Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use
A report on land use trends related to agriculture.

January 2007

CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………….. 1

Background………………………………………………. 2

Land Use Trends………………………………………… 6

Michigan and Kalamazoo Agriculture…………………. 11

Kalamazoo County Land Use Change and Projections……………………………….….. 17

Planning for Agriculture…………………………………. 23

Toward Smarter Growth………………………………… 29

Works Cited……………………………………………… 34

Acknowledgements……………………………………… 36

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use ii

INTRODUCTION

The 2001 Michigan Land Resource Project study projected that if current land use patterns continue, by 2040 – a generation from now – Michigan’s built or developed areas will increase by 178 percent. That would mean that 17 percent of Michigan would be developed compared to the present 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 County’s and Michigan’s 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

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 nation’s 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 agrifood 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

2

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

nation’s 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. Michigan’s agrifood system employs over one million people and produces just over $60 billion in economic activity annually, making Michigan’s 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

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

4

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

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 Michigan’s 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

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 Jersey, currently America’s ‘most built’ state with 26 percent developed area” (p. 11). In Michigan, such ‘growth’ is not solely the result of increases in population – Michigan’s 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 Michigan’s 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 one’s farmland perpetuates the cycle of rural land conversion, referred to as the Impermanence Syndrome on the following page.

6

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

The Impermanence Syndrome
Area becomes mostly residential

Higher land prices Conflicts in land use Increased traffic More nuisance complaints Pressures on farm operation and viability Loss of farm suppliers/processors Conversion of farmland to other land uses

Increased housing development

Rural character attracts new residents

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 2002
County Allegan Barry Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Kalamazoo St. Joseph Van Buren SW Michigan Michigan Acreage 529,578 355,926 365,440 324,744 453,578 314,995 359,593 322,382 390,951 3,417,187 36,354,446 Change Acres of Farmland 1997 2002 250,185 243,270 -6,915 178,311 181,766 3,455 185,809 174,009 -11,800 249,326 253,690 4,364 259,840 239,913 -19,927 185,418 189,127 3,709 154,185 148,206 -5,979 230,145 230,624 479 189,432 176,260 -13,172 1,882,651 1,836,865 -45,786 10,443,935 10,142,958 -300,977 SOURCE: USDA, 2002d. Percent Percent Change Farmland -2.8 45.9 1.9 51.1 -6.8 47.6 1.7 78.1 -8.3 52.9 2.0 60.0 -4.0 41.2 0.2 71.5 -7.5 45.1 -2.5 53.8 -3.0 27.9

1

In 1997 several types of commodity production (including maple syrup and Christmas tree production) were added to the definition of farmland totaling 170,000 acres statewide. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 7

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 development (Sorensen, 1997). Projected Land Use Trend: 1980 to 2040

2040

2020 1980

Built Agriculture Other vegetation Forest Lake Wetland

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.

8

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

Land Uses: 1980 and 2040 Acreage Projections
Class of Land Use 1980* 2040* Change* Agriculture 11.0 9.1 -1.9 Private Forestland 18.2 16.9 -1.3 Other Vegetation 2.9 2.2 -0.7 Wetland 1.8 1.4 -0.2 Developed (Built) 2.3 6.4 4.1 *million acres SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001. Change -17% -8% -24% -10% 178%

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 Michigan’s metropolitan counties, which have, on average, 42 percent of their land base in farmland (PSC, 2001). 2 Kalamazoo County, which is considered a metropolitan county, has 41 percent of its land base in farmland (USDA, 2002d).

Projected Agricultural Land Use Change: 1980 to 2040

1980

2040

Agriculture Other land use

SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants, 2001.

2

Metropolitan counties are counties within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). A MSA, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 9

With projected losses in farmland, Michigan also faces projected losses in agriculture diversity by 2040. Projected losses in some of Michigan’s most valuable agricultural products are highlighted below.

Projected Acreage Loss by Product: 1980 to 2040
Type of Agricultural Land Change Orchard 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 declines in crop acreages, the Michigan Land Resource Project predicts that increased yields per acre will more than offset reduced 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 2040, but total milk production will continue to increase. Thus food security is not projected to be a problem for Michigan over the next 35 years. However, 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. While population growth has been a factor, much of this change 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 social health of the state, decision makers are faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or steering the state toward a more prosperous future.
10 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

MICHIGAN AND KALAMAZOO AGRICULTURE
In 2004, agriculture contributed $60.1 billion to Michigan's economy making it the second largest industry in the state. Employing 1.05 million people directly and indirectly, the industry accounts for 24 percent of Michigan’s workers. Of the state’s 727,000 people directly employed in the agri-food system, over 72,000 are farm proprietors or wage/salary farm workers (Peterson et al., 2006). Michigan’s 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 the production of 25 other agriculture commodities. The production and sale of milk, corn, soybeans, cattle, hogs, annual bedding plants, and woody ornamentals provide the highest cash receipts for the state
Michigan leads in the production of: ƒ Beans, dry, black, cwt (hundred weight) ƒ Beans, dry, cranberry, cwt ƒ Beans, dry, light red kidney, cwt ƒ Beans, dry, navy, cwt ƒ Beans, dry, small red, cwt ƒ Blueberries, pounds ƒ Cherries, tart, pounds ƒ Cucumbers (for pickles), tons ƒ Flowering hanging baskets, number ƒ Geraniums (seed and cuttings), pots ƒ Impatiens, flats ƒ Petunias, flats

(USDA, 2006). In terms of total market value of agricultural products sold, Michigan ranks 22nd among the states (USDA, 2002f). Michigan has approximately 10.1 million acres of farmland and is home to 53,315 farms, 29,071 of which serve as the proprietor’s primary occupation (USDA, 2002d). In 2002, the average farm size in the state was 190 acres, five acres smaller than just five years before. On average, farms in Kalamazoo County are slightly smaller than the average farm in the state. Smaller than average farm size is a characteristic Kalamazoo County shares with other

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

11

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 (approximately 6,000 acres lost) only contributed to the loss of one farm; however, the average size of farms in Kalamazoo County declined more sharply than the average farm in the state.

Kalamazoo and Michigan Farms
Kalamazoo County 1997 2002 Number of Farms 809 808 Land in Farms (acres) 154,185 148,206 Average Farm Size (acres) 191 183 Percent in Farms 41.2% SOURCE: USDA, 2002d. Michigan 1997 2002 53,519 53,315 10,443,935 10,142,958 195 190 27.9%

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 county’s farms are larger than 1,000 acres (USDA, 2002d).

Percent of Farms by Size
60% 53.7% 50% 41.1% 40% 30% 20% 11.3% 10% 0% 1 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 499 500 to 999 > 1000 25.5% 15.0% 8.4% 5.4% 1.1% 3.7% 34.9% Kalam azoo C ounty M ichigan

SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.

12

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

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 percent of the county’s farmland, a number consistent with the statewide average. Farms greater than 1,000 acres held almost 18 percent of the county’s 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
50% Kalam azoo C ounty 40% 45.6% 30% 22.9% 20% 10% 0% 1 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 499 500 to 999 > 1000 17.9% 12.8% 6.3% 5.2% 17.7% 19.5% 17.5% 34.6% M ichigan

SOURCE: USDA, 2002d.

While Kalamazoo County continues to loose farmland and farm size continues to fall, like other places in the state and nation, the agricultural land remaining 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 County’s $155 million worth of agricultural products sold in 2002. Agricultural product sales rank Kalamazoo fifth among counties statewide (USDA, 2002b).

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

13

Kalamazoo County Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold
180 160 140 C rop Value Livestock Value

Million Dollars

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

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 (USDA, 2002e). As revealed in the table below, Kalamazoo County has a substantial concentration of these farms (as compared to other counties in southwest Michigan) and has 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 relative locational advantage for these types of farms in Kalamazoo County.

Location Quotients for Farms by NAICS*
Greenhouse, Nursery, Oilseed & & Floriculture Farms Grain Farms Allegan 1.43 0.61 0.43 0.72 Barry Berrien 1.78 0.85 Branch 0.19 1.41 Calhoun 0.48 1.48 Cass 0.73 1.31 Kalamazoo 2.21 1.11 St. Joseph 0.50 1.41 Van Buren 1.22 0.58 Michigan 1.00 1.00 *North American Industry Classification System SOURCE: USDA, 2002e. County
3

Location quotients show a region’s specialization in an industry. Those above are calculated as the 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 Use

14

In 2002, nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod sales comprised 55 percent of Kalamazoo County’s total agricultural product sales. Once known as “The Celery City,” the county’s greenhouse industry – one of the strongest in the nation – has put Kalamazoo agriculture back on the map.

Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold
Total Sales $154,580,000 Average per Farm $191,312 Crops $109,007,000 Grains, 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 $45,573,000 Poultry 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 Other animals and their products (D) (D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms SOURCE: USDA, 2002b.

Nurseries and greenhouses typically have a relatively high dollar yield per acre as compared to row crop and even specialty crop farms. In fact, with the fewest acres of agricultural land in southwest Michigan, Kalamazoo County leads 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 of the agricultural sector in the Kalamazoo economy.
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 15

Southwest Michigan Market Values and Values per Acre
County Allegan Barry Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Kalamazoo St. Joseph Van Buren SW Michigan Michigan 2002 Mrkt Value 2002 Acres Ag Prods. Sold of Farmland $230,268,000 243,270 $47,842,000 181,766 $96,716,000 174,009 $64,904,000 253,690 $64,443,000 239,913 $64,272,000 189,127 $154,580,000 148,206 $93,660,000 230,624 $96,724,000 176,260 $913,409,000 1,836,865 $3,772,435,000 10,142,958 SOURCE: USDA, 2002b, 2002d. Mrkt Value/ Acre $947 $263 $556 $256 $269 $340 $1,043 $406 $549 $497 $372

Evaluating the value of the entire agri-food system statewide, researchers estimate that only about 10 percent is directly attributable to on-farm production, while 50 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 county’s $1.5 billion agri-food system. Under this scenario, agricultural support industries in the county contribute $773 million and the circulation of these dollars through the economy as multiplier effects add an additional $618 million. While only estimates, these figures reveal that the net impact of the agricultural sector 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, and a heritage of knowledgeable and hardworking producers have all contributed to a unique, 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.
16 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

KALAMAZOO COUNTY LAND USE CHANGE AND PROJECTIONS

1980

2020

2040

The picture of land use change in Kalamazoo County tells a similar story to that 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 by 24,478 acres (47 percent) (MSU, 2004). In other words, over the course of 20 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 came 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 more recent years, from 1997 to 2002, Kalamazoo County lost nearly 6,000 acres (4 percent) of farmland to developed uses and natural land covers (USDA, 2002d). 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 pattern of
4 5

A standard township is 23,040 acres. Additionally, 116 acres of wetland were lost to urban land and 2 acres of urban land were converted to water, on net. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 17

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.

Kalamazoo County Land Use Change Projections

SOURCE: Gage and Skole, 2001.

Projections of land use change in Kalamazoo County suggest the continuation of trends from the last 25 years. In fact, for some land use classes, what is happening in reality may even be outpacing projected land use change. In 1999, Kalamazoo County was approximately 21 percent urban or built-up land
6

The urban-rural interface is also characterized by land use fragmentation, which isolates smaller tracts of farmland, making nuisance complaints more frequent, the movement of equipment more difficult, and farming less economically viable. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

18

(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 is 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. 7 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 city’s 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
1990 2000 2005 City of Kalamazoo 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. 1980 79,722

The amount of wetland and other vegetated land in Kalamazoo County actually remained relatively stable from 1980 to 1999 while the amount of forestland actually increased from 23 percent of the county in 1980 to 26 percent in 1999 (MSU, 2004). The increase in forestland is the result of many factors, including conversion of marginal farmland, state and Federal conservation programs for farmland, tree planting on non-residential parcels, and large-lot housing development in which homeowners planted trees or allowed natural succession to occur. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 19

7

A spatial analysis of the population change in Kalamazoo County also reveals a trend of decentralization. The population of the City of Kalamazoo has 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.

Kalamazoo County Population Change: 2000-2005

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006c.

Much of the development and housing being built to 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, meaning that land is developed 2.5 times faster than the population grows (MLULC, 2003). A Michigan study of the costs associated with alternative densities of development found that higher density development, when compared to less compact spatial patterns of development, results in public utility costs
20 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

savings of 14-18 percent, 12 percent savings in road costs, and 7 percent in housing costs (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 1997). Kalamazoo’s urban expansion is also evident in the distribution of building permits for private home construction. Since at least 1980, the number of new private housing units authorized by building permits within Kalamazoo County’s 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
1,200 Urban A reas* Balance of County 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 95 19 81 19 97 19 93 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05

*Urban areas include Kalamazoo City & Twp., Portage, Parchment and Galesburg SOURCE: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 2006.

As housing and other development has increased in rural areas of the county, real estate values have also climbed. Adjusted for inflation, farmland values per acre in Kalamazoo County increased 81 percent from 1992 to 2002 to approximately $3,500 per acre (see graph on following page). The statewide average farm real estate value in 2002 was $2,700 per acre, up 84 percent from 1992 (USDA, 2002d). 8 As real estate values continue to rise and approach or 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

better investment for his family’s future – continued production or the sale of farmland. Generally, as farmland begins to be sold in areas of growth, inflated land prices accelerate farmland conversion. Once sold and converted to another use, farmland is seldom converted back to production agriculture.

Kalamazoo County Average Real Estate Value per Acre
$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 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 a profitable farmer is subject to the influences and pressures of population shifts and the resulting swings in the real estate market. Considering land use and population trends suggest further expansion of urban areas in the county, based on current policies, farmland loss in Kalamazoo County is likely to continue.

22

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

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 state. While maintaining the status quo is an option, it is one that threatens the environmental, economic, and social health of all of Michigan’s residents. State and local leaders face critical decisions regarding the use of Michigan’s landbased 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 government’s authority to plan and zone for uses of land. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act states in Section 201(3), “A local unit of government may provide under the zoning ordinance for the regulation of land development and the establishment of districts which apply only to land areas and activities involved in a special program to achieve specific land management objectives and avert or 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 restrict or limit non-farm uses and the construction of non-farm dwellings. There are two general types of agricultural zoning that are applicable for farmland preservation: exclusive agricultural zoning and area-based allocation.

9

P.A. 110 of 2006 (M.C.L. 125.3101-125.3702). Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 23

Exclusive Agricultural Zoning Exclusive agricultural zoning restricts the conversion of farmland to other 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. Area-Based Allocation Area-based allocation is a zoning technique that sets an allowable number of building lot splits based on the size of the parent parcel (the lot of record). At 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 parcel’s 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 to 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 parcel is 10 acres or less, but only allow five splits if the parcel is between 80 and 160 acres. Again, lot splits have an allowable minimum and maximum size and are required to be adjacent to one another. Sliding scale zoning is suited for areas in
10

When building lot density in such a zone is based on 40 acres, the zoning is often referred to as quarter/quarter zoning (40 acres is ¼ of ¼ of a 640 acre section of land). 24 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

which farmland is fragmented and development is already occurring and should not be 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 uses, most notably residential land uses. These zoning techniques include large lot zoning and open space/cluster development. However, it must be stressed that these techniques have limited effectiveness for farmland preservation because, by definition, they are only applicable to land that is zoned for residential use. When 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 required in residential zoning districts where farming still exists. Depending on the goals of the community, the minimum lot size may be as small as 10 acres or as large as 640 acres. Large lot zoning can be successful at maintaining some level of rural character in a zoning district, but will not always effectively preserve farmland. Clustering allows for residential development to be concentrated on a portion of the parent parcel with smaller lot sizes than are typical in the zoning district. This technique is also referred to as conservation design or conservation 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. 125.3101125.3702) for specific statutory details. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 25

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 opportunities in Michigan by authorizing the establishment of local purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. 12 The statute created the structure for the 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 a development rights ordinance establishing the local PDR program. The ordinance must include an application procedure, criteria for selecting farmland parcels for preservation, and a method to establish the price to be paid for a landowner’s 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 farmland preservation programs have been certified by the MDA for participation in the PDR program (see map on following page). Numerous other counties, including Cass, St. Joseph, and Branch Counties in southwest Michigan, are currently developing farmland preservation programs to participate in the PDR program.

Now Part 363 of 1994 P.A. 451, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (M.C.L. 324.101-324.90106). 13 For more information on the details of purchase of development rights programs refer to the fact sheet produced by the American Farmland Trust, available at: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27751/FS_PACE_9-98.pdf. 14 The MDA’s Policies and Procedures for the Michigan Agricultural Preservation Fund are available at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDA_REVMAPFBApplicationProcess_117312_7.pdf. 26 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

12

SOURCE: Michigan Department of Agriculture, 2006.

Researchers and public policy officials have begun to target specific areas for farmland preservation in the state. Michigan State University’s Land Policy 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 Michigan’s 83 counties was evaluated with the individual 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 most 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

Aggregate Resiliency Scores for Michigan Counties

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 state’s 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 of Kalamazoo 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.’

28

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

TOWARD SMARTER GROWTH
In January 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 countywide survey in which more than 50 percent of respondents expressed concern for further farmland loss. The
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 beauty and critical environmental areas. 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective. 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration.
SOURCE: The Smart Growth Network.

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

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

29

central and southern Michigan in which the majority of land use decisions are made at the local level. 15 Of course, no one is more knowledgeable and familiar with a community’s 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 policies. However, land use issues are inherently nonlocal. The proverbial phrase, “we all live down stream,” refers to this notion that a single land use decision can have far reaching effects on neighbors, both within the local unit of government and in neighboring jurisdictions. Water quality and quantity are not the only regional issues tied to land use – transportation, economic development, and farmland preservation are all issues that must be given regional consideration if the policies to address them are to be successful. With amendments to the Planning Enabling Acts in 2002, the Michigan Legislature took steps to ensure a basic level of communication across municipal 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 local units of government are collaborating at the county level by establishing farmland preservation programs under the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program. The creation of such programs enables 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 authority to make land use decisions through planning and zoning. The average state in the U.S. has between 300 and 500 such local units of government. 16 Being the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285 of 1931; M.C.L. 125.31-125.41), the Township Planning Act (P.A. 168 of 1959; M.C.L. 125.321-125.333), and the County Planning Act (P.A. 282 of 1945; M.C.L. 125.101-125.115). 30 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

15

structures exist for communication and collaboration across municipal lines; both the Regional Planning Act (P.A. 281 of 1945; M.C.L. 125.11-125.25) and the Joint Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 226 of 2003; M.C.L. 125.131-125.143) authorize the formation of regional planning commissions for the development of 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, Michigan’s Land, Michigan’s Future: Final Report 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

Is your municipality on its way toward Smart Growth?

Where is most commercial and industrial growth occurring? Where is most new residential growth occurring? Where are your current municipality’s public buildings, and where are they planned? How do sizes of newer lots in your municipality compare to the typical sizes of older lots in the same area? Is there a distinct pattern to densities in local zoning - from higher densities in compact centers to lower densities in outlying areas? 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 are active in environmental protection? Do residents have local access to open space for hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.? How do local regulations provide for open space in new developments? Where is most development in your municipality located? 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 dedicated funding to help purchase or protect prime working land? How do local 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 through other organizations?
SOURCE: Derived from The Vermont Forum on Sprawl, 2000.

32

Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

Places to Turn:
American Association of Planning – Smart Growth Codes (http://www.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes) Convening for Action (http://www.kzoo.edu/convene) Economic Research Service – Land Use, Value, and Management (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse) Funder’s Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities (http://www.fundersnetwork.org) Form-Based Codes Institute (http://www.formbasedcodes.org/resource.html) Grand Valley Metropolitan Council (http://www.gvmc.org/landuse/index.shtml) Kalamazoo County Department of Planning and Community Development (http://www.kalcounty.com/planning/index.htm) Michigan Association of Planning (http://www.planningmi.org) Michigan 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/index.html) 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) MSU Land Policy Institute (http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/index.html) Partnerships For Change (http://www.partnershipsforchange.cc) Planning and Zoning Center at MSU (http://www.pzcenter.msu.edu) Resolving Land Use Disputes – Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (http://www.resolvinglandusedisputes.org) Schindler’s Land Use Page (http://web1.msue.msu.edu/wexford/LU) Sierra Club – Stopping Sprawl (http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl) Smart Growth – EPA (http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth) Smart Growth America (http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org) Smart Growth Readiness Assessment Tool (http://www.citizenplanner.msu.edu) The Smart Growth Network (http://www.smartgrowth.org)
Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use 33

WORKS CITED
Adelaja, S., M.B. Lake, M. Colunga-Garcia, M. Hamm, J. Bingen, S. Gage, and M. Heller. March 2006. “Acreage and Funding Goals for Farmland Preservation in Michigan: Targeting Resiliency, Diversity and Flexibility.” A Viable Agriculture Report by The MSU Land Policy Institute, Report #2006-1. Available: http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/reports. American Farmland Trust (AFT), Farmland Information Center. August 2004. Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies. Available: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf Bergstrom, J.C., B.L. Dillman, and J.R. Stoll. 1985. “Public Environmental Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 17: 139-150. Berry, D. 1978. “Effects of Urbanization on Agricultural Activities.” Growth and Change, 9(3): 2-8. Cunningham, Kiran, and Hannah McKinney. January 2003. Smarter Growth for Kalamazoo County. Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo College. Available: http://www.kzoo.edu/convene/complete%20report.pdf. Gage, S.H. and D.L. Skole. 2001. Michigan Tipping Point. Computational Ecology and Visualization Laboratory, and Global Observatory for Ecosystem Services, Michigan State University. Developed in cooperation with Public Sector Consultants, Inc. and People and Land. Available: http://www.cevl.msu.edu/pages/lulc/peopleland.htm. Halstead, J.M. 1984. “Measuring the Non-market Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59: 12-19. Kline, J., and D. Wichelns. 1994. “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland.” Land Economics, 70(2): 223-33. Libby, L.W. 1993. "The Natural Resource Limits of U.S. Agriculture." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 48: 289-294. Michigan Department of Agriculture. September 2006. Farmland Preservation, Agricultural Preservation Fund. “Map of Local Qualified PDR Programs.” Available: http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_2558---,00.html. Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. August 15, 2003. Michigan’s Land, Michigan’s Future: Final Report of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. Prepared for Governor Jennifer Granholm and the Michigan Legislature. Lansing: State of Michigan. Available: http://www.michiganlanduse.org/finalreport.htm. Michigan State University. April 2004. Land Use / Land Cover Change Project: Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Research and Outreach Services, RS & GIS. Norris, Patricia E. and Deaton, B. James. 2001. “Understanding the Demand for Farmland Preservation: Implications for Michigan Policies.” Michigan State University Staff Paper 2001-18. Peterson, H. Christopher, William A. Knudson and Getachew Abate. January 2006. The Economic Impact and Potential of Michigan’s Agri-Food System. The Strategic Marketing Institute, Working Paper 1-1606. Michigan State University Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Public Sector Consultants, Inc. November 2001. Michigan Land Resource Project. Prepared for the Frey Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on behalf of the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable. Lansing, Mich.: PSC. Available: http://www.publicsectorconsultants.com/Documents/lbilu/index.htm. 34 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

Rosenberger, R.S. 1998. “Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs: Comment.” Land Economics, 74(4): 557-65. 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. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. June 1997. Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Development Patterns in Michigan: The Costs of Current Development Versus Compact Growth. Final Report. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. American FactFinder. 1990 Summary Tape File 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. March 27, 1995. Michigan Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Compiled and edited by R.L. Forstall. Available: http://www.nwm.cog.mi.us/data/CensusTrends/MI-Counties-Pop-1900-1990.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates. March 16, 2006a. Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Michigan: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (CP-EST2005-01-26). Available: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-EST2005-01-26.xls. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates. June 21, 2006b. Table 5: Annual Estimates of the Population for Minor Civil Divisions in Michigan: 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-State Cooperative for Population Estimates. June 21, 2006c. Estimates of Subcounty Population for 2000-2005. Estimated Population of Counties, Cities, Villages, Townships, and 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 Estimates and Demographic Components of Population Change: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999. Available: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/ST-99-02.txt. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 1 – County Summary Highlights: 1987, 1992, and 1997. Available: http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002a. 2002 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 1 – County Summary Highlights: 2002. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_001_001.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002b. 2002 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 2 – Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold 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. 2002c. 2002 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 4 – Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and 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. 2002 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 8 – Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2002 and 1997. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mi/st26_2_008_008.pdf. Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use

35

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002e. 2002 Census of Agriculture – County Data. Table 51 – Farms by North American Industry 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. 2002 Census of Agriculture – State Data. Table 2 – Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct and Organic: 2002 and 1997. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st99_2_002_002.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service, Michigan Field Office – Michigan Department of Agriculture. 2006. Michigan Agricultural Statistics 20052006. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Michigan/Publications/Annual_Statistical_B ulletin/stats06/agstat06all.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 2000. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000), 89 pages. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/. Vermont Forum on Sprawl. October 2000. The Vermont Smart Growth Scorecard: A Community Self-Assessment Tool. A “Way to Grow!” Publication. Available: http://www.vtsprawl.org/Pdfs/SPRAWLscorecard.pdf. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. June 21, 2006. West Michigan Data Center/Business Outlook, West Michigan Regional Database: Kalamazoo Building Permit Data. Available: http://www.upjohninst.org/regional/bldgpermits.pdf.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Oversight: Ann Nieuwenhuis

Research and Writing: Brad Neumann Jodi Ann Victor Jeanne Himmelein

Copy Editing: Richard A. Victor Karen Smeltzer Dean Solomon

Financial Support: Battle Creek Farm Bureau Association GreenStone Farm Credit Services
36 Kalamazoo Agricultural Land Use