Land Classification Systems
-
Upload
hawaii-geographic-information-coordinating-council -
Category
Education
-
view
6.153 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Land Classification Systems
![Page 1: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Land Classification Systems and Agricultural Land Use PlanningAgricultural Land Use Planning
in HawaiiMele Chillingworth
Masters Candidate, UH ManoaDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Management
Presentation to HIGICC LuncheonFriday, October 30, 2009
![Page 2: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline • IntroductionOutline • Introduction• State Agricultural Land
U Di t i tUse District• Land Classification
Systems– LSB– ALISH– LESA
• Comparison and Analysis of SystemsAnalysis of Systems
![Page 3: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• “Problem Definition ofIntroduction • Problem Definition of Hawaii’s Agricultural Lands: An Evolutionary
Introduction
Lands: An Evolutionary History”
• How a problem is defined determines how it can be solved
![Page 4: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Problems: 1) id i f i
State Land Use La 1) rapid conversion of prime
agricultural land to sprawling, “non-revenue producing”
Use Law 1961
residential uses;2) land speculation; and3) i ff ti t l i3) ineffective county planning
offices• Solution: statewide zoningSolution: statewide zoning
powerLand Use District JurisdictionLand Use District Jurisdiction
Conservation StateAgricultural State and Countyg y
Rural State and CountyUrban County
![Page 5: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Agricultural DistrictAgricultural District
• “Catch-all” district from the startCatch all district from the startAll Lands in Hawaii
Forest andForest and Water
Reserve Areas
Built-up Areas All Others
Areas
Conservation Urban DistrictAgricultural
DistrictDistrict
(48%)
Urban District
(5%)
District
(47%)
![Page 6: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• 1960s-80sLand
Classification 1960s 80s
• Ag District too large
Classification Systems
• Part of broader national effortsefforts
• LUC boundary change y gprocess
S i tifi b i f l d• Scientific basis for land use decisions
• 1978: State to preserve IAL
![Page 10: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• Are capable of producingWhat are Important Are capable of producing
sustained high agricultural yieldswhen treated and managed according to accepted farming
Important Agricultural according to accepted farming
methods and technology;
C t ib t t th St t ’ i
Lands?• Contribute to the State’s economic
base and produce agricultural commodities for export or local
ticonsumption;
• Are needed to promote theAre needed to promote the expansion of agricultural activities and income for the future, even if currently not in production.currently not in production.
Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands
![Page 11: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Lands meeting any of the criteria below shall be given consideration:
• Land currently used for agricultural production;• Land with soil qualities and growing conditions that support
agricultural production of food fiber or fuel- and energy-producingagricultural production of food, fiber, or fuel and energy producing crops;
• Land identified under agricultural productivity rating systems, such as the agricultural lands of importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system adopted by the Board of Agriculture onHawaii (ALISH) system adopted by the Board of Agriculture on January 28, 1977;
• Land types associated with traditional native Hawaiian agricultural uses, such as taro cultivation, or unique agricultural crops and uses,
h ff i d lt d d tisuch as coffee, vineyards, aquaculture, and energy production;• Land with sufficient quantities of water to support viable agricultural
production;• Land whose designation as important agricultural lands is consistentLand whose designation as important agricultural lands is consistent
with general, development, and community plans of the county;• Land that contributes to maintaining a critical land mass important to
agricultural operating productivity;L d ith t i f t t d i t i lt l• Land with or near support infrastructure conducive to agricultural productivity, such as transportation to markets, water, or power.
Fact Sheet, Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands
![Page 12: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• LSB: Overall Productivity RatingThree Major • LSB: Overall Productivity Rating,
Detailed Land Classification, Land Study Bureau, UH, 1965-1972
Major Systems
• ALISH: Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii
y
Importance to the State of Hawaii, DOA, USDA/SCS, others, 1977
• LESA: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System, LESA Commission 1983-1986Commission, 1983 1986
![Page 13: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Developed concurrent with USDA soil survey
LSBOverall
• Soils grouped into land types based on soil & productive capabilities– Soil properties
Overall Productivity
Rating, Soil properties– Topography– Climate– Other factors such as technology, crop
type
Detailed Land Classification,
type– Excluded lands in urban use
• Two sets of productivity ratings:LSB, UH,
1965-1972 p y g– Overall Productivity Rating – “A” very good
to “E” not suitable– Crop Productivity ratings for pineapple,
sugar, vegetables, forage, grazing,
1965 1972
g , g , g , g g,orchard, timber
• Soil types drawn over aerial photos (variable scale)(variable scale)
![Page 14: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
LSBOverall
• Acreage in Agricultural District
Overall Productivity
Rating,
– LSB A-C statewide:
Detailed Land Classification,
– LSB A-C statewide:447,250 acres (approximate)LSB, UH,
1965-1972– Percent LSB A-C:
24% of ag district
1965 1972
24% of ag district
![Page 15: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• StrengthsLSB
Overall • Strengths– More useful than soil
survey with respect to
Overall Productivity
Rating, y pagronomic suitability
– Land types generally d
Detailed Land Classification,
mapped
W kLSB, UH,
1965-1972 • Weaknesses– Indexed to dominant crops
at the time (primarily sugar
1965 1972
at the time (primarily sugar and pineapple) & existing inputsp
– Very detailed
![Page 16: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• National effort (USDA) to• National effort (USDA) to inventory important farmlandsALISH
• National criteria applied, adapted by USDA, CTAHR &
DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR
DOA
B d f f t
1977-78
• Broad range of factors considered– Soils climate moisture supplySoils, climate, moisture supply,
input use, etc.,– Production-related factors
generalizedgeneralized
![Page 17: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• 3 classes of important agricultural landsagricultural lands– Prime
• Soils with the best physical, chemical and climatic properties for
ALISH
chemical, and climatic properties for mechanized field crops
• Urban or built-up lands and water bodies excluded
DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR
bodies excluded– Unique
• Land other than prime for unique high-value crops such as coffee
1977-78
high value crops, such as coffee, taro, and watercress
– Other important agricultural landslands
• state or local importance for production but neither prime nor unique; need irrigation or require q ; g qcommercial production management
![Page 18: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• Acreage in Agricultural• Acreage in Agricultural District
ALISH
– ALISH statewide:DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR
• 846,363 acres (approximate)
1977-78
– Percent ALISH:• 43 8% of ag district• 43.8% of ag district
![Page 19: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• Strengths– Criteria defined, can be
reapplied– National standard
ALISH
– National standard– Prime lands data is GIS-ready– Takes into account local,
DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR
unique crops: coffee, taro, watercress
1977-78
• Weaknesses– Unique category not well
d fi ddefined– Maps need updating to reflect
current crop conditions & ppotential, e.g. papaya in Kapoho
![Page 20: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1983 S LESA C i i
LESALand
• 1983 State LESA Commission (Act 273)
Standards & criteria for
Evaluation and Site
– Standards & criteria for identifying important agricultural lands (IAL)
Assessment System,
– Inventory of IALy
LESA • LESA system
– Numeric scoring systemAd t d f USDA t
Commission, 1983-1986
– Adapted from USDA system– Used to identify lands or
evaluate individual sitesevaluate individual sites
![Page 21: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• Three componentsLESALand
– Agricultural production goals– Land evaluation (LE)
• Soils, topography, climate
Evaluation and Site
• Combines 5 soil ratings into single score
– LCC– ALISH
Assessment System, – ALISH
– LSB– Modified Storie Index– Soil Potential Index
y
LESA – Site assessment (SA)
• Non-physical properties (location, land use)Th t i f f t
Commission, 1983-1986
• Three categories of factors– Farm productivity/profitability– Land use potential/conflicting
uses– Conformance with government
programs/policies
![Page 22: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• Acreage in Agricultural
LESALand • Acreage in Agricultural
DistrictEvaluation and Site
– LESA IAL statewide:Assessment System,
759,534 acres (approximate)
P t LESA IAL
y
LESA – Percent LESA IAL:
39.3% of ag districtCommission, 1983-1986
![Page 23: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• Strengths– Takes into account other land use
LESALand
policy considerations– Attempts at comprehensiveness with
use of all indices for LE portionMost current
Evaluation and Site – Most current
• WeaknessesMost complicated of systems
Assessment System, – Most complicated of systems
– Some of LE indices are outdated, need to be reconstructed for current/future crops
y
LESA – Problems with SA criteria
• Subjectivity in assigning values and weights to factors: no two people would necessarily interpret the same
Commission, 1983-1986 y p
way – open to manipulation– Agricultural production goals
• Link to land requirements means that when ag land is converted to non-ag e ag a d s co e ted to o aguse, new land must be found to meet ag production
![Page 24: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture
2,500,000
Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture
2,000,000
1,500,000
1 000 000
Acr
es
1,000,000
500,000
0LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land
IntersectionsState Agricultural
District
Agricultural Land Rating System
![Page 25: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Only 9% of LSB Prime lands are not included in ALISH or LESA
So let’s see where all the systems intersectSo let s see where all the systems intersect to see what lands they all agree could be IAL
![Page 27: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
IntersectionsIntersections
![Page 28: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Areas of IntersectionAreas of Intersection
![Page 29: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
DivergenceDivergence
![Page 30: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Areas of DivergenceAreas of Divergence
![Page 31: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Kemole7,000 ft elevation
![Page 37: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
ALISH “Other” lands: state or local importance for production but neither prime nor unique; need irrigationproduction but neither prime nor unique; need irrigation or require commercial production management
![Page 39: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
284 835 acres284,835 acres
83% (237,057 acres) is “Other”
![Page 40: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
• Why are the “Other” lands i th t t t th
Future fun in that category, not the others?
with ALISH
– Erosion– Need irrigation– etc
• Document that in the data
AGTYPE NOTE1
NOTE Cause1 Erosion1
3 11 Erosion2 Drought
![Page 41: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
What’s the point?What s the point?
![Page 42: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
2,500,000
Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture
2,000,000
1,500,000
1 000 000
Acr
es
1,000,000
500,000
0LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land
IntersectionsState Agricultural
District
Agricultural Land Rating System
![Page 43: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
R lState Land Use Districts
Rural0.3%
Urban5% Urban
5%
Rural0.3%
Other35% AgricultureConservation
48%Agriculture47%
Conservation48%
35%Conservation
66%
Agriculture29%
IAL17%
Current Districts LESA CommissionRecommendations
Why not?
![Page 44: Land Classification Systems](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051013/5479e80cb479598a098b48b5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Q tiQuestionsCommentsDiscussion
Thank you