[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
7-OVIe COASTAL ZONE celiter INFORMATION CENTER DYNAMICS OF LAND USE IN- FAST GROWTH AREAS ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 325 Kathryn A. Zelmetz Elizabeth Dillon Ernest E. Hardy Robert C. Otte PEI "J HD 1751 wo A91854 no. 325 DYNAARCS OF LAND USE IN FAST GROWTH AREAS. By Kathryn A. Zeimetz, Elizabeth Dillon, Ernest E. Hardy, and Robert C. Otte. Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 325. ABSTRACT Land use and land use changes between, 1961 and 1970 were interpreted from Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) 1:20,000 scale photography for 53 rapid-growth counties. In these counties, which experienced about 20 percent of the total U.S. population increase between 1960 and 1970, urban land accounted for 16 percent of the area in 1970, up from 13 percent in 1961. Of land developed for urban use in the 53-county aggregate between 1961 and 1970, 35 percent had been cropland, 28 percent forest, and 33 percent open idle. Regionally, 'the amount of urban development on various types of rural land differed considerably. While total land in rural uses remained relatively the same over the period, shifts among rural uses were an important aspect of land use change. The average amount of land urbanized per person increase in population for the 5 3-county total was .173 acres. While this per capita ratio varied regionally, in all regions new urban development occurred at a higher density than had -previous urban development. Key Words: Land use change, Urban land, Idle land, Cropland, Rapid growth areas, Airphoto interpretation. - CONTENTS Page Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Rural Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cropland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pasture and range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Farmsteads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I Open idle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . I I Forest land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I Urban Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Other Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Per Capita Land Use Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Temporal Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A - Basic Data on Study Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Appendix B - Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix C - Transition Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1976 Property of CSC Libruvi HIGHLIGHTS At the national level,' urbanization has not greatly encroached upon the total supply of U.S. land used for crops. In a study of 53 counties, in which'20 percent of the 1960 to 1970 U.S. population increase occurred, urban uses in 1970 occupied only 16.4 percent of the total land area, up from about 13 percent in 1961. About 770,000 acres were converted to urban uses in the 53 countieg,,during the 9-year period. Of these, 35 percent had been cropland, 4 percent pasture, 28 percent forestj and 33 percentopen idle (fig. 1). COASTAL ZONE U 8 DEPARTMENT 'OF COMMERCE NOAA INFORM, ATION CENTER COASTAL SERV'ICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE MAJOR LAND USE .SHIFTS, 1961-70,53 URBANIZING COUNTIES CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 (Thousands of Acres) URBAN 2,8219 362.3 127.6 CROPLAND 7,141.6 7' FOREST 6,645.9 13.9 18.0 Boxes proportional to 1961 acreages. USDA NEG. ERS 2204-75 (8) Figure I ^4 ev% For all the counties, .173 acres of rural land were urbanized for each person increase in population. There is considerable regional variation in the effects of urbanization on rural land uses and on the supply of land for food and fiber production. The proportion -of new urban land coming from cropland ranged from 6 percent in the Florida counties to 70 percent in those in California. It was 50 percent in the Corn Belt area and 62 percent in the Great Lakes region. The amount of land urbanized per person increase in population also varied "-'onally from .097 acres in California to .481 acres in Florida. Generally, the per capita urbanization rate was lower where urbanization took a high proportion of cropland and higher where urbanization used mo4forest and other noncropland. Advancin urbanization hasloften meant intensification of use rather than expansion 9 to rural areas. For example, residential land was converted to commercial-industrial- institutional as well as to transportation uses. I Cropland declined from about 33, percent of the total study area in 1961 to 30.4 percent in 1970. Only 49 percent of this net decline resulted directly from urbanization. More new cropland was developed, in fact, than was lost to urban development. Other factors accounted for more croplandl decline than urban encroachment. These include abandonment of marginal cropland to',,pasture and diversion of cropland to open idle as changing technology makes farming of @ome land uneconomic. In the study counties taken as a whole, acreage of land identified as open idle - nonforested land with no evidence of cropping, pasturage, or other activity - decreased by 104,000 acres. However, two areas, Florida and Colorado, accounted for most of the decrease. In those areas, substantial acreages of previously idle land were developed for cropland. The remainder of the counties, on net, showed an increase in acreage of idle land. Of the total additions to idle land, over 60 percent came from cropland. Of the land moving out of the idle category, 37 percent went to urban use and 30 percent went to agricultural use. This study, documenting land use change by interpretation from aerial photography, shows that two other nonurban uses - pasture and range and forqsts - experienced only slight declines between 1961 and 1970. DYNAMICS OF LAND USE IN FAST GROWTH AREAS Kathryn A. Zeimetz, Elizabeth Dillon, Ernest E. Hardy, and Robert C Otte* INTRODUCTION The land on which man arranges his activities is a agricultural land - idling more land than is actually bounded resource and one subject to increasing developed for urban and other intensive uses - has been demands. explored and various calculations have been made of ratios of land withdrawn from agriculture to land As population pressure increases and as people strive for higher actually developed for other activities.4 Such conclu- standards of life, more and more competition can be expected sions have contributed to alarm over loss of farmland to between land uses. This competition will favor more intensive urban uses as articulated in the Citizen's Advisory land-use practices; and it will also lead to sknificant shifts in land use and to the subjugation and nonfWfillment of many land Committee on Environmental Quality.' requirements. At the same time, it will probably bring additional Conversely, it has been argued that agriculture does controversies and conflicts of interest. In the flnal analysis, the not always suffer at the expense of urban development, arbitration and resolution of these conflicts by society will call that often such growth stimulates land reclamation and for a larger measure of institutional and governmental control intensifies production.6 That urbanization is but one over land use practices.' influence in changing land uses, especially regarding For land use controls to be rationally formulated and agricultural land, has been pointed out by Hart. Other factors he discusses include.changes in crops, technol- effectively, applied, land use dynamics must be under- ogy, and government programs.7 stood. Land use change has been the focus of continuing This study documents and exan-dnes land use changes, appraisal by researchers. Bogue's 1956 historical study thus augmenting comprehension of land use dynamics. of land use in metropolitan areas concluded: "The As have many previous land use studies, this one focuses spreading of cities is an unmistakable drain upon upon areas with rapidly growing population agricultural resources," and "within the metropolitan because " . . . urbanization does increase the pressure on areas themselves, the processes of replacing land used for land as a resource, and accentuates the need for planned urban purposes has about reached a finlit.,,2 Concern about urban growth's drain on agricultural land has been echoed by others such as Griffin and Chatham in their 3 Robert Sinclair, "Von Thlinen and Urban Sprawl," Annals investigation of Santa Clara County, California. of the Association of American Geographers, LVII (1957) Another negative influence of urban development on pp. 72-87; David J. Allee et al., Toward the Year 1985: The Conversion of Land to Urban Use in New York State (Special Kathryn A. Zeimetz is a geographer and Robert C. Otte an Cornell Series No. 8, Cornell Univ., 1970). agricultural econon-dst with the Economic Research Service. ' Citizen's Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, Ernest E. Hardy is-a senior' res-e-a-r-ch -associate and, during the Report to the President and to the Council on Environmental course of the study, Elizabeth Dillon was a research assistant in Quality, Dec. 1974. the Dept. of Natural Resources, Cornell Univ. " Mason Gaffney, "Containment Policies for Urban Sprawl," Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics: The in Approaches to the Study of Urbanization, ed. by Richard L. Economics of Real Property, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Stauber (Univ. of Kansas, 1964); Curtis C. Harris, Jr. and David Prentice Hall, Inc., 1972) p. 86. J. Allee, Urbanization and its Effects on Ag7iculture in Sacramento County, California 1. Urban Growth and Agricul- Donald J. Bogue, Metropolitan Growth and the Conversion tural Land Use (Giannini Found. of Agr. Econ., Res. Rpt. 268, of Land to Nonagricultural Uses (Oxford, Ohio, 1956) p. 19. 1968). Paul F. Griffin and Ronald L. Chatham, "Urban Impact on John Fraser Hart, "Loss and Abandonment of Cleared Agriculture in Santa Clara County, California," Annals of the Farm Land in - the Eastern United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, XLVIII (1958) Association of American Geographers, LVIII (1968) pp. 195-208. pp. 417-440. controls and for vigorous programs of land conservation Twelve land use categories were distin- and use."8 Land use change in response to this pressure guished: (1) cropland, (2) pasture and range, (3) open should be especially apparent in areas where the popula- idle, (4) farmsteads, (5) forest, (6) residential, (7) urban tion is growing very rapidly. idle, (8) transportation, (9) recreation, (10) commercial- industrial-institutional, (11) water bodies over 40 acres, and (12) miscellaneous. Study Area Categories interpreted from airphotos are not always Between 1960 and 1970, 129 U.S. counties each mutually exclusive or accurately distinguishable. When experienced an absolute population increase exceeding using airphoto interpretation, cover is a surrogate for 20,000 and a percentage population increase exceeding use. The resulting complications of this are discussed at 30 percent. Of these, 53 also had recent Agricultural greater length in the text and App. B. As each point was Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) aerial described by both an earlier and later use, there were photography of the entire county for two points in time 144 possible "from-to" categories of land use change. with approximately a 10-year interval. (Optimally, Data derived in this manner included not only net land photography for each county will be for 1960 and 1970. uses in each category for each time period, but also However, the intervals vary because ASCS rephotographs detailed movements of land between categories. areas only when significant changes in farm boundaries To study constancy over time of the observed land and road systems have occurred.) It is for these 53 use changes, four of the original 53 counties were counties that land use change was documented (fig. 2 subjected to the same sampling procedure for an earlier and app. A). time period. These counties - Dupage, Ill.; Prince This selection process introduced some biases. The Georges, Md.; Clay, Mo.; and Tarrant, Tex. - also had use of both absolute and percentage limits on population experienced population increase of at least 30 percent change was selective for peripheral counties in expanding and 20,000 persons between 1950 and 1960. Land use urban areas. Urniting the study to counties with change was Also documented for Somerset County, Pa., complete ASCS photography resulted in inclusion of which experienced a net population decrease from 1960 relatively few agriculturally unimportant areas, since to 1970. Somerset data were analyzed separately. ASCS obtains photography primarily to monitor field patterns of crops under various Federal farm programs. Data were summarized by adding acreage figures In many large Western co-urtie s, where cropland is derived individually for each study county. Actual years concentrated within limited irrigated areas, ASCS of photography and the length of interval between each obtains photography of only cropped areas. Such set varied by county. The average years of photography counties were excluded from this study because only for the earlier and later tinle periods were 1961 and part of the land use change in each county could be 1970, respectively. For simplicity, these years will be accounted for. used to designate all earlier and later sets of land use data (app. B). County data were grouped two ways. Twelve Procedure categories resulted when the purpose was to group Und use and land use change were interpreted from a spatially related counties exhibiting similar land use systematic sample of 1:20,000 scale ASCS contact prints patterns (table 1). Jackson County, Miss., was not selected to account for at least 10 percent of the same included in any set because its land use pattern differed area in each county in both time periods. Within each markedly from geographically proximate study counties. print, a sample of random points was selected at the rate These twelve groups represent a compromise between of 20 points per square mile. Each sample point was delineation by land resource regions and delimitation by located on both the earlier and later photographs and the land use profiles shown by the airphoto interpreta- the interpreted land use recorded in the appropriate cell tion.9 Six categories were used to group counties by of the land use transition matrix (see app. B and Q. This orientation to an urban complex (table 2). To this end, procedure was followed for each set of contact prints counties were sorted as to whether in 1970 they were within each county. For each county, a point had a SMSA10 counties and if they included census-defined specific acre equivalent obtained by dividing the county's area, provided by census publications, by the Morris E. Austin, Land Resource Regions and Major Land total number of points interpreted for that county. This Resource Areas of the United States (U.S. Dept. Agr., Soil value was multiplied by the number of points in each Conserv. Serv., AH 296, 1965). cell of.the matrix. The sampling rate for all 53 counties averaged three points per square mile. ' " An SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) is a county or group of contiguous counties that contains at least one city of at least 50,000 persons or twin cities with a combined population of 50,000 or more. in addition, counties Luther Gulick, "The City's Challenge in Resource Use," in contiguous to the above are included in an SMSA if they are Perspectives on Conservation, ed. by Henry Jarrett (Baltimore: essentially metropolitan in -character and are socially and The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958) p. 128. economically integrated with the central city. 2 STUDY COUNTIES - va, AIRPHOTO ANALYSIS OF LAND USE CHANGE, 1961-70, ;@7 s D ---k 1. 1 P- P-g. Sa- cla. m-w- P Sa- c- st c... j.- Wake m k*.b.,gV c% D-. Pa.. Lea Table I - Regional groupings Of 53 sample counties North East Florida Gulf South Central Prairie- Woodland Fringe Plymouth, Mass. Lee, Fla. Cleveland, Okla. Burlington, N.J. Pasco, Fla. Harris, Tex. Monmouth, N.J. Sarasota, Fla. Travis, Tex. Morris, N.J. Sussex, N.J. Bucks, Pa. Great Lakes Texas Prairie Chester, Pa. Macomb, Mich. Collin, Tex. Washtenaw, Mich. Dallas, Tex. Middle Atlantic Waukesha, Wis. Denton, Tex. Anoka, Minn. Tarrant, Tex. Harford, Md. Dakota, Minn. Howard, Md. Washington, Minn. Montgomery, Md. Colorado Prince Georges, Md. Henrico, Va. Corn Belt Adams, Colo. Dupage, 111. Arapahoe, Colo. Piedmont Lake, 111. Will, Ill. Cumberland, N.C. Porter, Ind. California Mecklenburg, N.C. Boone, Mo. Wake, N.C. Clay, Mo. Santa Clara, Calif. Cobb, Ga. Jefferson, Mo. Santa Cruz, Calif. Dekalb, Ga. St. Charles, Mo. St. Louis, Mo. Sarpy, Nebr. Mississippi Appalachian Fringe Johnson, Kans. Portage, Ohio Jackson, Miss. Monroe, Ind. Fayette, Ky. Madison, Ala. urbanized areas and/or SMSA central cities. Results of the total area and 8.0 percent of the population of the this grouping reinforced the earlier observation that the 48 cotertninous States in 1970. Their share of popula- selection was weighted toward peripheral counties in tion had increased from 4.6 percent in 1950 and 6.2 large urban areas. Twenty-eight were SMSA counties percent in 1960. which included urbanized areas but no part of the The proportion of the population in the study central SMSA city. counties that was urban was higher than that of the A fuller description of the methodology is included in United States; urbanization increased more rapidly there App. B. This appendix also includes detailed descriptions than for the entire Nation (table 3). In 1970, density in of land use categories as well as a discussion of verifica- the 53 counties ranged from 80 to 1,906 persons per tion of the sampling procedure and its implications for square mile, averaging 478 persons per square mile. This possible further applications. was seven times greater than the average density of the 48 States. Study Area Characteristics Much concem. over land use in rapidly urbanizing TOW -a-rea of the study counties was 34,000 square counties centers on impacts of growth upon the agricul- miles (21,765,000 acres). Size varied from 234 to 1,766 tural base. The number of farms an d market value of all square miles and averaged 642 square miles. Population agricultural products sold in these counties are in the study counties rose from 11,145,000 in 1960 to proportionally greater than their area alone would 16,310,000 in 1970, an increase of 46.3 percent (table indicate, although the proportional difference has 3). Twenty percent of the population increase between narrowed since 1959 (table 4). In 1969, the 53 counties 1960 and 1970 in the 48 coterminous States occurred accounted for 1.0 percent of U.S. land in farms, slightly within these counties. They accounted for 1.1 percent of less than their proportion of the 48-State area (1.1 4 percent). In 1959, the proportion of U.S. farmland in Table 3 - Population characteristics in the the study counties -equalled the percentage of the 53 study counties national area they represented. These study counties - accounted for. 1.9 percent of the total number of farms Study 48 coterminous in 1969; thus average farm size was smaller than the U.S. Item counties States average. However, the value of land and buildings per Population: Thousands acre was. three times the U.S. average. In 1969, the market value of all agricultural products sold was 2.0 1970 16,310 -202,143 percent of the amount of the 48 coterminous States, 1960 11,145 178,464 down from'2.3 percent in 1959. 1950 6,990 150,697 Change in population: Percent Table 2 -Grouping of 53 study counties based on urban orientation 1960-70 46.2 13.3 1950-60 59.4 18.4 1. Non-SMSA counties Urban population: Santa Cruz, Calif. Lee, Fla. 1970 85.5 73.5 Pasco, Fla. 1960 80.6 69.9 Sarasota, Fla. 1950 70.4 64.0 Monroe, Ind. Sussex, N.J. Population density: Persons per square mile 11. Non-SMSA county identified as part of an urbanized area 1970 480 67 Monmouth, N.J. 1960 328 59 1950 206 50 111. SMSA counties including no urbanized area Harford, Md. Jefferson, Mo. Land Use Profiles IV. SMSA counties containing parts of urbanized areas but The overall land use picture for the 53 combined none of the central SMSA city counties did not change dramatically between the two points in time (table 5). Ranking uses by magnitude Adams, Colo. Jackson, Miss. resulted in the same order for both 1961 and 1970. Arapahoe, Colo. St. Charles, Mo. Cropland occupied the most area in both time periods. Cobb, Ga. St. Louis, Mo. Lake, Ill. Sarpy, Nebr. Since 1961, it experienced a net decline of over 500,000 Will, Ill. Burlington, N.J. acres, equalling 2.5 percent of the total study area. The Porter, Ind. Morris, N.J. second largest land use was forest land which accounted Johnson, Kans. Portage, Ohio for about 30 percent of the area in both time periods. Howard, Md. Bucks, Pa. Urban uses made up the third largest areal proportion. Montgomery, Md. Chester, Pa. Prince Georges, Md. Collins, Tex. They showed the largest net acreage change between the Macomb, Mich. Dallas, Tex. two periods, increasing slightly over 750,000 acres. This Anoka, Minn. Denton, Tex. was equal to 3.5 percent of the total study area. Dakota, Minn. Henrico, Va. Washington, Minn. Waukesha, Wis. Open idle land exp@@rienced a net decline between the two time periods. This was contrary to expectations and SMSA counties which include parts of urbanized areas observations of other researchers." This points up the and part of the central SMSA city difficulty in drawing inference from net land use Dekalb, Ga. Cleveland, Okla. change data. A closer examination of movement of land Dupage, 111. Harris, Tex. into and out of the idle category in a later section of this Clay, Mo. Tarrant, Tex. report will show that population increase and urbaniza- tion are associated with land idling. It will also show that VT. SMSA counties which include the entire SMSA central cropland development can and does occur near urban city areas. Madison, Ala. Boone, Mo. Considering regional groups, the pattern of land use Santa Clara, Calif. Cumberland, N.C. and net change is more complicated. Regionally, the Fayette, Ky. Mecklenburg, N.C. Plymouth, Mass. Wake, N.C. Washtenaw, Mich. Travis, Tex. See footnotes S and 6. 5 Table 4 - Agricultural characteristics of the 53 study counties compared to the 48 coterminous States Study counties Itern Study counties total 48-State total as percent of 48-State total 1959 Percent of total land in farms 59.6 58.9 Number of farms (thousands) 73.4 3,703.9 10 Land in farms (million acres) 12.7 1,120.2 1J Average farm size (acres) 172.6 302.4 Value of land and buildings (million dollars) 4,143.0 128,988.0 3.2 Average per acre (dollars) 325.0 115.0 Average per farm (dollars) 56,450.0 34,960.0 Market value of all agricultural products sold (million dollars) 710.0 30,337.0 2.3 1969 -Percent of total land in farms 51.2 55.7 Number of farms (thousands) 52.8 2,726.0 1.9 Land in farms (million acres) 10.9 1,059.7 1.0 Average farm size (acres) 206.1 388.7 Value of land and buildings (million dollars) 6,792.0 206,119.0 3.3 Average per acre (dollars) 625.0 195.0 Average per farm (dollars) 128,150.0 75,600.0 Market value of all agricultural products sold (million dollars) 893.0 45,316.0 2.0 Source: U.S. censuses of agriculture, 1959 and 1969. relative importance of different land uses varies due to six groups - the Northeast, Corn Belt, Great Lakes, physical factors such as climate, topography, and soils South Central Prairie/Woodland Fringe, Texas Prairie, which affect the agricultural-nonagricultural land mix. and California. This increase in idle land occurred in The relative importance of urban versus nonurban. uses some of the agriculturally more important areas. among the various groups is influenced not only by the Regionally, forest showed the largest range in propor- characteristics and land use requirements of the popula- tion of land use, varying in both periods from over 55 tion, but also by the range in areal size of the counties. percent in the Piedmont counties to less than I percent Finally, land use and land use change varies as cultural in the Colorado counties. In only three of the regional and technological changes differentially affect areas. groups - Appalachian Fringe, Florida Gulf, and Corn The proportion of area devoted to cropland at the Belt - did forest land show a net increase. beginning of the period ranged from S4.6 percent in the Simple exan-driation of land uses and net changes in Great Lakes group to 10.0 percent in the three Florida major use for the 53 counties for two points in time counties. This range narrowed by 1970. While the Great suggests that land use was relatively static. `1he dynamism Lakes still has the largest area proportion in cropland, of land use change is better appreciated if specific California replaced Florida as the low group. In only two changes among particular uses are examined. To best regions, the Gulf and Colorado counties, did cropland grasp the intricacy and magnitude of land use shift@", it is experience a net increase. necessary to document and study the detailed shifts among the various uses. Land use shifts among the 12 Percent of open idle land varied from 28.7 in the categories of land use for each of the 53 counties w@re Florida group to 3.3 in the California counties in 1961 summarized in land use transition matrices, included in and from 20.9 to 4.2 percent for the same groups in the App. C. The dynarnics and fluidity of change witHn later sample. While net change in idle for all 53 counties each particular use are examined as are patterns of grouped together was negative, an increase occurred in change evidenced by the different groups. 6 Table S - Land use in 53 study counties, by regions, 1961 and 1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian -Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Land use and year' east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total Percent Cropland 1961 23.2 28.1 18.1 37.9 10.0 2.7 48.1 54.6 24.0 42.1 47.0 16.3 32.9 1970 20.4 24.0 14.0 35.0 14.2 2.7 46.3 50.1 20.8 37.6 47.5 12.8 30.4 Pasture and range 1961 1.0 2.9 .4 4.7 8.1 .2 3.3 2.0 19.1 19.5 22.5 16.7 8.1 1970. .8 2.6 .4 4.3 7.1 .2 2.7 1.7 17.9 19.8 23.6 16.5 7.8 Farmsteads 1961 .5 1.0 .4 1.3 .2 - 1.4 1.7 .7 1.1 .6 .4 .9 1970 .5 1.0 .4 1.3 .4 - 1.4 1.7 .7 1.0 .6 .3 .9 Open idle 1961 7.7 6.7 7.4 7.1 28.7 14.7 6.7 8.4 8.0 6.3 18.7 3.8 9.5 1970 8.4 6.6 5.3 6.3 20.9 13.5 6.8 10.9 9.4 6.9 14.7 4.2 9.0 Forest 1961 46.8 43.4 57.9 35.0 26.6 72.4 21.7 18.3 28.5 8.4 .7 51.3 30.5 1970 45.4 43.1 56.7 35.6 28.2 71.3 21.8 17.9 26.8 7.5 .6 51.2 30.1 Urban 1961 15.9 15.7 13.6 11.8 4.7 4.2 14.8 11.0 16.0 17.7 6.1 8.1 12.9 1970 19.4 20.5 19.7 14.5 8.9 7.0 17.0 13.6 20.0 21.3 8.8 11.2 16.4 Residential 1961 9.0 8.8 6.0 5.9 2.1 2.3 7.5 4.9 8.9 9.5 1.4 4.4 6.6 1970 11.1 12.2 10.1 7.5 5.0 4.1 8.9 6.0 12.1 11.3 2.9 6.3 8.8 Urban idle 1961 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .6 .2 .6 1.1 .1 .2 .4 1970 .1 .2 .1 - - .4 .1 .3 .9 .1 .1 .3 Transportation 1961 3.9 3.8 5.2 3.3 2.1 1.2 4.1 3.7 3.4 4.0 2.9 1.9 3.6 1970 4.3 4.4 6.0 3.5 2.8 1.7 4.3 4.4 3.6 5.1 3.4 2.2 4.1 Recreation 1961 .6 .9 3.6 .5 1 .2 .5 1.1 .5 .4 .2 .6 .5 1970 .7 1.1 5.3 .7 .4 .2 .5 1.3 .6 .6 .4 .8 .7 Commercial- industrial- institutional 1961 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 .4 .4 2.2 1.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 .9 1.8 1970 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.6 .6 1.0 2.9 1.8 3.4 3.3 2.0 1.9 2.6 Water bodies more than 40 acres 1961 3.3 1.8 .8 .9 12.5 4.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.6 1.1 2.5 3.0 1970 3.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 12.4 4.3 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.0 1.2 2.7 3.3 Miscellaneous 1961 1.7 .3 1.4 1.3 9.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.7 3.1 1.0 2.1 1970 1.7 .3 1.5 1.2 8.0 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.3 2.9 3.1 1.0 2.1 'For descriptions of various land use categories, see p. 28. RURAL LAND USES acres of cropland were directly converted to urban uses in the study counties between the two time periods. This Three of the twelve land use categories - cropland, equalled almost 25 percent of gross cropland losses. pasture and range, and farmstead - are clearly agricul- Patterns of cropland change varied regionally. In all tural. These uses accounted for 42 percent of the sample areas, except the Florida Gulf and Colorado, cropland area in 1961, declining to 39 percent by the later period. experienced a net decline. Percentage decline over the Some agricultural land was included in other categories. 1961 cropland total ranged from 3.8 in the Corn Belt Farmhouses and rural roads were included in residential counties to 21.9 in the California counties and 22.6 in and transportation, respectively. Drainage ditches and the Piedmont region. Range of declines in percentage of small ponds were included in n-dscellaneous, and the the total area in cropland was 1.8 to 4.5 percent. category open idle includes some land within the Generally, in the regions in the eastern half of the boundaries of operating farms. However, these acreages country, shift to open idle land accounted for more of constitute only a small fraction of the total. the overall decline in cropland. than any other shift. The exception was the Piedmont, where the shift from cropland to forest was more important. The proportion Cropland of the cropland loss reverting to forest reflects both-the The United States as a whole has experienced a net longer interval between photograph years and the decline in cropland since the 1949 high of 478 million propensity within an area for spontaneous reforestation acres. 12 The net decline has resulted because additions of unmanaged land. Much of the cropland decline to the cropland base through reclamation only partly occurred as changing technology and increased produc- offset declines occasioned by econon-dc obsolescence. tivity in other areas resulted in the econon-dc obsoles- Results of this study reflect the same pattern (table 6). cence of part of the cropland base. Within the 53 counties, cropland declined from 32.9 Urban tended to be the most important subsequent to 30.4 percent of the total area. The net decline of over use for cropland in the more western regions and the 500,000 acres resulted because three times more land second most important subsequent use in the eastern was diverted from production than was developed as regions. This tendency in the western regions, such as new cropland. Open idle accounted for the largest single the Texas Prairie, Colorado, and California, 'points up proportion of all movements to and from cropland. While the competition between cropland and urban uses for 47.5 percent of new cropland was developed from open the more level terrain and in some cases for the water idle land, 44.6 percent of gross cropland declines was to associated with irrigated land. open idle land. The development of cropland from idle Net increase in cropland in the Florida counties land, simultaneous with the diversion of cropland to resulted from conversions from open idle, pasture and open idle, undoubtedly, reflects continuing reevaluation range, and forest, in that order of importance. Much of of land capability in light of changing technology and the open idle land taken was grass and shrub land, with a socioeconomic circumstances. For example, mechaniza- very high water table, requiring drainage. In the tion has favored development in areas where large Col 'orado counties, net increases resulted from acreages of level to gently sloping land are available. approximately equal net conversions from open idle and Improved fertilizer technology has enabled use of land pasture and range. These conversions represented some topographically suitable but previously limited by expansion of irrigated acreage a@id some increase in inherent low soil fertility. dryland wheat. Conversions of land between pasture and cropland were balanced. A little over 100,000 acres of cropland was diverted to pasture and range while almost the same Pasture and Range amount of pasture and rangeland was developed as Area used for pasture and range, nonforested land cropland. On one hand, this reflects the abandonment of showing evidence of animal use, declined from 8.1 to 7.8 13 marginal cropland to pasture. On the other hand, it percent between 1961 and 1970 (table 7). The largest represents cropland development when dairy operations proportion of both gross conversions to and diversions were phased out for cash crops, when wetter, lands, in from pasture and range involved exchanges with Florida for example, were drained, and when western cropland. These conversions, occurring almost equally in rangelands were irrigated or brought into dryland both directions and contributing little to total net farn-drig. decline of pasture and range, possibly reflect crop After open idle, urban uses were the second largest rotation practices. user of gross cropland acreage diversions. Over. 250,000 More pasture and rangeland was idled than was converted from open idle; open idle accounted for H, Thomas Frey, Major Uses of Land in the United States - Summary for 1969 (U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Limitations on capacity to obtain pasture and rangeland AER 247, 1973) p. 9. data from photo interpretation are noted in App. B. 8 Table 6 - Cropland changes for regional groups of the 53 study counties, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item cast Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Cropland 1961 657.5 354.1 310.0 487.8 153.4 13.1 1,757.8 1,129.3 518.8 989.2 615.2 183.1 7,169.5 1970 578.7 302.4 239.9 449.8 217.9 13.1 1,690.8 1,037.3 449.5 883.4 .620.7 143.0 6,626.3 Net change 1961-70 -78.9 -51.7 -70.1 -38.1 +64.5 0 -67.0 , -92.0 -69.3 -105.9 +5.4 -40.2 -543.2 Gross additions to cropland 1961-1970 5.1 6.1 7.8 16.0 89.5 4.7 44.4 10.9 8.4 11.4 62.2 2.1 268.5 Converted from:' Percent Pasture and range 12.3 59A 5.3 30.5 29.1 39.6 29.7 97.4 66.5 57.9 20.9 40.1 Farmsteads 1.5 .2 1.5 4.7 .6 Open idle 75.3 40.6 54.2 62.1 50.6 52.4 48.8 51.6 10.1 31.5 41.8 79.2 47.5 Forest 12.3 37.8 5.9 14.9 47.6 9.7 12.2 2.5 2.0 .4 9.8 Urban' Water bodies more than 40 acres Miscellaneous 2.7 5.2 .4 1.8 2.0 1,000 acres Gross declines of cropland 1961-1970 83.9 57.8 77.9 54.1 25.0 4.7 111.4 102.9 77.7 117.3 56.7 42.2 811.7 Converted to:' Percent Pasture and range 1.9 6.3 3.9 11.7 20.4 12.5 5.1 19.9 22.6 37.8 9.5 13.1 Farmsteads .4 3.5 .2 .3 .2 .8 .3 Open idle 63.5 50.3 30.0 40.1 42.6 33.3 46.5 59.4 57.1 34.7 22.6 28.0 44.6 Forest 4.0 1.5 38.0 4.8 16.7 38.1 3.3 1.0 1.0 .9 5.9 Urban' 30.4 40.7 25.8 21.5 16.0 28.6 35.6 33.8 16.4 39.4 38.3 59.2 32.8 Water bodies more than 40 acres .9 21.0 .2 5.4 2.6 2.4 Mis cellancous .3 7 1.3 .9 .8 1.6 .5 .5 .4 2.3 .8 'Percentages may not total 100.0 ue to rounding. 'Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses. Table 7 - Pasture and rangeland use changes for regional groups of the 53 study counties, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item cast Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Pasture and range 1961 27.3 36.8 7.0 60.6 124.3 1.1 119.0 41.8 412.1 459.7 294.4 187.3 1,771.5 1970 23.9 32.5 6.6 55.1 108.3 - 99.8 34.8 387.0 466.5 308.1 185.2 1,707.9 Net change 1961-1970 -3.4 -4.3 -.4 -5.5 -16.0 -1.1 -19.2 -7.0 -25.1 +6.8 +13.7 -2.1 -63.6 Gross additions to pasture and range 1961-1970 2.0 3.9 3.2 7.8 29.0 - 18.1 6.9 19.5 29.6 65 5 5.3 191.0 Percen t Converted from: Cropland 79.3 95.2 93.6 80.7 17.6 76.7 76.4 79.4 89.6 32.7 75.6 55.7 Farmsteads 9.8 4.8 1 Open idle 10.8 10.3 59.7 21.8 17.8 1.1 5.4 66.2 16.2 36.5 C) Forest 6.4 9.1 20.4 1.4 5.8 19.5 5.0 1.1 8.1 7.3 Urban 2 Water bodies more 2.4 .4 than 40 acres Miscellaneous 1, 000 acres Gross declines of pasture and range 1961-1970 5.4 8.2 3.6 13.3 45.1 1.1 37.3 13.9 44.6 22.8 51.8 7.4 254.6 Percent Converted to: Cropland 11.6 44.5 11.6 36.6 57.8 47.0 23.2 16.5 33.3 69.4 5.8 42.3 Farmsteads Open idle 55.3 44.3 17.6 45.2 16.4 44.8 64.1 63.0 27.6 27.4 59.7 39.0 Forest 11.1 5.2 70.8 12.5 11.5 100.0 7.0 1.6 8.2 7.1 Urban' 17.9 3.4 5.7 14.2 1.3 11.0 9.0 35.9 2.7 34.4 10.4 Water bodies more 2.9 .8 .6 than 40 acres Miscellaneous 4.1 2.6 .4 2.4 .5 .6 Percentages may not total 100.0 due to rounding. 2Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses. almost 50 percent of the net decline in grazed land. another important pattern of movement, open idle to Conversions to urban uses accounted for a little over 40 forest land. Twice as much land went to forest from percent of the net decrease. open idle than to open idle from forest. While this net Only two regions, the Texas Prairie and Colorado, did conversion of open idle to forest may have resulted in not experience a net decline in pasture and rangeland. more intensive use of someo of the land for recreation or These two regions were also the re ions with the largest forestry, it probably reflected simply a change in cover, 91 proportions of pasture and range. The major source of not intensification of use. additional grazed land varied for edch area. and seem to These' pattdrns were substantially the same for each imply that, different processes were active. In Colorado, of these nine areas. The magnitude of flows varied open idle land was the main source of new pasture and somewhat Aepending on the original land use bases of range, while cropland was the major destination of the regions. For instance, in three areas - Middle diversions from rangeland. This suggests a pattern of Atlantic, Piedmont, and Appalachian. Fringe - idle land escalating intensity of. land use.. The Florida region decreased. While the basic flows in the land use transi- evidenced the same pattern of increasing intensity, even tion matrix were the same as those for the nine-region though it experienced a net decline in total pasture and total, in these areas, where spontaneous reforestation is, rangeland.' Conversely, in the Texas Prairie, cropland was rapid, net increases in open idle land were offset by the primary source of pasture and rangeland increase, conversions of open idle to forest. representing a decrease in intensity of use. The pattern The pattern of open idle land dynamics differed in of decreasing intensity of rural land uses is typical of all Florida and Colorado. In Florida, level, wet, idle lands regions except Florida and Colorado. are being drained for cropland. Irrigated and dryland farminglechniques have extended the areas productively Farmsteads used for crops and grazing in the Colorado counties. In Farmsteads accounted for less than 1 percent of the both these regions, the decreases in open idle land have area in the study counties and represent a relatively been augmented by conversion of open idle land to static land use (table 8). Reflecting the overall trend in urban uses. Open idle land was further reduced in Florida because of spontaneous reforestation. agricultural land, the area in farmsteads declined between the two sampled times. However, the decline was proportionally less than that of cropland. This probably reflects the increased importance of machinery in agricultural production, or in areas where urbaniza- Forest land tion has occurred, the conversion of structures to Forest land declined slightly from 30.5 to 30.1 nonagricultural, uses, or the abandonment. of remnants percent of the sample area. The dynamics of forest land uneconomic to convert or remove. change were relatively uncomplicated (table 10). Shifts involving cropland, pasture and range, and open idle Open idle land resulted in net increases to forest. Cropland reverting to Open idle land, unforested land showing no evidence forest was almost twice as much as that developed from of other use for all 53 counties declined from 9.5 to 9.0 forest. Forest reclaimed 30 percent more pasture and I range than was developed from forest, whereas 2.4 times percent of study area (table 9). This decline is largely more open idle land grew up to forest than was cleared due to not decreases in two areas, the Florida and from forest. These increases, however, were offset by the Colorado counties. These areas also exhibited patterns of net losses of forest to urban, farmstead, water bodies, open idle land use changes different from those of the and miscellaneous uses *' Conversion of forested land to other regions. For this reason, these two areas are not urban uses was the most important source of decline, considered in the overall grouping of counties and are accounting for 62.7 percent of all losses of forest land. discussed separately. When the Florida and Colorado regions are not Regionally, the overall pattern of woodland losses to included, the remaining areas showed a 5-percent urban, water, and miscellaneous uses was replicated increase of open idle over the - 1961 total. The overall within each of the eleven groups. There was more flows in the nine regions were from agricultural land to regional variation in dynamics of interchange of forest open idle land and from open idle land to urban uses. with cropland, pasture and range, and open idle. In the Six times more land was diverted from agricultural uses most forested regions, the Piedmont, California, to open idle than was developed from open idle for Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and Appalacl-dan Fringe, a cropland and, pasture. The open idle-urban flow was pattern of net increases of for 'est was maintained by virtually unidirectional, with a net flow of 193,500 acres conversions from open idle, cropland, and pasture and to urban uses. These flows would have resulted in a net range in order of importance. But in the least forested increase of open idle land in these regions of 225,200 areas, for example the Texas Prairie.and Colorado, forest acres. This increase in open idle was partially offset by showed a net loss to all other land uses. 11 Table 8 - Changes in land use fox farmsteads for regional groups of the 53 study counties, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Farmsteads 1961 14.0 13.0 7.1 16.6 3.6 - 49.9 34.9 15.5 26.2 7.9 4.0 192.7 1970 13.2 12.5 7.3 16.4 6.3 - 49.7 34.5 15.3 24.7 7.6 3.6 191.1 Net change 1961-1970 -.8 -.5 +.2 -.2 +2.7 - -.2 -.4 -.2 -1.5 -.3 -.4 -1.6 Gross additions to farmsteads 1961-1970 - .2 .2 - 3.1 - .9 .3 .2 .2 .7 - 5.9 Percent Converted from:' Cropland 100.0 28.3 29.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.9 40.4 Pasture and range Open idle 41.4 23.8 33.1 32.8 Forest 100.0 30.3 46.4 26.8 Urban' Water bodies more than 40 acres Miscellaneous 1, 000 acres Gross declines of farmsteads 1961-1970 .8 .7 .2 .4 - 1.1 .7 1.7 1.0 .4 .7.5 Percent Converted to:' Cropland i00.0 42.3 60.1 74.4 20.9 Pasture and range 24.0 2.6 Open idle 24.8 57.7 19.7 100.0 53.9 24.8 100.0 32.1 Forest 24.8 3.1 Urban2 51.2 100.0 20.2 25.6 46.2 75.3 41.1 Water bodies more than 40 acres Miscellaneous 'Percentages may not total 100.0 due to rounding. 2 In'cludes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses, Table 9 -Changes in open idle land for regionalgroups of the 53 study counties, 1%1-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Open idle land 1961 217.2 83.9 126.9 91.0 440.7 71.7 247.4 173.4 173.5 147.6 245.2 42.2 2,060.8 1970 238.6 82.5 91.0 80.7 320.6 65.7 248.5 225.2 202.2 162.5 192.1 47.0 1,956.7 Net change 1961-1970 +21.4 -1.4 -35.9 -10.3 120.1 -6.0 -1.1 +51.8 +28.7 +14.9 -53.1 +4.8 -104.1 Gross addition s to open idle 1961-1970 64.5 36.7 44.6 30.5 43.4 9.3 79.4 76.1 79.4 54.4 32.3 17.1 567.6 Percent Converted from:' Cropland 82.6 79.1 52.5 71.0 24.6 16.7 65.3 80.3 55.9 74.8 39.7 69.3 63.8 Pasture and range 4.6 10.0 1.4 19.7 17.0 21.1 11.7 35.4 11.6 44.0 25.9 17.5 Farmsteads .3 .5 .3 .5 1.7 2.3 .4 Forest 11.8 10.4 43.9 7.8 23.7 61.9 9.5 5.0 7.4 10.8 2.9 1.3 13.0 Urban' .3 .6 1.7 1.5 .6 3.0 1.0 13.3 1.6 Water bodies more than 4.7 21.4 2.5 .8 1.1 1.2 40 acres Miscellaneous .3 .5 29.5 .7 2.4 1,000 acres Gross declines of open idle 1961-1970 43.1 38.1 80.4 40.8 163.5 15.3 78.3 24.3 50.6 39.5 85.4 12.3 671.7 Percent Converted to:' Cropland 8.9 6.5 s.3 24.3 27.7 15.9 27.7 23.1 1.7 9.1 30.4 13.4 19.0 Pasture and range .5 .5 2.0 10.6 5.1 5.1 .4 4.0 50.8 7.0 10.4 Farmsteads .8 .3 .4 .3 .3 Forest 34.0 40.6 44.2 32.5 33.6 60.9 24.1 25.1 8.7 20.8 26.1 Urban' 54.0 51.1 30.4 39.4 23.9 21.7 38.5 46.6 69.7 72.0 17.2 55.6 37.4 Water bodies more than 1.0 .6 19.5 1.7 1.1 17.9 11.1 1.1 4.8 40 acres Miscellaneous 1.5 .7 .7 3.4 1.4 3.3 1.2 3.7 .3 3.2 1.9 Percentages may not total 100.0 due to rounding. In'cludes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses. Table 10 -Changes in forest land for regional groups of the 53 study counties, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas coun Ity Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1,000 acres Forest land 1961 1 327.6 546.5 994.4 450.3 408.s 352.5 797.7 377.9 614.5 197.3 9.3 575.5 6,652.0 1970 1:288.2 543.3 974.1 457.4 432.9 347.4 799.6 @371.2 578.8 177.4 7.6 574;2 6,552.0 Net change 1961-1970 -39.4 -3.2 -20.3 +7.1 +24.4 -5.1 +1 @9 -6.7 -35.7 -19.9 -1.7 -1.3 -100.0 Gross additions to forest land 1961-1970 18.6 16.8 67.7 17.5 65.4 12.2 25.8 7.3 8.9 .2 3.0 243.4 Converted from:' Percent Cropland 18.0 5.2 43.7 14.8 6.4 14.5 14.2 13.4 9.0 13.'2 -:19.8 Pasture and range 3.2 2.5 3.7 9.5 8.0 9.1 10.1 3.1 41.2 7.4 Farmsteads 100.0 .1 Open idle 78.8 92.3 52.5 75.7 84.1 76.4 73.2 83.5 49.8 86.7 72.0 Urban' .8 . 1 Water bodies more than 1.7 .2 40 acres Miscellaneous 1.6 .4 1, 000 acres Gross declines of forest land 1961-1970 58.0 20.0 88.0 10.4 41.0 17.3 23.9 14.'0 44.6 19.9 1.9 4.3 343.4 Percent Converted to:' Cropland 1.1 3.4 9.1 32.4 12.8 18.1 9.4 .5 1.2 12.6 7.7 Pasture and range .2 6.8 14.4 1.1 2.9 8.6 7.4 37.5 10.1 4.1 Farmsteads .2 2.2 1.8 .5 Open idle 13.1 19.1 22.2 22.8 2S.0 33.3 31.8 27.3 13.2 29.4 49.9 5.0 21.5 Urban 2 85.7 79.8 68.1 52.2 25.3 52.7 42.1 58.8 77.8 53.7 29.3 62.7 Water bodies more than 4.3 6.8 2.7 7.3' 50'.5 2.6 40 acres Miscellaneous 1.1 1.6 2.3. .5 1.3 2.5 1.6 1.0 5.0 1.0 Percentages may not total 100.0 due to rour;ding. 'Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-instituti6naI uses. URBAN LAND USES the development of new urban land between the two time periods. Five of the designated land use categories - residen- Regionally, the percentage of urban development at tial, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and the expense of different categories of nonurban land commercial-industrial-institutionaI - were grouped to varied greatly. The proportion of urban development on summarize urban uses. Urban land use accounted for cropland varied from 6 to 70 percent. New urban uses 16.4 percent of the study area in 1970, up from 12.9 developed on open idle land varied from 19 to 61 percent in the earlier sample. As expected, the dynamics percent. For forest, the proportion ranged from 4 to 57 of conversion to urban use are overwhelmingly percent. The percentage of urban development on unidirectional (table 11). While over three quarters of a pasture and rangeland was substantially less variable. million acres were converted to urban use from non- Generally, the proportion of new urban development urban uses, less than .4 percent of 1961 urban land was on different nonurban land types appeared to show diverted to norturban uses. In addition, about I some positive relation to the proportion of the land percent of the 1961 urban land experienced intraurban types in each area. Thus, where rapid population growth change between 1961 and 1970. occurred, causing increased urban land use needs, the Of the approximately 10,000 acres diverted to development expanded onto whatever land was nonurban uses, 93 percent was to open idle. Of these proximate, barring any unusual difficulties or excessive 9,300 acres reverting to open idle, 87 percent was from costs. commercial-industrial-institutionaI use. Half of this The California counties might seem to be an change was due to removal of installations in the Rocky exception to this generalization, for in 1961, only 16.3 Mountain Arsenal in Adams County, Colo. percent of the area was in cropland, yet 70 percent of Agricultural land accounted for the largest proportion the 1961-70 urban development occurred on cropland. of land converted to urban use between the two time In 1961, a little over 50 percent of the area was in periods. Cropland, which provided 35 percent, was the forest, yet only 3.5 percent of new urban development largest single source of land for urban development. was on. forest land. However, in this area, much of the Proportionally, its contribution to urban development wooded land is steeply sloped, sometimes with soil was only slightly larger than its total proportion of the slippage problems, requiring high costs for urban study area during the earlier period. The amount of development. In this region, climatically sui.ted to a development on cropland might have been expected'to variety of high value specialty crops, competition is be higher as cropland has characteristics such as fierce between agricultural and urban uses for the more moderate slope, good drainage, and very little waste gently sloped land. Where population pressure is great, area, which make it especially amenable to urban the hifi-value-per-acre urban uses can outbid agricultural development. Pasture and range accounted for 3.5 uses.1 percent, which is less than half its proportional share of the land in the study area. Pastureland probably has Components of Urban Land Use higher developmental costs because of greater slope and The proportion of development of individual urban more wasteland than cropland. Also, the extensive uses from nonurban lands was quite similar to the rangelands in Florida and the Western States tend to be proportions for all urban uses considered together (table more distant from built-up areas. 12). Variations which occurred can be readily The second most important source of land for urban rationalized. Residential development on forest land development was open idle land, accounting for 33 occurred at a higher rate than did overall urban develop- percent of new conversions. This was about 3.5 times ment or any other specific urban use, reflecting the great-er than rni-ght have been anticipated proportional to" amenity value of forested areas and the greater loca- the amount of idle land in the study area. Some of this tional flexibility of this urban use. land was undoubtedly idle in direct anticipation of or in Proportionally, transportation's taking of forest was preparation for urban development. very close to the percent of forest land in the sample The 28-percent of urban development which took area, whereas the percentage of development from open place on forest land was proportionally slightly less than idle land was the lowest of any urban use. Transporta- forest's percentage of the study Area. The percentage was perhaps more than rnight be expected as'developmental 14 This pattern of urban development is responsible for the costs are higher on forested land. However, counter to continuing concern about urbanization of California cropland as @,.videnced in the following: Griffin and Chatham, "Urban Impact this handicap would be the amenity value trees add in on Agriculture in Santa Clara County, California;" Curtis C. urban areas. Underestimation of forest land converted to Harris, Jr. and David J. Allee, Urbanization and Its Effects on urban uses may also have occurred as facilities beneath Agriculture in Sacramento County, California. Vol. 1. Urban tree cover, such as buildings or picnic tables, may not Growth and Agricultural Land Use, and C. Richard Shurnway, have been visible on the photos. Together, agricultural, and others, Regional Resource Use for Agricultural Production in California, 1961-65 and 1980 (Giannini Found. Mon. 25, open idle, and forest land accounted for 99 percent of 1970). 15 Table 11 - Changes in urban land for regional groups of the 53 study counties, 1961-1970' South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Urbanland 1961 450.5 195.8 234.8 152.0 72.4 20.4 525.2 228.1 345.7 406.7 80.3 90.2 2,802.1 1970 550.2 255.6 338.9 185.8 136.4 34.2 605.3 281.9 432.5 500.2 115.0 125.9 3,561.8 Net change 1961-1970 +99.7 +59.8 +104.1 +33.8 +64.0 +13.8 +80.1 +53.8 +86.8 +93.5 +34.7 +35.7 +759.7 Gross additions to urban land 1961-1970 99.9 60.0 104.9 34.2 64.0 13.8 80.8 56.1 86.8 94.6 39.0 35.7 769.7 Percent Converted from:' Cropland 25.5 39.3 19.2 34.1 6.2 9.7 49.2 62.0 14.8 48.8 55.8 70.1 34.6 Pasture and range 1.0 .5 2.2 10.0 .6 2.7 4.6 8.7 3.6 7.2 3.5 Farmsteads .4 1.2 .3 .3 .9 1.8 .4 Open idle 23.3 32.4 23.3 47.1 61.1 24.2 37.3 20.2 40.7 30.1 37.5 19.2 32.8 Forest 49.8 26.6 57.2 15.9 16.2 66A 12.4 14.8 39.9 11.3 3.5 28.0 Water bodies more than 1.1 .3 .1 40 acres Miscellaneous .3 .7 5.4 .2 1.2 .6 1, 000 acres Gross declines of urban land 1961-1970 .2 .2 .8 .5 - .7 2.3 1.1 4.1 10.0 Percent Converted to:' Cropland Pasture and range Farmsteads Open idle 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 68.0 100.0 25.0 100.0 92.7 Forest 32.0 2.1 Water bodies more than 50.0 3.5 40 acres Miscellaneous 25.0 1.7 Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreational, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI use. Percentages may not total 100.0 due to rounding. Table 12 - Proportion of new urban land uses developed from nonurban land, 53 study counties, 1961-1970 Nonurban uses Pasture and Water bodies Urban uses Cropland range Farmsteads FOpn idle over 40 acres Miscellaneous Percent All urban land 34.6 3.5 .4 32.8 28.0 1 .6 Residential 32.6 2.5 .2 33.0 31.1 .2 .5 Urban idle 40.9 - - 32.8 26.3 - - Transportation 40.9 6.3 .5 20.5 30.0 - 1.8 Recreation 41.3 9.5 - 30.9 16.9 .7 .7 Commercial-industrial-institutionaI 34.7 3.1 1.1 41.0 20.1 - tion also had the highest percentage of development on Table 13 - Intraurban land use transfers, miscellaneous land. This pattern of conversion to 53 study counties, 1961-1970 transport use is because transportation involves not only local movement, but also through travel over terrain 1970 urban uses unsuitable for other intensive development. A comparatively low percenta .ge of recreational Resi- Trans- Commercial- den- Urban porta- Recre- industrial- 1961 development was on forest land. This reinforces an 1961 urban uses tial idle tion ation institutional totals earlier point that airphoto interpretation's reliance on - cover to indicate use results in some distortions and 1, 000 acres inaccuracies. The more easily identifiable recreation Residential - - 2.1 - 1.6 3.7 uses - amusement parks, playing fields, and golf courses - are likely to be developed on more level open Urban idle 1'7.0 - 1.9 1.0 11.6 31.5 land (cropland, for instance). However, picnic areas and riding and hiking trails may be masked by tree cover. Transportation - - - 1.1 Whereas none of the commercial-industrial-institutionaI Recreation .2 - .3 - .2 .8 development occurred at water's expense, water edges were modified by some residential and recreational Commercial- development, reflecting the amenity value of water industrial- frontage. institutional - - - - - Intraurban Land Transfers 197 0 totals 17.2 - 4.4 . 2.1 13.4 37.1 The incidence of intraurban land use change was low and the individual figures have little statistical validity. However, they suggest a pattern of succession of esc ,alating intensity of use (table 13). This succession The only possible exception to the pattern of results when changing circumstances enable a higher increasing intensity of urban land uses was shift of some return if the land use is altered.' 5 The costs of transportation areas to recreation. These accounted for supersession, writing off of investments in improvements less than 3 percent of the intraurban land conversions. already located on a site, are borne at the promise of higher returns. Thus, no land reverted from any urban use to urban idle, as defined in our study. (If an urban OTHER LAND USES structure were no longer actively employed, this would not be easily interpretable from aerial photography.) No commercial-industrial-institutionaI land, the most inten- Water sive urban use, was converted to other urban uses. Conversions of residential land were only to transporta- Area in water bodies over 40 acres increased from 3.0 tion and commercial-industrial-institutional. to 3.3 percent of the study area. Seven times more land was converted to water area than was converted from water area to other uses (table 14). Ninety percent of Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics, p. 1817. the gross increase occurred in four regions - the 17 Table 14 - Changes in water bodies over 40 acres for regional groups of the 53 study counti&s, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Water bodies over 40 acres 1961 93.6 22.4 13.6 11.0 192.2 22.9 90.6 54.5 49.1 60.9 15.0 27.9 653.6 1970 94.0 22.6 33.7 25.7 189.5 20.9 89.6 54.5 63.4 70.5 15.9 30.2 710.7 Net change 1961-1970 +.4 +.2 +20.1 +14.7 -2.7 -2.0 -1.0 - +14.3 +9.6 +.9 +2.3 +57.1 Gross additions to water bodies over 40 acres 1961-1970 .4 .2 20.1 14.7 1.7 - 15.0 9.6 .9 2.5 65.3 Percent Converted from:' Cropland 3.4 77.4 12.5 28.1 31.6 29.9 Pasture and range 8.5 2.0 2.2 Farmsteads Open idle 100.0 100.0 77.8 4.8 49.9 60.5 45.8 100.0 49.5 Forest 18.8 4.8 37.6 15.2 84.6 13.4 Urban' 3.6 .5 00 Miscellaneous 13.0 2.8 1.8 15.4 4.4 1, 000 acres Gross declines of water bodies over 40 acres 1961-1970 2.7 2.0 2.7 - .7 .2 8.2 Percent Converted to:' Cropland Pasture and range Open idle Forest 74.4 100.0 74.4 100.0 100.0 83.2 Urban' 16.3 5.3 Miscellaneous 25.6 9.3 11.5 'Percentages may not total to 100.0 due to rounding. 'Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses. Piedmont, Appalachian Fringe, South Central Prairie/ A, was the urban land in a country in the Woodland Fringe, and Texas Prairie. first time period; Open idle land accounted for about half of the land developed for new water areas and was the most T2 was the year of the later photography; important source for increase in three of these four regions. The second most important source of land for T, was the year of the earlier photography; water development was cropland which accounted for almost 30 percent of gross increase. Over 75 percent of P2 was the population of a county during gross conversions to water in the Appalachian Fringe was the second year of photography; and from cropland. The propensity for development of water bodies from cropland and open idle probably reflects P, was the populatio *n of a county during inundation of valleys and bottom lands behind dams. the first year of photography. To calculate multi-county coefficients, the average Miscellaneous yearly changes were combined. Miscellaneous uses, accounting for about 2 percent of the total study area, showed only a slight net decrease The residential land use coefficents (R) were between sampled periods. Gross additions were evenly calculated: spread throughout the regions and mainly reflected H2-H, development of ponds and water management ditches on open idle land and cropland (table 15). Patterns of gross declines were more variable. Eighty percent of the gross R T2-T1 decreases occurred in the Florida counties and mainly involved development of the wetlands. Most of these P2-PI converted wetlands were not immediately developed beyond drainage, as 57 percent of all losses from T2-T] miscellaneous category in the Florida counties was to where: H2, was the acreage in residential use in T2; open idle. A substantial portion though - 21 percent - was used for cropland and 14 percent was H, was the acreage in residential use in TI; developed for urban uses. If the Florida counties are not and the other variables were the same as in considered, all miscellaneous would have increased to the previous equation. 2.2 percent of the total area. When the Florida counties were excluded from total figures, 50 percent of the The inverse of these coefficients, expressing the diversion of niiscellaneous land was to water bodies over average density of new urban or residential development, 40 acres. may also be used to describe the land-to-population relationship. Had the time intervals been the same for all counties, PER CAPITA LAND USE CHANGES coefficients of losses of particular uses to urban land could be simply calculated by Multiplying the urban Land use coefficients, ratios of land use to popula- land use coefficients by the percentage of each non- tion, can be used to describe land use patterns. urban use contributed * Since this was not the case, to Procedures for deriving coefficients do not vary obtain more precise coefficients, it was necessary to significantly in general formulation but do differ 'in derive them in the same manner as the urban land definition of the land use and population variables. For coefficients. Thus the loss of cropland to urban use per this study, the urban land use coefficient (U) was population increase (cropland urbanized coefficien .t, 0 was calculated: calculated: A2-Al T2-T] C U= T2-T1 P2-P1 P2-PI T2-T1 T2- TI where: c was the number of acres converted from cropland to urban use between times T, and where: A2 was the urban land- in a county in the T2, and the other variables were the same as second time period; those in the previous equations. 19 Table 15 - Changes in land in miscellaneous uses for regional groups of the,53 study counties, 1961-1970 South Central Jackson Prairie/ 53- North- Middle Appalachian Florida County, Corn Great Woodland Texas county Item east Atlantic Piedmont Fringe Gulf Miss. Belt Lakes Fringe Prairie Colorado California total 1, 000 acres Miscellaneous land 1961 47.5 3.2 23.4 16.3 139.0 5.3 53.4 29.8 28.7 64.5 40 *7 10.6 462.3 1970 48.4 4.3 25.6 14.8 122.4 5.8 57.6 30.3 .29.0 67.1 @40.9 11.8 458.0 Net change 1961-1970 +.9 +1.1 +2.2 -1.5 -16.6 +.5 +4.2 +.5 +.3 +2.6 +.2 +1.2 -4.3 Gross additions to miscellaneous 1961-1970 l'i 1.1 2.9 .7 6.0 .4 4.9 .7 .8 @.q .7 1.6 24.0 Percent Converted from: Cropland 21.2 37.4 35.4 66.7 3.5 35.2 69.3 25.0 0.5 33.3 61.7 26.8 Pasture and range 19.9 18.3 75.0 18.6. 33.3 5.9 Farmsteads Open idle 58.9 25.3 17.8 92.9 50.0 52.5 49.5 33.3 24.7 52.1 Forest 19.0 46.8 33.3 3.6 50.0 12.3 30.8 6.5 13.6 14.6 Urban' 5.9 .7 Water bodies more than 40 acres 1, 000 acres Gross declines of miscellaneous 1961-1970 .2 .7 2.2 22.6 .8 .2 .4 .4 .5 .4 28.4 Percent Converted to: Cropland 28.5 20.6 23.9 100.0 18.4 Pasture and range 3.1 2.5 Farmsteads Open idle 100.0 28.5 56.6 76.1 48.8 Forest 4.6 3.7 Urban' 42.9 11.0 14.1 52.3 100.0 16.@ Water bodies more than 89.0 1.0 100.0 47.7 100.0 10.2 40 acres Percentages may not total to 100.0 due to rounding. 'Includes residential, urban idle, transportation, recreation, and commercial-industrial-institutionaI uses. Densities of urban and residential land use were also source of land for new urban development. Simple derived for each time period by dividing the estimated regression of regional values of density of new urban population for each year of photography by the amount development (y) to regional percents of new urban of urban and residential land derived from the photo development occurring on cropland (x) yielded an r of interpretation. .57. Two regions - the Great Lakes and South Central Prairie/Woodland Fringe - were exceptions to this generalization, and their ornission from correlation raises Urban and Residential Coefficients r to .73. Areas with the highest density of new urban if --efficiency --i-s-defined as n-dnin-tization of land development were California, the Middle Atlantic, and consumed per person for urban and residential uses, then Corn Belt, in that order. Such compactness of urban use of land for these purposes became more efficient development was especially advantage 'ous in the during the study interval (tables 16 and 17). The urban California counties where 70 percent,of new urban land land use coefficient (U) for the 53 combined counties was developed from cropland, much of which is prized was .173 acres per person. New urban development for its special agricultural attributes. Conversely, in the occurred at a density of 5.8 persons per acre, which Florida Gulf region where the land use coefficient was raised the urban land use density from 4.3 persons per .481 and urban density was the lowest for all regions, acre for the earli6r period to 4.5 persons per acre during only 6 percent of new urban development occurred on the later period. The residential land use coefficient was cropland. 9.4 persons per acre, increasing the residential density There were regional similarities between the between the two times from 8.3 to 8.5 persons per acre. residential land use coefficients and the overall land use Regionally, the density of urban and residential land coefficients, as residential use constituted the largest use patterns varied considerably. There was some proportion of urban use. 1-figher densities of new evidence to suggest a regionally identifiable tendency for residential development also occurred in areas where new urban development to use land more efficiently in relatively larger proportions of new urban development areas where cropland was a relatively more important were on cropland. The California, Great Lakes, and Corn Table 16 - Urban land use coefficients and population densities of urban land by regions for the 53 study counties Region Urban land use coef. (U) Density of new urban development (1) Average population density of urban land U Earlier period Later period I I ' I - Acres per person Persons per acre Persons per acre Northeast .181 5.5 3.9 4.2 Middle Atlantic .137 7.3 5.5 6.0 Piedmont .216 4.6 4.1 4.3 Appalachian Fringe .275 3.6 2.8 3.0 Florida Gulf .481 2.1 2.1 2.1 (Jackson Co., Miss.) (.370) (2.7) (2.5) (2.6) Corn Belt .142 7.0 4.1 4.5 Great Lakes .173 5.8 5.0 5.2 South Central Prairie/Woodlaml Fringe .146 6.8 4.9 5.3 Texas Prairie .202 5.0 4.4 4.5 Colorado .234 4.3 2.3 2.9 California .097 10.3 5.8 7.1 53-county total .173 5.8 4.3 4.5 Table 17 - Residential land use coefficients and population densities of residential land by region for the 53 study counties Region Resid ential land use coef. (R) Density of new residential development (I Average population density of residential land Earlier period Later period Acres per erson Persons per acre Persons per acre Northeast .109 9.2 6.6 7.3 Middle A tlantic .095 10.5 9.9 10.1 Piedmon t .141 7.1 9.3 8.5 Appalachian Fringe 154 6.5 5.6 5.7 Florida Gulf 341 2.9 4.7 3.7 Oackson Co., Miss.) (.239) (4.2) (4.5) (4.4) Corn Bel t .092 10.9 8.1 8.5 Great Lakes .075 13.3 11.3 11.8 South Central Prairie/Woodland Fringe .117 8.5 8.8 8.8 Texas Prairie .092 10.9 8.1 8.5 Colorado .131 7.6 10.2 8.7 California .057 17.5 10.6 12.7 53-county total .106 9.4 8.3 8.5 21 Belt regions exemplified this tendency. Regression scattered throughout the @ortheastem United, States-, an comparison of regional density of new residential urban land use coefficient of .22 acres per person was development (y) to percent, of new residential develop- derived. 16 This compares favorably with.the- U@values ment that occurred on cropland (x) yielded an r value of for the Northeast and Middle Atlanticregions'. B and .78. Thus, residential development exhibited an even .14 respectively - as it was demonstrated: that more stronger association between density of new develop- recent urban development has occurred. at higher ment and the proportion of that development occurring densities (table 16). A study of land use:change in New on cropland. Cropland has less waste - unusable or very York State in the 1950's and 1960's resulted in a expensive to develop areas - than does other rural land. calculation of .1935 acres per person coefficient for-per Thus, an cropland, a developer may build more units per capita population increase outside cities and village acre at a lower cost per unit. boundarieO In no region was there a trend. toward decreasing An airphoto study of land use changes from 1950 to intensity of total urban use. However, four 1960 in 48 counties in eight far Western States regions - Piedmont, Florida Gulf, South Central concluded that land was urbanized at the rate of @.071 Prairie/Woodland Fringe, and Colorado - experienced @acres per capita increase in population." While this new residential development at lower densities than the compares well with this study's value of .097 acres per existing residential development. The low residential capita increase in the California counties, it is much density figures in the Florida area resulted not only from lower than the observed rate of conversion in the ,large size lots, but also from numerous vacant 'lots, Colorado counties. A more recent study of land use which have been platted and for which roads and other change in Colorado included county data for Weld -infrastructure, but not houses, have been built. County, which is similar in situation 'to the @ two Density of development of past and new urban and Colorado counties in this study, Adams-and Arapahoe. residential land was calculated for groupings of the In Weld County, .44 acres were urbanized per capita study counties by degree of integration within SMSA's. increase from 1950 to 1960 and .10 acres from 1960 to Variation of coefficients for the various urban orienta- 1970 for an overall value of .17 for the 20-year tion groupings of the counties is minimal (table 18). The period.' 9 This compares more favorably with the U first group, which contained six non-SMSA counties, did value of .234 derived in this study's Colorado counties, exhibit a pattern of continued lower density of urban which applied to changes from approximately 1957 to development than did the other groups. However, the 1969. other five groupings showed relatively little differentia- tion. This was especially true of the three groups with SMSA counties containing at least some urbanized area. The ranges in coefficient values of regional groups as Henry W. Dill, Jr. and Robert C. Otte, Urbanization of compared to the urban groups results partly from the Land in the Northeastern United States (U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. numerical variation of group sizes. It also reflects the Res. Serv., ERS-485, Washington, D.C., 197 1) p. 7. importance of regional variations in land use patterns when counties studied have some common character- 1 7 Allee and others, Toward the Year 1985, p. 20. istics. Henry W. Dill, Jr. and Robert C. Otte, Urbanization of Coefficients derived in this study were compared to Land in the Western States (U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., those resulting from other research. Results are ERS428, Washington, D.C., 1970) p. 7. .presented below. It must be remembered that definitions Raymond L. Anderson, Rate of Urbanization of Rural of.variables and methods of data collection differed Lands in the Northern Colorado Front Range Area of Boulder, among studies. From aerial photographic research of Weld and Larimer Counties, Colorado (Colorado State Univ., land urbanized between 1950 and 1960 in 96 counties Ext. Serv., 1974) p. 10. Table 18 - Population densities of new urban and residential development (1961-1970) and density of urban and residential development for the earlier period (196 1) by urban orientation groupings of the 53 study counties Density new urban Average density urban Density new residential Average density urban Area development development, earlier sample development (1) development, earlier sample I R Persons per acre Non-SMSA counties 2.4 2.4 4.4 5.3 Urbanized non-SMSA county 5.8 4.6 6.6 8.0 SMSA counties containing: No urbanized areas 2.8 3.2 4.2 7.9 Urbanized areas 6.2 4.3 11.1 8.4 Part SMSA central city 6.9 4.6 9.9 8.4 Entire SMSA central city 6.1 4.2 10.3 9.0 22 Cropland Urbanized Coefficients use change between approximately 1950 and 1960 in 96 Cropland urbanized per population increase (C) for Northeastern counties. 22 In the current , study, the all @53 study counties was .065 acres per person (table amount of cropland converted to urban uses per person 19). Regionally, the cropland urbanized coefficient increase was .052 acres in the five Northeastern counties ranged from .022 in the South Central Prairie/Woodland and .054 acres in the five Middle Atlantic counties. Fringe to .148 in the Colorado counties. Acres of Continued economic abandonment of cropland in these cropland taken for urban use per person increase tended areas has resulted in a smaller cropland base subject to to be higher in regions where cropland constituted a urban development. Higher density of new urban proportionally larger share of the land base. Simple development n-dght also contribute to a declining C regression of percents of regional area in cropland (x) to value. This study's coefficient for cropland urbanized in the regional cropland urbanized coefficients (y) resulted the California area was fairly cl 'ose to the .055 acres per in an r of .78. The correspondence was higher than that person derived from an airphoto study, dorninated by between percent of area in cropland and percent of California counties, of land use change between 23 urban development on cropland (r equalled .71) because approximately 1950 and 1960. California's high percentage use of cropland for urban Boguc, in a study of aggregate land use changes development was partially offset by the high density of between 1924 and 1954 for 147 metropolitan areas such. development. associated all cropland and pasture decline with popula- 24 Agricultural land changes have been normalized for tion change. He estimated that between .172 and .2 64 population increase in a number of studies. In making acres of cropland and pasture were lost per person comparisons between the present study and other increase. In the current study, over 80 percent of the studies, it is again necessary to emphasize that the counties were parts of SMSA's (see footnote 10). specifics of calculations varied substantially. A cropland Associating, as Bogue did, all cropland and pasture (and urbanized coefficient of .114 acres per person may be range) decline with population increase for the 53 study derived from Callahan's study of acreage of open counties yielded a coefficient of .15 acres decline per cropland converted to urban uses in six Massachusetts person increase. The current study, though, showed that communities from 1940 to 1964 .2 0 From a study of only a quarter of the net cropland loss and 42 percent of land use changes in 78 sample towns in New York State, the net pasture and range loss was directly to urban uses. circa 1951 to 1966, a cropland urbanized coefficient of Thus, approximately .066 acres of cropland and pasture .081 acres per person increase was derived .2 ' A C value and range were directly converted to urban use for each of .108 acres per person was derived in a study of land person added to the population. Dill and Otte, Urbanization of Land in the Northeastern 'James W. Callahan, Agricultural Land Use Changes and United States, p. 4. Population Growth in Six Western Massachusetts Communities, 2' Dill and Otte, Urbanization of Land in the Western 1940-1965 (College of Agr., Exp. Sta. Bull. 55 8, Univ. of Mass., States, pp. 6-7. 1966). Bogue, Metropolitan Growth and Conversion ofLand to 2' Allee and others, Toward the Year 1985, p. 20. Nonagricultural Uses, p.. 14. Table 19 - Cropland urbanized coefficient (C) and proportion of area in cropland for regional groupings of the 53 study counties Cropland as proportion Region Cropland urbanized coef. (C) of total area, earlier period Acres per person Percent Northeast .052 23.2 Middle Atlantic .054 28.1 Piedmont .043 18.1 Appalachian Fringe .092 37.9 Florida Gulf .030 10.0 (Jackson Co., Miss.) (.036) (2.7) Corn Belt .068 48.1 Great Lakes .111 54.6 South Central Prairie/Woodland Fringe .022 24.0 Texas Prairie .098 42.1 Colorado .148 47.0 California .068 16.3 53-county total .065 32.9 23 Limitations of Coefficients was almost half that of the first, yet average yearly In this study, land use coefficients were used to population increase remained about equal. Clay County, rationalize and quantify land use changes. Such Mo., experiencing a net cropland decline during the first coefficients have been widely employed. However, there period, had a net increase in cropland for the second are limitations to such per capita normalizations. They interval. Net cropland loss per year in Tarrant County, assume a direct association between population increase Tex., was 70 percent higher during the second period. and urban land use increase. While in the 53 study Also in Tarrant, unlike the other counties, the urban counties there was significant urban land u ,se increase, land use coefficient was higher for the second period. there was no systematic test of the collateral postulate Yet, in Tarrant County as in the other counties, the that where urban land uses have increased, population amount of cropland taken for urban uses per person also has evidenced. an increase. Results from an increase declined during the second interval. identically executed study of land use change in one In three of the counties - Prince Georges, Dupage, county - Somerset, Pa. - did suggest that care should and Clay - net conversions of cropland to open idle be taken when projecting land use change by association occurred at a decreasing pace. In Clay County, the with population projections. 21 In Somerset County, pattern of net losses of cropland to open idle, was even which experienced absolute population declines for both reversed. However, Tarrant County exhibited the 1950 to 1960 and 1960 to 1970, urban land uses opposite trend. The average not yearly conversions of increased 21 percent between 1958 and 1967. cropland to open idle was almost four times greater for Residential land increased 10 percent for the same the later period than for. the first interval. period. This emphasizes the need for further study of land use dynamics in areas experiencing slow or no growth. CONCLUSION Simple comparison of land use inventories of these 53 TEMPORAL COMPARISON counties for two time periods indicates that land uses did not change dramatically. Urban uses occupied 3.5 Land use changes for four counties were observed for percentage points more of the total area by 1970. two time periods, 1950 to 1960 and 1960 to 1970 (see Cropland declined by 2.5 percentage points of total area. table 20). Again, it should be emphasized that the The percent of total area in pasture and range, open idle, smaller the number of counties under consideration, the and forest decreased by .3, .5, and .5 points respectively; larger the range of possible error. In generalizing at the thus total net decline of these four nonurban uses was county level, accuracy of the data is less reliable than at 3.8 percentage points. To assume that these losses the multicounty level. However, considering the directly accounted for the increases in urban land would diversity of the counties which were examined twice, it be inaccurate. Only 49 percent of the net cropland would be misleading to aggregate their data. Thus, even decline was to urban use and more new cropland was though the exact quantities are of dubious statistical developed than was lost to urban development. Thus validity, the direction is at least indicative of land use simple comparison of inventories for two points in time changes which occurred. masks much of the dynamics of land use change. In general, the amount of land consumed per person Even in these urban areas, shifts among rural uses was for urban and residential uses declined during both time an important aspect of land use change. Some new periods (table 20). This pattern of increasing density was cropland was developed even in areas with rapidly also evident for the aggregate of the 53 study counties. expanding populations. Considering only net moves, the In all four counties, the rate of cropland urbanized regional patterns of land use change were much more per person increase (C) for the later sample declined variable than the aggregate. The detailed movements from the earlier one, even though the counties had among the various land uses exhibited even more varying patterns of cropland change (table 20). In Prince regional differences. Georges County, Md., the average net yearly decline in Open idle land use experienced the most dynarruism cropland remained about the same. In Dupage County, of any of the uses. Cropland and pasture and rangeland Ill., yearly net cropland decline for the second interval were abandoned because of the general changes in farming production and the special negative pressure in 'Ibis is a fairly common technique used in the previously urban areas. Yet new cropland and pasture being noted 1956 Bogue study.and the 1970 Allee study. Currently, a developed from idle land was almost half as great as the Land Use Adjustment and Allocation Model which employs per losses to open idle. A significant amount of open idle capita data has been developed to estimate the quantity of grew up to forest. Forty percent of the gross acreage agricultural land that will be taken from production to diversions of idle land was for urban development. accommodate urban and other nonagricultural land needs. This model is a component of the National Assessment Model Almost as much land as had remained open idle during developed at Iowa State University. the study interval changed to or from open idle use. 24 Table 20 - Comparison of land use coefficients for the four counties studied for two time spans Characteristic Prince Georges Co., Md. Dupage Co., 111. Clay Co., Mo. Tarrant Co., Tex. I I I I - Average yearly population increase 1,000 persons Earlier period 19A 16.2 4.6 17.7 Later period 33,7 17.8 2.7 17.8 Acresperperson Urban land use coefficient (U) Earlier period .193 .181 .191 .227 Later period .099 .082 .082 .253 Residential land use coefficient (R) Earlier period .128 .102 .129 .141 Later period .073 .037 .165 .128 Cropland urbanized coefficent (C) Earlier period .051 .137 .077 .078 Later period .026 .064 .021 .059 Average yearly net conversion of 1, 000 acres cropland to open idle land Earlier period -1.2 -1.4 - 1 -.8 Later period -1. 1 -.7 +.3 -3.1 Average yearly net change in cropland Earlier period -23 -3.7 -.3 -2.7 Later period 1 -2.1 -2.0 +.6 -4.6 During these 10 years of rapid population growth, the indication that the density of urban development, 53 counties accounted for 20 percent of the 1960 to especially for residential use, was higher in areas with 11970 U.S. population increase. The percent of urban higher proportions of cropland. The proportion of land rose from 12.9 to 16.4 percent of the total area. urbanized land developed from cropland was greater in During this time, less land was taken for urban use per areas where cropland occupied more of the land base. person increase in population than had been previously. The pattern of land use change Inthe county which had This trend was also apparent in the examination of land experienced population decline since 1950 suggests that use changes from 1950 to 1960. The actual amount of the conversion of land to urban uses in slow or no land urbanized per person increase exhibited growth areas should also be the focus of future study. considerable geographic variation. There was some 25 APPENDIX A-BASIC DATA ON STUDY COUNTIES Population' State/county 1960 1970 Arca2 Years of ASCS photography Thousands Square miles Alabama; Madison 117.3 186.5 810 1962-1970 California: Santa Clara 642.3 1,064.7 1,311 1956-1963 Santa Cruz 84.2 123.8 440 1956-1963 Colorado: Adams 120.3 185.8 1,242 1957-1969 Arapahoe 113.4 162.1 802 19S6-1969 Florida: Lee 54.5 105.2 1,005 1958-1970 Pasco 36.8 76.0 772 19S7-1968 Sarasota 76.9 120.4 620 1957-1969 Georgia: Cobb 114.2 196.8 348 1960-1972 Dekalb 256.8 415.4 269 1960-1972 Illinois: Dupage' 313.5 491.9 331 1954-1961-1967 Lake 293.7 382.6 474 1961-1967 Will 191.6 249.5 853 1961-1967 Indiana: Monroe 59.2 84.8 412 1954-1967 Porter 60.3 87.1 425 1958-1965 Kansas: Johnson 143.8 217.7 478 1959-1966 Kentucky: Fayette 131.9 174.3 281 1960-1966 Maryland: Harford 76.7 115.4 475 1964-1971 Howard 36.2 61.9 251 1964-1970 Montgomery 340.9 522.8 505 1963-1970 Prince Georges' 357.4 660.6 497 1957-1963-1970 Massachusetts: Plymouth 248.4 333.3 710 1952-1970 Michigan: Macomb 405.8 625.0 481 1964-1973 Washtenaw 172.4 234.1 723 1963-1969 Minnesota: Anoka 85.9 154.6 443 1964-1970 Dakota 78.3 139.8 588 1964-1970 Washington 52.4 82.9 419 1964-1970 Mississippi: Jackson 55.5 88.0 761 1958-1970 See footnotes at end of table Continued 26 Basic data on study counties, Continued Population' State/co unty 1960 1 1970 Area' Years of ASCS photography Thousands Square miles Missouri: Boone 55.2 80.9 689 1956-1968 Clay' 87.5 123.3 417 1952-1963-1973 Jefferson 66.4 105.3 671 1959-1966 St. Charles 53.0 93.0 586 1958-1971 St. Louis 703.5 951.4 517 1965-1971 Nebraska: Sarpy 31.3 63.7 248 1965-1971 New Jersey: Burlington 224.5 323.1 830 1963-1970 Monmouth 334.4 459.4 487 1963-1970 Morris 261.6 383.5 478 1963-1971 Sussex 49.3 77.5 538 1963-1970 North Carolina: Cumberland 148.4 212.0 655 1960-1972 Mecklenburg 272.1 354.7 552 1961-1968 Wake 169.1 228.5 859 1959-1971 Ohio: Portage 91.8 125.9 506 .1966-1972 Oklahoma: Cleveland 47.6 81.8 559 1963-1969 Pennsylvania: Bucks 308.6 415.1 625 1964-1971 Chester 210, 6 278.3 762 1964-1971 Somerset' 77.4 76.0 1,078 1958-1967 Texas: Collin 41.2 66.9 886 1964-1972 Dallas 951.5 1,327.3 902 1964-1972 Denton 47.3 75.6 958 1964-1972 Harris 1,243.2 1,741.9 1,766 1964-1973 Taff an t3 '538.5 716.3 898 19SO-1963-1970 Travis 212.1 295.5 1,047 1964-1973 Virginia: Henrico 117.3 154.4 234 1965-1972 Wisconsin: Waukeska 158.2 231.4 580 1963-1969 U.S. Dept. Commerce, Census of Population. 2 Dept. Commerce, Census Bureau Area Measurement Reports. 'Land use changes documented for 2 time periods. 'Generally.excluded from comparisons. APPENDIX B - METHODOLOGY Sample Selection Counties that had a 30-percent population increase and The purpose of the photo interpretation was to an absolute population increase of 20,000 between 1960 extract certain data from airphotos to measure land use and 1970 were listed. From these, 53 were selected that over a decade in both urban and rural areas of selected had complete airphoto coverage for 2 recent years counties that expericenced rapid population growth. approximating a 10-year interval. Ideally, photography 27 for the 2 years would have been 1960 and 1970 so that licks. It usually lacked the appearance of recent -tillage the period of observed land use change would coincide and often had a regular shape with distinct boundaries. with the most recent censuses of population. Some of these indicators were not readily evident iri. Comparable scale of photography provided greater extensively managed rangelands. economy and enhanced interpretation quality by Open idle land was defined as land having less.than permitting development of procedures which could be 10-percent crown cover and no evidence of other use. uniforrrdy and repetitively applied. Therefore, ASCS Photographically, it appeared uneven in texture and photography was used. ASCS obtains aerial photography tone, was often irregular in shape, and commonly had for use in monitoring various farm programs; therefore, uneven shrubby vegetation. Tidal flats were included in almost all cropland has been covered. Thus, seltction of this caiegory. study counties was biased toward agriculturally more Farmsteads included all farm buildings and farm important counties. While limiting the source to ASCS activity with the exception of the farm residence and ,photography simplified the interpretation and sampling associated yards. Barns, silos, machinery sheds, exercise procedures, it had an important disadvantage for the yards, watering points, feed lots, etc. were part of this analysis. An area is rephotographed when significant category. changes in the cropland acreages and field boundaries Forest lands were defined as having more than have occurred - on the average at intervals of 8 years. In 10-percent crown cover and no other visible uses. Also the study counties, ASCS photography 'did not corre- included were areas of less than 10-percent cover spond exactly to census dates and the intervals were showing evidence of logging. usually not 10 years. Residential category consisted of houses and the yards associated with them including farm and rural dwellings, apartment complexes, mobile home sites, and Sampling Technique streets within urban residential areas. The land use and land use change information was Urban idle included moderate to small unused tracts obtained through two sampling steps, the first a surrounded on three sides by urban activity. Construc- 10-percent photographic sample of the county area, the tion sites where intended use could not be determined second a random point sample on the selected photos were considered in this category. covering a tenth of a county's area. The 10-percent Transportation comprised facilities and land areas photo sample was selected systematically, as simple associated with the movements of people and goods. random sampling could result in clustering of photos in Included were all highways and roads (except streets rural Or urban areas. However, selection of the first within residential areas), railrohd lines and yards, clearly photograph in each county was randomized within distinguishable rights-of-way, airports, and docks. certain constraints. The aim for a 10-percent coverage of Recreation predominately consisted of man-made the sample area was substantially exceeded as outdoor facilities generally associated with resident approximately 15 percent of the area was subject to the population. Camp grounds, golf courses, drive-in second step, the point sample. A random point sample theatres, race tracks, ski facilities, and public swimming of ' 20 points per square mile performed on the pools were typical of this category. Forest cover may 15-percent sample of total county area yielded an have obscured some of these uses. expanded sample rate for the study areas of 3 points per Commercial-industrial-institutionaI was a broad square mile. category. It included the structures and ground obviously associated with these uses such as central business districts, stores, car lots, utilities, factories, schools, and cemeteries. Land Use Categories Water bodies greater than 40 acres included all reservoirs and lakes greater than 40 acres and streams or The 12 categories selected covered most possibilities rivers wider than 200 feet from bank to bank. This of urban and rural uses of land. Brief working definitions definition corresponded to that used in the Department and descriptions are given below: of Commerce Census of Areas. Miscellaneous consisted primarily of streams, bodies Cropland was identified by its even tone and texture. of water less than 40 acres, nonforested wetlands, On occasion, distinct row patterns could be seen. drainage ditches, irrigation ditches, and Government Cropland was also definable by a lack of natural grain storage bins. Inclusion in this class was minimized to vegetation, by sharply defined boundaries, by field avoid the excessive use of a category which provides access roads, and in some cases by machine tracks minimum information. leading to the field. Pasture and @ range included land with up to Areal Calculations 30-percent crown cover that showed unmistakable signs The point sample data were converted to acreages by .of animal use such as stock ponds, animal trails, and salt dividing each county's area, as obtained from census 28 publications and correspondence, by the total number of where: N = Total number of prints in counties pointg-interpreted for that county.' Thus, for each county,., a, point had a specific acre equivalent, which n = Number of sampled prints in provided the constant for' conversions of point data to counties acreage data for that county. Mi= Total Jnumber of points in ith print Data Summation Mi= Number of sampled points on ith The intricacy of the land use transition matrix made print it extremely difficult to compute change on a yearly basis. Thus,,to combine multicounty data, acreages for Pi= Proportion of points in specified each interval-were summed. However, this introduced a land use on ith print based on biasi;weighing more heavily the changes in counties with sample a longer interval between sample years. In deriving the land use change coefficients, it was possible to employ A = Estimated average number of points yearly change for both population and land use. Yearly y in specified land use per print. population change was obtained by deriving a popula- tion figure for each county for its particular photo years. The degree of sample error depends-on both the To calculate population for each photo year, the magnitude and extent of dispersion of a land use's following were used when appropriate: decennial occurrence. For illustration, the cv. 's for each 1970 land censuses of population, interdecade estimates published use for the group of I I Corn Belt counties is shown in by the Census Bureau for 1966 and 1971-73, estimates App. B table 1. In the Corn Belt group, cropland supplied by individual counties, and interpolation where exhibits the least sample error due to its ubiquity, necessary. Land use coefficients were then calculated by dispersed pattern, and the fact that it constitutes a high dividing the average yearly change in land use by the proportion of all land uses. On the other hand, the urban average yearly change in population. idle measurement is subject to the largest inaccuracies because of the small acreage of land involved and its localized distribution. Thus, the larger the sample and/or Sample Error the greater prevalence of a certain use, the smaller the This stucly involved generation of primary data and sample error should be. Sample error will also be less for then making generalizations, from the data. Accuracy of uses more evenly spatially distributed. Therefore, this data must, therefore, be considered. The ai.@photo generalizations are more valid when they are based on interpretation @ procedure employed to generate this multiple county data and/or areally more important study's data involved a two-step sample, the 15-percent uses. Conclusions based on observed changes within the print sample and, within that, a point sample. To cells of the land transition matrices are less reliable than calculate sample error,. account must be taken of error the ag gregate 1961 and 1970 inventories because each potentially introduced in each step of the sampling cell describes changes for a smaller, more localized process. To do this, the sample error for each land use, proportion of the sample. expressed as the coefficient of variation (cv.) may be Appendix B table I-Estimated accuracy of two-step point calculated as follows:* sample of land use for the Corn Belt counties, 1970 *C. V. (A) = @@r_V@( n IYL EM Land use Acreage Prevalence Coefficient y n ipi of variation n 2 1,000acres Percent Percent. n1 VM p I@ z n ipi) nM.p@ Cropland 1690.8 46.4 5.4 V(A)= + Pasture and range 99.8 2.7 10.9 Farmstead 49.7 1.4 9.0 n (n- nN (mi- 1) Open idle 248.5 6.8 8.1 Forest 799.6 21.9 7.9 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau Area Residential 319.6 8.8 14.2 Measurement Reports, GE-20 Series, for each State for 1960 Urban idle 12.6 .3 33.3 were used except where correspondence with the Census Bureau Transportation 156.3 4.3 7.5 indicated corrections or changes had occurred. Recreation 20.0 .5 20.8 * Adapted by H. F. Huddleston, Stat. Rptg. Serv., USDA, Commercial- Washington, D.C. See H. F. Huddleston, "Point Samplin industrial- 9 institutional 96.8 2.7 17.5 Surveys for Potato Acreage in Colorado's San Luis Valley," Ag. Econ. Res., Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan. 1968, pp. 14, and W. A. Water bodies Hendricks, The Mathematical Theory of Sampling (Scarecrow over 40 acres 89.6 2.5 20.3 Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1956) pp. 183-186, 206-208. Miscellaneous 57.6 1.6 8.2 29 APPENDIX C--TRANSITION MATRICES Appendix C table 1--Land use transition matrix for the 53 study counties 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban TranSPOY- Recrea- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous, totals range Inst. t Acres Cropland A3q7AP3. j 4 1 j . 362;),@,J. ?362. 48231. 150341. 2302. 44841. 13656. 9,5356, Ic)498. 6421. 71691504. Pasture and range I n774i. 1"1691A. 99;-75. 0. 1HO20. 1166,,. 0. 6851. 3145. 4960. 1464. 1416. 1771482. Open idle ?757,1. 61,74Q. 1 3H9n?c@. 1921. 171,?59. 15p481. IASI. 22483. 10231. 65390. 3P298. 12489. 2060751. Farmsteads 156%4. 106. ?410. 185227. 2. 31; . 841. .0. 579. 0. 1674. 0. 0. 192730. Forest P63AIt. 139?p. 737-@q. lb7o. 63ob584. 143b8A. 1482. 32876. ssa I , 32019. 8765. 3495. 6652013. 0 Residential 0 0. 11F9. U I A. 143911A. 0. 2139. 0. 1595. 0. 0. 1440257. Urban idle n n. n. 1691)n, . 49145. 1944. 969. 11586. 0. 0. 80634. Transportation n. 01. 0. n. 0. 778371. 1096. 0. 346. 0. 779813. Recreation 0. 0. 0. ??F. 0. 346. 11 1655. 196. 0. 0. 112425. Com..-Ind.-Inst. 1/ R07R. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 380681. 0. 173. 3PA932. Water bodies over 40 acres n. 0. 6841. 0. 434. ('96. 0. 0. 248. 0. 64541A. 0. 653637. Miscellaneous A I IP ?4 0. 1037. 22?1 0. 19bn. 236. 232. ;1895. 433981. 46?336. 1970 totals 3 11 . 1 1 @IbAIA4 IQ 1 080 . O@qq?n I A. 1914171 54780. 892390. 146817. 553689. 710684. 457975. 21764518. 1/ Co@ercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 2--Land use transition matrix for Northeast regional group 1970 land uses _T7__ VaTe Fli-scel- 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- r 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Tnd.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 573575. 1579. 53312. 0. 3348. 14080. 0. 1731. 2556. 7103. 0. 235. 657519. Pasture and range 627. 21939. 2986. 0. 602. 966. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 221. 27341. Open idle 3831. 217. 174102. 0. 14674. 1471g. 0. 2477. 425. 5678. 433. 654. 217209. Farmsteads 0. 196. 203. 13167. 0. 196. 0. 0. 0. 222. 0. 0. 13984. Uj For.st 678. 0. 7621. 0. 1269614. 29393. 189. 8206. 1218. 10740. 0. 0. 1327608. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 256433. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 256433. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 188. 3005. 565. 0. 819. 0. 0. 4577. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 110052. 0. 0. 0. 0. 110052. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 16248. 196. 0. 0. 16444. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 1AA. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 62757. 0. 0. 62945. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 93609. 0. 93609. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 217. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 47254. 47471. 1970 totals 578661. 23911. 238629. 13167. 1288238. 315974. 3193. 123031. 20447. 87515. 94042. 48364. 2835191. 1/ Comercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 3--Land use. transition matrix for the Middle Atlantic regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- I Water Miscel- __1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland ?907n. e2Q. A67. 1720q. 0. 2662. 1935. 171;1. 0. 414. 354104. Pasture and range 3646. ?k64?. 4?7. 28o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 213. 36931. Open idle 1 P 1; . 45749. 0. IS48P. I 3bfl . 0. 1698. 0. 3898. 229. 280. 8387?. Farmsteads 0. 0. 11,220. 0 . r) . 0. U. 742. 0. 0. 12962. Forest 0. 3FP-,. 0. 5?6524. 1 1566. 0. ?614. 465. 1340. 0. 211. 546545. Residential 0 . 0. 0. 1 n@i 16A . 0. 422. 0. 2?9. 0. 0. 109648. Urban idle n. n. 0. 0. e 11 . 1194. 0. 0. 633. 0. 0. 2038. 0. 47613. Transportation 0 . 0. 0. o . 0. 47613. 0. 0. 0. Recreation 0. 0. U. 0. 0. 0. 10190. 0. 0. 0. 10190. Com..-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. n. 0. 0. ?6295. 0. 0. 26295. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. P . 0. 0. 0. 0. 22419. 0. p?419. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3154. .3154. Miscellaneous n. n. 0. 0. n. 0. 1970 totals 3n244;1 3?4 QA. 8?404. 12449. S43300. 151b99. 1194. "so 09. 12590. 348AR. 22648. 4272. 125cj670, I/ Comercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 4--Land use transition matrix for the Piedmont regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water MTs-cel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Tnd.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 232036. 3040. 23391. 0. 29628. 15399. 0. 1041. 1589. 2130. 681. 1042. 309977. Pasture and range 415. 33A9. 631. 0. 2532. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6967. Open idle 4245. 0. 46443. 0. 35567. 12885. 0. 3152. 227. 8187. 15649. 523. 126678. Farmsteads 0. 0. 0. 7137. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D. 7137. Forest 2958. 207. 19577. 21o. go633i . 40978. 891. 8166. 1101. 8822. 3784. 1375. 994400. Residential 0. 0. 316. 0. 0. 103071. 0. 454. 0. 0. 0. 0. 103841. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 227. 1910. 0. 0. 1507. 0. 0. 3644. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 89663. 0. 0. 0. 0. 89663. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6215. 0. 0. 0. 6215. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. 0. 437. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 30967. 0. 0. 31404. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 13579. 0. 13579. Miscellaneous 210. 0. 210. 0. 0. 316. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 226T2. 23408. 1970 totals 239864. 6636. 91005. 7347. 974058. 172876. 2801. 102476. 913?. 51613. 33693. 25612. 1717112. 1/ Comercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 5--Land use transition matrix for the Appalachian Fringe regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Co_m__.-___17 -*Water - -miscei- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 433760. 6323. 21671. 0. 2605. 7915. 0. 1142. 474. 2135. 11351. 472. 487848. Pasture and range 4885. 47283. 6027. 0. 1661. 0. 0. 285. 236. 238. 0. 0. 60615. Open idle 9q33. 807. 50152. 0. 13279. 8671. 0. 807. 711. 5927. 709. 0. 90996. Farmsteads 236. 0. 0. 16403. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 16639. Forest 946. 710. 2373. 0. 439833. 3081. 0. 472. 951. 951. 709. 236. 450262. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 75611. 0. 285. 0. 0. 0. 0. T5896. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 946. 1418. 0. 0. 474. 0. 0. 283a . Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. Oo n. 0. 42363. 709. 0. 0. 0. 43072. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6124. 0. 0. 0. 6124. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 472. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 23648. 0. 0. 24120. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11047. 0. 11047. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 236. 0. 1904. 14139. 16279. 14847. 1285735. 1970 totals 4&9760. 55123. A 06Q5. 16403. 457378. 962?4. 1418. 45354. 9441. 33373. 25720. l/ Comercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 6--Land use transition matrix for the Florida Gulf regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- I/: Water 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Tnd.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 128460. 5104. 10650. 866. 4174. 2414, 0. 887. 464. 212. 0. 212. 153443. Pasture and range 26050. 79253. 7384. 0. 5204. 2964. 0. 908. 2320. 232. 0. 0. 124315. Open idle 45285. 17322. 277213. 1268. 55015. 30e55. 0. 5376. 849. 2605. 0. 5540. 440728. Farmsteads 170. 0. 232. 3192. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3594. Uj Forest 13298. 5906. 10263. 928. 367495. 6938. 0. 2878. 0. 57?. 0. 212. 408492. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 31637. 0. U. 0. 170. 0o 0. 31807. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 509. 340. 0. 0o 0. 0. 0. 849. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 32261. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3U61 . Recreation 0. Oo 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 207. 0. 0. 0. 2037. Comm.-Ind.-Inst 1/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. U. 5398. 0. 0. 5398. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 2026. 0. 0. 696. 0. 0. 0. 0. 189472. 0. 192194. Miscellaneous 4658. 696. 128o3. 0. 1037. 1905. 0o 1291. 0. 232. o. 116422. 139044. 1970 totals 217921. 108283. 320571. 6254. 432925. 77318. 340. 43601. 5670. 9421. 189472. 122386. 1534161o l/ Commercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table 7--Land use transition matrix for Jackson County, Mississippi 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Water jacel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals ran e Inst. Acres Cropland 3 4@'3 11;1;4. 0. 1776. 133? . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13098. Pasture and range 0. 0. 1110. 0. 0. U. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1110. Open idle P442. 0. 56385. 0. @0323 . 1776. 0. 444. 0. 1110. 0. 222. 71702. Farmsteads 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Forest 9772. 0. li5201. 5t)50 0. 1776. 0. 1776. 0. 222. 352517. Residential 0. 0. 0. 1 1321. 0. 0. b. 0. 0. 0. 11321. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 2pp. ?22. U. 0. 0. 0. 0. 444. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5994. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5994. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 88a. 0. 0. 0. 888. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1776. 0. 0. 1776. Water bodies over 40 acres @j . 0. 199A. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20867. 0. 22865. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. n 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5328. 5328. 1970 totals 3 0 Qe . 657,)9. 0. 347410. ?o2ol. 222- 6214. 888. 4662. 2o867. 5772. 467043. I/ Commercia Appendix C table 8--Land use transition matrix for the Corn Belt regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water MTs-cel-: 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland "I P e7H. 3660. ;15019. 4S.4. 3483. 1251. 9476. 216. 1745. 1757797. Pasture and range Hl 61)0. 16715. 0. 2514k. 24A. 0. 216. n . 0. 0. 0. 119016. Open idle P 1 60@ T. iq-). 16917n. e,2?. ISS48. 114504. 0. 1394. 0. 9216. S64. 2597. 247443. Farmsteads 6"A. r) . P14. 4q7T6. ?37. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 49880. Forest 43 14 . 7.q?. 43 77.39 1;.'. 4,4 7. ?28. 1947. ?5 .1 3330. 651. 607. 797664. Residential 0. p 16. 0. 432. 0. 620. 0. 0. 26681A. Urban idle o . (1 0. 45.17. 111)61. 1204. 55b. 2332. 0. 0. 20590. Transportation 0. 0. 147SY2. ?14. 0. 0. 0. 147806. Recreation r) . 0. 0. 2pp. 0. 0. 17412. 0. 0. 0. 17700. Comm;-Ind.-Inst. I/ (1 464. 0. r) . n. n. 0. 0. 71742. 0. 0. 7225A. Water bodies over 40 acres 0 . I 9A4. 0. 434. n. 0. 0. 248. 0. 97895. 0. 90561. Miscellaneous 0. ';Q4 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 52645. 53429; 1970 totals 1.007P4. 91'@A?1, . ?.4H;41@ . 49108. 709568. 31qt,3o. 12642. 156?68. lc)998. 96766. 89626. 57594. 3640955. I/ Commercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 9--Land use transition matrix for the Great Lakes regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water Mis@Tel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 1026430. 5257. 61077. 283. 979. 11589. 616. 8996. 3118. 10462. 0. 509. 1129316. Pasture and range 3224. 27893. BR97. 0. 226. 227. 0. 455. 0. 850. 0. 0. 41772. Open idle 5611 . 1227. 1491 J'0. 0. 6087. 5916. 0. 2365. 616. 2437. 0. 0. 173369. Farmsteads 5019. 0. 0. 34253. Q. 0. 0. 175. 0. 0. 0. 0o 34937. Forest 13?1 . 401. 3838. 0. 363875. 4585. 175. 1922. 0. 1593. 0. 226. 377936. 00 Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 100995. 0. 20o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10119S. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1183. 1365. 175. 0. 616. 0. 0. 3339. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 76866. 0. 0. 0. 0. 76866. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 23,482. 0. 0. 0. 23382. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 2268. Oi 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21066. 0. 0. 23334. water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 54536. 0. 54S36. Miscellaneous 200. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 29569. 29759. 1970 totals 1037295. 34778. 225190. 34536. 371167, 12449r., 2156. 91154. 27116. 37024. 54536. 30304. 206975o. I/ Comercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table 10--Land use transition matrix for the South Central Prairie /Woodland Fringe regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture : Open Farm- : Forest : Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- lh Water MTS-,1-: __Y961 and t idle steads, t t tial idle tatio. tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 441120. 15501. 44349. 0. Sol. 8445. 196. 393. 0. 3802. 4215. 0. S18822. Pasture and range 7355. 367513. 28101. 0. 3660. 1837. 0. 605. 0. 1571. 12T4. 196. 412112. Open idle 841. 212. 122867. 196. 4428. 25794. 0. 785. 1414. 7252. 9062. 589. 173506. Farmsteads 0. 0. 425. 15139. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 15564. Forest 212. 3812. 5865. 0. 569911. 28951. 0. 2925. 421. 2356. 0. 0. 614459. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 192322. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 192322. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4320. 6886. 0. 0. 1375. 0. 0. 12581. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 73212. 0. 0. 0. 0. 73212. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10365. 0. 0,@ 0. 10365. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 57200. 0. 0. ST200. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 631. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 48435. 0. 49072. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 425. 28246. 28671. 1970 totals 449534. 387039. 202244. 1533S. 57SA06. 261669. 7082. 77920. 1??60. 73556. 63411. 29o3l. 2157885. l/ Co=ercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 11--Land use transition matrix for the Texas Prairie regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water Miscel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 871924. 2651,3. 40711. 231. 0. 165295, 1037. la639. 346. 9659o 3035. 570. 98923o. Pasture and range 7600. 436828. 6292o 0. 0. 3769. 0. 2766. 0. 1676. 190. 546. 459666o Open idle 3602. 1593o 108102. 0. 0. 1085S. IR51. 2197. 4810. 8744. 4393. 1451. 147598. Farmsteads 0. 0. 943. 24438. 0. 173. 0. 404. 0. 231. 0. 0. 26189. Forest 231. 1486. 5878. 0. 177359. 6101. 0. 1558. 519. 539. 1458. 190. 197319. Residential 0. 0. 404. 0. 0. 2p2276. 0o 346, 0. 183. 0. 0. 223209. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0., 0. 3981. 18882. 0. 173. 2455. 0. 0. 25491o Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 93536. 173. 0. 346o 0. 940SS. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 346o 9190. 0. 0. 0. 9536. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. 0. 173o 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 54087. 0. 173. 54433. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 60909. 0.. 60909. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 190. 0. 0. 173. 64163. 64526. 1970 totals AR3357o 466460. 162503. 24669. 17@359o 265679. 21770. 119982. 15211. 77574. 70504. 67093. '2352160. I/ Commercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table 12--Land use transition matrix for the Colorado regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water Ml;-,el-- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 5%8493. 21444. 12824. 475. 0. 12-13-.4. 0. 4492. 941. 3596. 0. 240. 6IS23s. Pasture and range 3S966. 242595. 14194. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 0. 240. 294405. Open idle 25968. 43360. 159791. 235. 0. 6377. 0. 1199. 470. 6604. 959. 240. 245203. Farmstead,s 0. 0. 0. 6907. 235. 235. 0. 0. 0. 479. 0. 0. 7856. Forest 240. 714. 949. 0. 7373. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9276. Residential 0. 0. 240. 0. 0. 17962. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 18202. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 470. 1176. 0. 240. 0. 0. 0. 1886. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 37408. 0. 0. 0. 0. 37408. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3o62. 0. 0. 0. 3062. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. 0. 4076. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 15678. 0. 0.@ 14754. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 14982. 0. 14982. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 479. 0. 0. 0. 40213. 40692. 1970 totals 620667. 308103. 192074. 7617. 7608e 377TT. I I T6. 44998. 4T13. 26357. 15941. 40933. 1307963. I/ Comercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 13--Land use transition matrix for the California regional group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm. - I/: ' Water Miscel- __Tq__61 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Lcres Cropland 140878. 40?7. 11829. 0. 393. 17623. 0. 1375. 982. 5030. 0. 982., 183119. Pasture and range 4' @43. 179924. 4423. 0. 0. 1375. 0. 196. sag. 393. 0. 0. 187333. Open idle 1651. 86S. 29946. 0. 2556. 1867. 0. seg. 649. 3732. 0. 393. 42248, Farmstead,s 0. 0. 393. 3595. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3988. Forest 0. 433. 216. 0. S71253. 196. 0. 412. 649. 0. 2163. 216. 575538. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 49173. 0. 0. 0. 393. 0. 0. 49566. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 196. 786. 0. 0. 1375. 0. 0. 2357. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21811. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21811. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6482. 0. 0. 0. 6482. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10017. 0. 0. 10017. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 196. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 27668. 0. 2T664. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 393. 10176. 10569. 1970 totals 142962. 185249. 4TOO3. 3595. S74202. t0430. 786. 24383. 9351. 20940. 30224. 11767. 1120892. l/ Comercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table 14--Land use transition matrix for Group I, NON SMSA county group 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm - 1/: Water Miscel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 2SIS30. 6854. 31006. 866. 5593. 987S. 0. 887. 464. 1510. 11351. 212. 3?0448. Pasture and range 26483. 118411. 14?92. 0. S440. 2964. 0. 908. 2556. 232. 0. 0. 171286. Open idle 47273. 18404. 329219. 1268. 61808. 35473. 0. S612. 1498. 4220. 1142. 5973. 511890. Farmstead,s 170. 0. 232. 6816. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 721s. Forest 13298. 6ST7. 11129. 928. 8s74S9. 10619. 0. 4826. 1318. 789. 2872. 664. 910479. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 63108. 0. 0. 0. 170. 0. 0. 63278. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. bog. 576. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1085. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 60389. 709. 0. 0. 0. 61098. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4912. 0. 0 0. 4912. Com.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 9376. 0. 0. 9376. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 2026. 0. 0. 696. 0.. 0. 0. 0. 214305. 0. 217027. Miscellaneous 4658. 6Qfi. , 13020. 0. 1037. 1905. 6. Im. 236. 232. 236. 122346. 14560. 1970 totals 343712. 150942. 400924. 9878. 931337. 125149. 576. 73913. 11693. 16529. 229906. li!9195. 2423753. I/ Comercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table 15--Lsnd use transition matrix for Group II, the NON SMSA county identified as an Urbanized Area 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1 Water Mis@_ @1-'- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 49153. 0. 7156, 0. 188. 3578. 0. 0. 0. 565. 0. 0. 60640. Pasture and range 0. 753. 0. 0. 0. 377. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 113o. open idle 565. 0. 19586. 0. 1883. 2072. 0. 565. 0. 377. 0. 0. 25048. Farmstead,s 0. 0. 0. 188. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 188. Forest 0. 0. 565. 0. 109041. 7910. 188. 377. 0. 188. 0o 0. 118269. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 46-328. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 46328. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 188. 1695. 565. 0. 377o 0. 0. 2825. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13748. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13748. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3390. 0. 0. 0. 339o. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. D. 188. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12806. 0. 0. 12994. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 22787. 0. 22787. Miscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4332. 4332. 1970 totals 49718. 753o 27495. 1, 88. 111112. 60453. 1883. 15255. -1390. 14313. 22T87o 4332. 31 16T9. l/ Commercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 16--Land use transition matrix for Group III, SMSA counties including no Urbanized Area 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water MTs-cel--. 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland 184504. 1611. 9290. 0. 257. 795c). 0. 537. 561. 53T. 0. 0. 205256. Pasture and range 2661. 17959. 4576. 0. 257. 28o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25733. Open idle 1306. 770. 27362. 0. 7446. 4505. 0. 537. 0.. 1892. 0. 793. 44611. Farmstead,s 0. 0. 0. 7703. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7703. Forest 0. 257. 793. 0. 394213. 257. 0. 1026. 53To 1050. 0. 0. 388133. Residential 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 19755. 0. 0. 0o 0. 0. 0. 191SS. Urban idle 0o 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 561. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0o 561. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0o 0. 0. 0. 22851. 0. 0. 0. 0. 22851. Recreation 0o 0o 0o 0. 0. 0. 0. 0o 793. 0. 0. 0. 793. Com.-Ind.-Inst. 1/ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0o 0. 4809. 0. 0. 4809. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0o 0. 0. 0. 0. 6235. 0. 6235. Hiscellaneous 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6998. 6998. 1970 totals 188471. 20597. 42021. 7703. 392173. 32756. S61. 24951. 1891. 8288. 6235. 7791. 733438. I/ Comercial-industrial-institutional Appendix C table .17--Land use transition matrix for Group IV, SMSA counties containing Urbanized Areas but none of the central SMSA city 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm.- 1/: Water Miscel- 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland /,0 44041 181 -;77. 487. 1 ?99?. A086n. ?1 0111 . .36b24. -AR43. 340A6. 3020. 3043. 4456978, Pasture and range @4841. 3,-714. 4981. '4 1 tin 0. 3932, 0. 1607. 190. 1220. 761520. Open idle 113slntl. 4@ L; 7r@. h687 -AQ. 235. @ 1601 . 548S 7 . 0. 8972. 4014. 28566. 6445. 3579. 927141. Farmsteao I I ?q. 1 O@,474. ?3L@ . b4c@. 0. 348. 0. 1443. 0. 0. 11098A. Forest 1-4. 281A0. 43?. ?4P7637. 436SQ. 403. 112?0. 1419. 15017. 1878. 1008. 2540042. Residential 0. 64,1. 0. P16, rc; r N 1 0. 1400. 0. 846. 0. 0. 760885. Urban idle 0. 0 . n. 0. 0. 652A. 21QlA. 8230 413. 578a. 0. 0. 37470. Transportation 1@ 0. 0. 0. n. 398542. 387. 0. 346. 0. 399275. Recreation n. 0. 0. 0. i@?A . 0. 346. 60701. 0. 0. 0. 61275. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 6517. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. 0. ?0451?. 0. 173. 211202. Water bodies over 40 acres (I 3Q F, 2. 0. 434. 0. 0. 0. ?48. 0. 233882. 0. 238546. Miscellaneous 2 r, n 1. 0. 0. A69. 0. 0. 1841 . 186305. 189015. 1970 totals &I 490n'). 7h'413. q?3?71). InA128. ;>4Q@409R. 44936A. Ph&27. 46PA76. 7(,o25. 291865. 247602. 195328. 10694336. l/ Co=ercial-industrial-institutionaI Appendix C table 18--Land use transition matrix for Group V, SMSA counties which include Urbanized Areas and part of the central SMSA city 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Recrea- Comm - 1/: Water Mfs-cel--. 1961 and idle steads tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland A1781@1. lq912. 6719Q. 509. 6869. 20240. 196. 2802. 0. 8565. 4446. 0. 748574. Pasture and range 15193. 3531ql. 32795. 0. 3666. 124S. 0. 1530. 0. 2728. 1274. 196. 411771. Open idle 531b. ?29A. 1633qS. 196. iol7q. 29937. IA51. 32b9. 2757. 13537. A641. 1322. 242656. Farmstead,s 0. 69.6. ??116. 0. 0. 0. 231. 0. 231. 0. 0. 23834. Forest 443. ?7f,0. 9446. 0. 519403. 40?32. 0. 4784. 0. 5482. 231. 316. 583097. Residential n. 54 7 . 0. 0. 32733A. 0. 0. 0. 186. 0. 0. 328071. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 839(,. 18q4o. S56. 556. 2936. 0. 0. 31384. Transportation n. 0. 0. n. 0. 123840. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12384o. Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20523. 0. 0. 0. 20523. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. n. 464. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 91133. 0. 0. 91597. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 0. 6.37. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 64808. 0. 65445. Miscellaneous JR(,. n. 372. 0. 0. 316. 0. U. 0. 0. 425. 41304. 42603. 1970 totals 6189,'44 . 379149. ?75471. 21421. S40117. 4?7707. 20q87. 137012. 21836, 1.24798. 79825. 43138. 2713393. I/ Comercial-ind@strial-institutionaI Appendix C table 19--Land use transition matrix for Group VI, SMSA counties which include the entire central SMSA city 1970 land uses 1961 land uses Cropland Pasture Open Farm- t Forest Residen- Urban Transpor- Rec 1961 and idle steads z tial idle tation tion Ind.- bodies laneous totals range Inst. Acres Cropland I?PO46n. 190 Ir'. 66?35. 0. ;)2332. ?7831. 0. 3991. 3788. 10093. 681. 3166. 1377613. Pasture and range 860?. 36A390. 1489A. 0. 3674. 3016. 0. 481. 589. 393. 0. 0. 400043. Open idle 19553. 17n4. 180765. 222. 4234?. ?9b3Q. 0. 3528. 1962. 16798. 16070. 822. 309405. Farmstea(js 6R4. JqA. 393. 41330. 0. 196. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 42799. Forest 6091. 17?1. 23646. 210. P01083?. 4079. 891. 10643. 2307. 9493. 3784. 1507. 2111994. 00 Residential 0. 0 . 0. 0. 0. 2?0809. 0. 739. 0. 393. 0. 0. 221941. Urban idle 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1 36q. 3455 . U. 0. 2485. 0. 0. 7309. Transportation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 159001. 0. 0. 0. 0. 159on I . Recreation 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21336. 196. 0. 0. 21532. Comm.-Ind.-Inst. l/ 0. n. 909. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. 0. 58045. 0. 0. 58954. Water bodies over 40 acres 0. 196. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 103401. 0. 103597. Miscellaneous 210. 0. 43?. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 393. 72696. 73 T3 I . 1970 totals .191047. 287474. 41762. 2079180o 31q(39. 4346. 178383. 2q982. 97896. 124329o 78191. 4887919o I/ Co=ercial-industrial-institutionaI UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICIAL BUSINESS AGR 101 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 THIRD CLASS ZONE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Natural Resource Economics Division The Economic Research Service (ERS), through its Natural Resource Economics Division (NRED), collects, organizes, and analyzes informa 'tion on U.S. natural agricultural resources. NRED studies the use, conservation, development, and control of U.S. land and water; it also coordinates all research on environmental questions in ERS. Other related NRED publications include * Major Uses of Land in the United States: Summary for 1969, AER 24Z * Farming in the City's Shadow, AER 250. * Farmland Resources for the for the Future, AIB 385. Our Land and Water Resources, Current and Prospective Supplies and.Uses, MP-1290. Water Resources for Agriculture: Will the Well Run Dry? AIB 384. Farmland: Will 77zere Be Enough? ERS-584. 0opland for Today and Tomorrow, AER 291. Single copies of these are available by telephone (202) 447-7255, or send post card to Publication Services, Rm. 0054-S, ERS Division of Information, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250- Pleaqp include zip code with return address. 3 6668 cioooi 3674.,