prime Agricultural Land.Southern Journal of
2-8.
eport.pdf.
onal Ecology andstem Services, Michiganr Consultants, Inc. and
d.htm.
Case Study.Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59: 12-19.
line, J ., and D. Wichelns. 1994. Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support ford Economics, 70(2): 223-33.
Journal of Soil and Water
rmland Preservation, AgriculturalPrograms. Available:
-1567_1599_2558---,00.html.
ichigans Future:red for Governor
of Michigan. Available:http://www.michiganlanduse.org/finalreport.htm.
ichigan State University. April 2004. Land Use / Land Cover Change Project: Kalamazoo.
orris, Patricia E. and Deaton, B. J ames. 2001. Understanding the Demand for Farmland
iversity Staff Paper
arys Agri-Food System. The Strategic
ed for
/index.htm.
Adelaja, S., M.B. Lake, M. Colunga-Garcia, M. Hamm, J . Bingen2006. Acreage and Funding Goals for FaResiliency, Diversity and Flexibility. A Viable AgricultuInstitute, Report #2006-1. Available: http://www.land
American Farmland Trust (AFT), Farmland Information Center. August 2004. Fact Sheet: Co
Community Services Studies. Available:
Bergstrom, J .C., B.L. Dillman, and J .R. Stoll. 1985. Public Environmental AmeUrban Fringe Farmland: The Ca
Agricultural Economics, 17: 139-150.
Berry, D. 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Agricultural Activities.Growth and Change, 9(3):Cunningham, Kiran, and Hannah McKinney. J anuary 2003. Smarter Growth for
Kalamazoo County. Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo College. Available:http://www.kzoo.edu/convene/complete%20r
Gage, S.H. and D.L. Skole. 2001.Michigan Tipping Point
. ComputatiVisualization Laboratory, and Global Observatory for EcosyState University. Developed in cooperation with Public SectoPeople and Land. Available: http://www.cevl.msu.edu/pages/lulc/peoplelan
Halstead, J .M. 1984. Measuring the Non-market Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A
KPurchasing Development Rights to Farmland.Lan
Libby, L.W. 1993. "The Natural Resource Limits of U.S. Agriculture."
Conservation, 48: 289-294.
Michigan Department of Agriculture. September 2006. FaPreservation Fund. Map of Local Qualified PDRhttp://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125
Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. August 15, 2003. Michigans Land, M
Final Report of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. PrepaJ ennifer Granholm and the Michigan Legislature. Lansing: State
M
County, Michigan. Research and Outreach Services, RS & GISN
Preservation: Implications for Michigan Policies.Michigan State Un2001-18.
eterson, H. Christopher, William A. Knudson and Getachew Abate. J anuP2006. The Economic Impact and Potential of MichiganMarketing Institute, Working Paper 1-1606. Michigan State University Product Center forAgriculture and Natural Resources.
Public Sector Consultants, Inc. November 2001. Michigan Land Resource Project. Preparthe Frey Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on behalf of the MichiganEconomic and Environmental Roundtable. Lansing, Mich.: PSC. Available:http://www.publicsectorconsultants.com/Documents/lbilu
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use34
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
37/38
Rosenberger, R.S. 1998. Public P ref oals of Farmland PreservationPrograms: Comment.Land E 5.
outhea e Land
.S. Ce tFinder. 1990
U.S. Ce bypiled and edited by R.L. Forstall. Available:
ion Estimates.es of Michigan:
005-01-26.xls.
in
ountyps,
timates and Demographic Components of Population
.S. De 97. 1997
U.S. Deounty Summary Highlights: 2002.
.pdf.
.S. De rvice. 2002b. 2002
c. 2002
df.
erences Regarding the Gconomics, 74(4): 557-6
Sorensen, A. Ann, Richard P. Greene and Karen Russ. March 1997. Farming on the Edge.
American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture in the Environment: DeKalb, Illinois.
st Michigan Council of Governments. J une 1997. Fiscal Impacts of AlternativSDevelopment Patterns in Michigan: The Costs of Current Development Versus CompactGrowth. Final Report.
nsus Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. American FacUSummary Tape File 1.
nsus Bureau, Population Division. March 27, 1995. Michigan Population of CountiesDecennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Comhttp://www.nwm.cog.mi.us/data/CensusTrends/MI-Counties-Pop-1900-1990.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Federal-State Cooperative for Populatr CountiMarch 16, 2006a. Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population fo
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (CP-EST2005-01-26). Available:http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-EST2
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates.J une 21, 2006b. Table 5: Annual Estimates of the Population for Minor Civil DivisionsMichigan: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (SUB-EST2005-05-26). Available:http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2005-05-26.xls.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Branch, Federal-StateCooperative for Population Estimates. J une 21, 2006c. Estimates of SubcPopulation for 2000-2005. Estimated Population of Counties, Cities, Villages, Townshiand Remainders of Townships. Table prepared by the Library of Michigan. Available:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_lm_census_sc2005-cvtr_163285_7.xls.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program. December 29, 1999.ST-99-2 State Population Es
Change: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999. Available:http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/ST-99-02.txt.
partment of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 19UCensus of Agriculture County Data. Table 1 County Summary Highlights: 1987, 1992,and 1997. Available: http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/
partment of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002a.2002Census of Agriculture County Data. Table 1 CAvailable: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_001_001
partment of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics SeUCensus of Agriculture County Data. Table 2 Market Value of Agricultural ProductsSold Including Direct and Organic: 2002 and 1997. Available:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_002_002.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002Census of Agriculture County Data. Table 4 Net Cash Farm Income of the Operationsand Operators: 2002. Available:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_004_004.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002d. 2002Census of Agriculture County Data. Table 8 Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Landand Buildings, and Land Use: 2002 and 1997. Available:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_008_008.p
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 35
7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
38/38
partment of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural StaU.S. De tistics Service. 2002e. 2002Census of Agriculture County Data. Table 51 Farms by North American Industry
ganic: 2002 and 1997. Available:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st99_2_002_002.pdf.
U.S. De USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service, Michigan FieldOffice Michigan Department of Agriculture. 2006. Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2005-
tical_B
l
ilable:
.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. J une 21, 2006. West Michigan Dataing Permit
J odi Ann Victor
Classification System: 2002. Available:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/MIVolume104.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002f.2002Census of Agriculture State Data. Table 2 Market Value of Agricultural Products SoldIncluding Direct and Or
partment of Agriculture (
2006. Available:http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Michigan/Publications/Annual_Statisulletin/stats06/agstat06all.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, and StatisticaLaboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 2000.Summary Report: 1997 NationalResources Inventory (revised December 2000), 89 pages. Avahttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/.
Vermont Forum on Sprawl. October 2000. The Vermont Smart Growth Scorecard: A CommunitySelf-Assessment Tool. A Way to Grow! Publication. Available:http://www.vtsprawl.org/Pdfs/SPRAWLscorecard.pdf.
WCenter/Business Outlook, West Michigan Regional Database: Kalamazoo BuildData. Available: http://www.upjohninst.org/regional/bldgpermits.pdf.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Oversight:Ann Nieuwenhuis
Research and Writing:Brad Neumann
J eanne Himmelein
Copy Editing:Richard A. VictorKaren SmeltzerDean Solomon
Fi i l S
Top Related