Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

7/29/2019 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

1/38

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

A report on land use trendsrelated to agriculture.

J anuary 2007


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


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


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


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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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%


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


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.



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



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



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


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





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


While Kalamazoo County continues to loose farmland and farm size

continues to fall, like other places in t


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



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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).



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.



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).



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



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.



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



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).



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.



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.



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).



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.



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



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



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



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



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

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	071975mlv
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times