L . »
.[
...

. ‘
, . . z

.
S .
u .

with.
. .. ..,

“3

.Ialo:sc
9

‘ 1: hr...
ti. .3.

LR .A v
Hanna". ‘. c .
398.00

41?.

 

.g;

 

I. fit.
5. ‘ucvx. I.
ilk. {aQUuCS
f . 4....

 

. ”.49'

 

 

‘ ‘ 2 .y r . . nqvtfinfluu ‘
7 A 7 7 Eng ., . ‘ 7 . .
, . 4.. . . : . m ‘ ‘ !
«namw... A.” $.33“; .

 

 

I
.2002

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

CLINTON COUNTY RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LAND
USE TRENDS AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION
STRATEGIES

presented by

STACY EILEEN SHERIDAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MASTER OF degree in Department of Community,
SCIENCE Agriculture, Recreation and
Resource Studies

 

 

NOW-J 2 /<;,,-%/—-

' 1' Major Professor’s Sign'a’ture

December 10, 2007

 

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

.-.-.-.--.----

...—.-.— -._.-,-.-.-.-.-.-,_._._...

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

CLINTON COUNTY RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LAND USE TRENDS AND

FARMLAND PRESERVATION STRATEGIES

Stacy Eileen Sheridan

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2007

ABSTRACT

CLINTON COUNTY RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LAND USE TRENDS AND

FARMLAND PRESERVATION STRATEGIES

Stacy Eileen Sheridan

Agriculture is Michigan’s second largest industry, second only to manufacturing and
contributes $37 billion annually to the economy. However, even with statistics that boost
the industry’s production rates and ranking among other industry’s, it is struggling to remain
viable.

Clinton County, Michigan, a rural community, north of the city of Lansing, lost over
22,000 acres of farmland between 1982 and 1997 — the equivalent of one entire township.
Furthermore, if these trends continue at the same rate, Clinton County could lose and
additional 40,000 acres of farmland by the year 2020.

This study evaluates the perspectives of Clinton County residents on land use trends,
their effects and strategies to effectively slow them. The study determined if residents’
recognized the loss of farmland as a very strong concern in the scope of other concerns
facing the county. Although the survey revealed support for farmland preservation strategies,

a lack of understanding of these programs was found.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this work to my parents, Bill and Sally Sheridan, who taught me, among a
myriad of lessons, the value of working hard, always have dreams and to persevere. Also,
for pushing me to accomplish ambitions that I thought were too large to try, let along
accomplish, and for always pushing me to realize my true potential. Your love and support
has carved a person I am proud of. Thanks for being my steady drop that melts rock (ED.

“Bim” Franklin) I love you both.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................... 3
Purpose of Study ...................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ................................................................................... 4
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 5
Limitations ................................................................................................. 6
Assumptions ................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 8
Land Use Trends in Michigan .................................................................. 8
Impact on Agriculture ............................................................................. 10
Local Surveys ................................................................................... 12
Solutions for Land Use Trends ............................................................... 17
Other Research Projects ....................................................................... 19
Local Trends in Clinton County .............................................................. 35
Summary ......................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLGIES ...................................................................................... 41
Research Design .......................................................................................... 41
Instrument Development ................................................................................. 42
Validity, Usability and Reliability ..................................................................... 45
Data Collection ........................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 4
STUDY FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 48
Demographic Profile ..................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS ................................................... 69
Summary .................................................................................................. 69
Research Questions ...................................................................................... 70
Question 1 ........................................................................................ 70
Question 2 ........................................................................................ 71
Question 3 ........................................................................................ 72
Question 4 ........................................................................................ 74
Question 5 ......................................................................................... 76

iv

Question 6 ........................................................................................ 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 80

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Do you own or rent your residence? ........................................................ 50
Table 2. If you own, how many acres do you have? .................................................. 50
Table 3. Do you live within 1/2 mile of an operating farm? .......................................... 51
Table 4. Distribution of current concerns in Clinton County ....................................... 53
Table 5. Distribution ofpriority ofeflorts in the county... 55
Table 6. Distribution of public financing to pay for services ....................................... 57
Table 7. Reasons for protecting farmland in Clinton County ....................................... 59
Table 8. Distribution of importance for government ofiicial to take action ...................... 60
Table 9. Distribution of reasons for protection open space and natural areas .................. 61
Table lO.Distribution of respondents support for a modest tax or fee ............................ 62

Table 11.More or less likely to support a modest tax or fee to fund farmland preservation if

the state provided a 3:1 match .......................................................................... 63
Table 12. Distribution of support for government regulatory practices .......................... 64
Table 13. Support for approaches to preserve farmland in Clinton County .................... 66

Table 14. Support for funding mechanism for a farmland preservation program... . . ..67
Table 15. Familiarity of government and other land use programs among Clinton County

residents ..................................................................................................... 68

vi

Chapter 1
Introduction

Introduction
Michigan has lost over 1 million acres of farmland fiom 1982 to 1997, equivalent

to a piece of land larger than the size of Rhode Island. The migration of urban residents
to rural areas has created low-density development and fragmentation of large parcels in
5, 10 and 15-acre lots. These trends have far reaching impacts on natural resources and
agriculture, including increased nuisance complaints on neighboring farms when non-
farrn neighbors move in.

Agriculture is the state’s second largest industry, second only to manufacturing and
contributes $37 billion annually to Michigan’s economy. Agriculture employs 1 in every
8 people and is second to California for diversity of products. This

Agriculture’s economic contribution can also have a large impact at the local level.
Clinton county agriculture is a large contributor to the local economy accounting for 23%
of all economic activity in the county and generating over 100 million dollars a year.

Clinton County is also experiencing a loss of farmland to other uses. Between 1982
and 1997 the county lost over 22,000 acres of farmland - the equivalent of one entire
township. If these trends continue at the same rate, Clinton County could lose an
additional 40,00 acres of farmland by the year 2020.

The leadership of Clinton County recognized the need for action and assembled a
diverse 18-member Agriculture and Open Space (AOS) committee composed of city
representatives, county and drain commissioners, farmers, realtors, and township
officials. The group came together to investigate land use trends, including loss of

farmland, and develop workable solutions. The committee heard presentations on

various tools including the purchase of development rights, transfer of development
rights, agricultural security areas and agricultural development. To gain broader input
and feedback, the committee allowed input and discussion from committee members and
the general public.

Preliminary recommendations from the committee were to encourage the completion
or update of the county’s comprehensive land use plans, create a county wide purchase of
development rights program, research a county wide transfer of development rights
program, assist MSU Extension in promoting value added agriculture initiatives and to
pursue other economic initiatives to preserve farmland in the county. The committee
created and charged four working subcommittees: The Green Space Commission,
Advocacy Subcommittee, Agriculture Value-Added subcommittee and Farmland
Preservation Subcommittee.

The Green Space Commission was charged with developing recommendations for a
county parks and recreation commission, encouraging private conservancy efforts in
Clinton County, developing inventory of unique and scenic areas and coordinating with
other governmental recreation plans. The Advocacy subcommittee’s charge was to urge
the state to approve legislation supporting land preservation through resolutions, sending
informational mailings and contacting legislators.

The Agriculture value-added subcommittee was organized to partner with MSU
Extension and Conservation Districts to develop cutting edge hands-on educational
programming, explore areas of Agricultural tourism opportunities and pursue
Agricultural Renaissance Zone opportunities. The Farmland Preservation subcommittee

was charged with developing a countywide purchase of development rights program

including selection criteria, application process, and easement language and appraisal
method. The Farmland Preservation subcommittee invited Dr. David Skjaerlund and
Stacy Sheridan of Rural Partners of Michigan to assist with the technical details of
developing a purchase of development rights program.

The committee felt it was critical to obtain a consensus of the residents of Clinton
County. A survey was conducted with the approval of, and firnding allocated by Clinton
County Board of Commissioners in cooperation with MSU-Extension and overseen by a

Michigan State University Graduate advisory team.

Problem Statement

Michigan loses ten acres of farmland every hour of everyday an equivalent of a 1500
farm operation a day. Many agencies and organizations have conducted studies to
determine land use trends, and their effects. According to research, it is clear farmland
and open space loss is a problem and demands immediate attention. However, a critical
element often forgotten is the bridge between statistical data and community residents.
Many residents do not have proper access to information or, are relatively oblivious to
the issue.

Moreover, officials are charged with creating positive change and representing the
interests of the public, yet may be reluctant to vocalize their intentions or opinions for
fear of lack of support due to this gap and lack of awareness among constituents. Trends
are prevalent and statistical data confirming them are startling, however being unaware of

the publics support level could mean the difference between a pass or fail ballot initiative.

It is critical elected officials know and understand the publics desire for sound land use

planning which includes action towards protecting farmland.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of Clinton county
residents on the effect land use trends are having on their community and to evaluate the
opinions and concerns of these Clinton County stakeholders regarding various techniques
that could be used to help sustain their community. The purpose of the study was to also
investigate how public opinion surveys help create and shape policy change. The study
perhaps, will allow officials confidence and insight into the desires of their public when
developing recommendations for land use change. Upon completion, the study will
hopefully be used as a model for other communities to follow as they search for
information and guidance on workable solutions to manage and control land use trends in

their area.

Research Questions

Research Question #1 What are the current resource/land use concerns facing
Clinton County?
Research Question #2 Among other county priorities where does farmland

preservation fall in terms of resource management and
public needs?
Research Question #3 What are reasons for protecting farmland and open space in

Clinton County?

Research Question #4

Research Question #5

Research Question #6

Definition of Terms
Purchase of

Development Rights

Transfer of

Development Rights

Agriculture Security Areas

What is the level of importance, according to residents, for
protecting farmland in Clinton County?

Is there a significant lack of understanding of farmland
preservation techniques?

Would residents be willing to support a modest tax or fee to

support farmland preservation programs?

A means of compensating farmers for their willingness to
accept a deed restriction on their land that limits future

development of the land for non-agricultural purposes.

A means of maintaining designated areas in agricultural use
while transferring those development rights or housing
units to other areas where increased development can be

accommodated.

A three way contract between the landowner, local unit of
government and the state. Enrollment is voluntary on

behalf of the landowner, however the authority to establish

Sprawl

Sustainability

Smart Growth

Limitations

(reject) an agricultural district, remains with the local
governing body. An Agricultural District is a voluntary
tool to strengthen agriculture within a community and to
help establish a long-term business environment for

agriculture.

The conversion of farmland and open space for the use of
residential development outside the access of services such
as water/sewer, police and fire protection and various other
community services. Sprawl can also be characterized by

anything that is automobile dependent.

The ability of an entity to keep in existence; keep up or

prolong over time.

A means of defining areas inside urban service districts for
developmental purposes and also creating disincentives for

grth outside service areas.

1. The simple random sample survey involved in the study was confined to Clinton

County residents who are registered as eligible voters.

2. Conclusions for the study will only be applicable to residents and officials in Clinton

County.

Assumptions

The aim of this study was to identify the perspectives of Clinton County residents on
land use issues in their county. An assumption of this study was that respondents
provided honest and accurate feedback needed for the study. Another assumption of the
study was residents were aware of surrounding land use occurrences and they understood
all questions provided in the instrument. The researcher also assumed that the
respondents went through a reflective process and understood each tool and the trends

associated with them.

C_h&P_t£l;Z

Literature Review

 

Literature Review

This chapter contains a review of literature related to the study. It was organized
into the following sections: Land Use Trends in Michigan, Impact of Trends on
Agriculture, Local Survey Results, Possible Solutions for Land Use Trends, Other

Research Projects, Local Trends in Clinton County.

Land Use Trends in Michigan

It is important to consider these Michigan trends; population continues to move fi‘om
urban to rural areas; development values are greater and increasing faster than
agricultural values; over half of all agricultural production comes from metropolitan-
influenced counties; forty-five percent of farmland is owned by farmers older than 55
years of age; half of all farmland is rented.

Michigan has always seen changes in land use trends, however, not until recently did
the trends have such a large impact on agriculture. According to a 1995 study, Trend
Future Report, conducted by the Michigan Society of Planning Officials, Michigan will
experience over an eleven percent population increase equating to 1.1 million more
people in the year 2020. Michigan will also experience a 63-87 percent increase in the
amount of urbanized land area that is utilized (Michigan Society of Planning Officials,
1995 Study).

According to these trends, as much land will be converted for 1.1 million more

people as existed in 1978 for nine million people. In this regard, the same amount of land

used to sustain nine million people since the first settlement will be converted and used to
sustain only 1.1 million more people. Michigan is consuming land at six to eight times
its population growth rate.

The migration of people from urban areas to the suburban rings of growth has placed
additional strain and pressures on surrounding productive farmland. According to the
Michigan Society of Planning Officials’ Agricultural Trends Fact Sheet (1997), in the last
35 years, over one million people have left central cities. They have left to follow the
American dream of acreage and country living, only to find everyone else had the same
dream. Suburban areas grew 20 percent in the last 20 years, whereas urban areas only
experienced a one percent growth (MSPO Ag Trends Fact Sheet, 1997).

This trend indicates a vicious cycle created by the migration of residents fi'om urban
cores to rural areas. As this migration occurs, large urban cities suffer significant revenue
loss and tax base. Revenue generated from the tax base, helps fund infrastructure,
services and the overall general city up-keep and improvements. Therefore, Michigan
urban core areas continue to decline with increase crime, lack of adequate educational
facilities and an overall increase in blighted areas. These trends contribute to the desire
for residents to leave and migrate to the suburban or rural areas.

Despite smaller population growth, the number of households has increased due to
more single parent families, smaller families, childless families and retirees. This trend
has increased the need for housing, according to a study conducted by Michigan Society
Planning Officials, (1995). Housing lot sizes have continued to become larger as the
number of dwelling units per acre has declined 75 percent since World War II,

accelerating land consumption in rural areas. The lots continue to be an inefficient use of

natural resources. Creating lots too small for production agriculture and too large to
mow. Michigan also has the largest number of second homes and second largest number
of golf courses, next to Florida, in the nation.

Michigan legislation contributed to these trends. A recent study linked the
Subdivision Control Act of 1967 with accelerating rates of land fragmentation and a
significant increase in ten-acre or larger building sites. This Act was amended in 1997 to

again further assist the acceleration of land fragmentation.

Impact of Trends on Agriculture

Michigan agriculture represents over $3.5 billion dollars at the farm-gate and is ofien
multiplied ten fold by the time it reaches the food-plate, making the food and fiber
industry or agriculture, the second largest industry in Michigan next to manufacturing.
Of’ten times, agriculture is the number one economic contributor in rural communities.

In 1920, Michigan had 19 million acres of farmland. From 1954 to 1974, Michigan
farmland decreased 280,000 acres per year - a 34 percent reduction or 5.6 million acres.
Michigan’s farmland loss has been greater and more rapid than any other state in the
Great Lakes Region, (Michigan Society of Planning Officials, 1995). Michigan currently
has approximately 46,500 farms, one half of the number in 1964 and less than a quarter
of the number in 1940. Contrary to popular belief, over 87 percent of the farms are still
individually owned and operated and only .3 percent of all farms in Michigan are owned
by non-family held corporations.

More than 1 million acres of farmland have been lost in fifteen years fi'om 1982 to

1997, according to the US. Census of Agriculture Study (1997). This trend equates to

10

losing an average sized farm (215 acres) almost every day or a 1500-acre farm every
week. Therefore, more than 53 percent of the total loss of farmland occurred within the
last five years.

Contributing to the impact of farmland loss is that 53 percent of all agriculture
production comes from the 25 urban-influenced counties (Metropolitan Statistical Areas
— MSA) in which more than 45 percent of all the cropland in Michigan is located. These
areas have the greatest development pressure, and collectively, represent over 75 percent
of Michigan’s total farmland lost, according to US. Census of Agriculture (1997).
Leelanau and Grand Traverse counties lost 7,866 acres, Grand Rapids (and surrounding
areas) lost 38,095 acres, the counties encompassing the Detroit area lost 24, 315 acres
and the Lansing area lost 17,720 acres of farmland. This farmland loss trend can be seen
in many counties across the state.

Ironically, nearly 40 percent of all farmland in Michigan is rented. Therefore, much
of Michigan’s farmland in not even under the ownership or control of those who actually
farm the land. These trends have far reaching consequences, effecting both rural and
urban residents. However, the group experiencing the greatest degree of impact are those
farms that choose to remain. Incompatible land uses create competitive scenarios
between agricultural and developmental land values. Competing land uses raise real
estate prices higher than a farm operation can afford. Obviously, the areas experiencing
the highest development pressure (south of Saginaw — Muskegon line) have the highest
farmland values. Keep in mind, these areas experiencing the highest amount of pressure
account for 75 percent of the total agricultural production in the state (U .8. Census of

Agriculture, 1997)

ll

Land use trends also impact local municipalities burdened with having to bear the
economic cost of servicing new fragmented development. Fragmented land development
causes traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss of cpen space and farmland and
overall increase on the demand for public services. Many urban residents migrating to
rural areas still demand the same services associated with city living. A study conducted
by the University of Michigan in Scio Township, Washtenaw County (1996) found for
every $1 generated in property tax, residential development demands $1.40 in services;
for every $1 generated in property tax, agricultural land demands $0.62 in services.

Therefore, keeping a strong agricultural base makes fiscal sense for a community
because the large amounts of acreage most often associated with farmland do not demand
services such as infrastructure, fire and police protection or schools. It appears
agriculture subsidizes fragmented growth in some areas by paying more in property tax
than they demand in public services (U of M Cost of Community Service Study, 1996).

Agriculture stands on two legs; first, it must cash flow and pay the bills, and second,
it must have an environment to recoup any investment 10 to 15 years in the future. Like
many other investments, it takes time to recoup and gain revenue generated from initial

investment.

Local Surveys
Lapeer County Survey

Lapeer County conducted a survey to investigate support levels and assess whether a
farmland preservation program was feasible in their county. The survey results indicated

a strong desire to keep the landscape rural and residents acknowledge and appreciate the

12

value of agriculture. The results also indicate a need for action by public officials to
insure nature and rural resource protection. “The level of citizen response was
impressive. At a 48 percent return rate, the survey results help to form a mandate for
action on farmland and rural landscape preservation,” said Dr. Raymond De Young,
Survey Consultant, University of Michigan (Lapeer County Land Use and Farmland
Survey, Executive Summary, Nov. 2000, pg 2).

When respondents where asked “what extent do you believe each of the items is
currently a problem in Lapeer”, the highest percentage (71.4%) indicated the loss of
family farms as the biggest problem facing the county followed closely by loss of
farmland (70.6%) and rapid business and/or commercial growth (70.5%) (Lapeer County
Land Use and Farmland Survey, Executive Summary, Nov. 2000; Table 6.1; pg # 29).

Over 87 percent of the respondents indicated they would be willing to live within 1/2
miles of an operating farm with 40.5 percent agreeing that farmers and non-farm families
living near farms are prone to conflicts due to farm odors, operations etc. Many
respondents indicated they feel land use zoning ordinances which limit new homes in
rural areas, should be used as a method for preserving farmland (77.7%) followed closely
by loans to new farmer or businesses and keeping land in production (76.3%). Almost 56
percent indicated they would support additional public financing to pay for a farmland
preservation program in Lapeer County. When asked how important it is that state and
local government take action to preserve farmland, 76 percent indicated it was very
important or extremely important. When asked why Lapeer residents feel farmland
should be preserved, 80.4 percent indicated to preserve family farms, 81 percent

indicated to save land for future food production and to maintain open and rural areas

13

(Lapeer County Land Use and Farmland Survey, Executive Summary, Nov. 2000; Table

7.4, pg# 42).

Public Sector Consultants Survey

Public Sector Consultants was charged by the WK. Kellogg Foundation to conduct a
statewide survey of 800 Michigan residents ages 18 and older to explore various land use
issues facing Michigan communities. The survey was designed to investigate factors
people consider when deciding where to live, knowledge and level of concern about
urban sprawl and related environmental problems, attitudes about property rights issues,
public trust of individuals who are involved in land use decision-making and views about
the success of and need for land use planning in Michigan.

When asked, “how well informed would you say you (“Shaping Our Future; A
report to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use Issues in Michigan,” 1997) are at the
present time concerning land use issues in Michigan generally”, 18 percent responded as
being very well informed or well informed; 44 percent were somewhat informed and 38
percent were not very informed or not informed at all about land use issues in Michigan
(pg #31).

The most common responses to questions regarding important land use issues facing
Michigan were water/wetland, waste/landfills and over development/sprawl. The
importance of some issues varied by type of community. For example, the most
important issue to those in small towns and cities was water and wetland concerns at 14

percent and the most important to those living in urban or suburban areas was pollution at

14

11 percent (“Shaping Our Future; A report to the WK. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use
Issues in Michigan,” 1997).

The survey asked respondents to indicate “in which type of community would you
most like to live?” Over 65 percent of those surveyed said they would like to live in
either a small town or a rural area; 35 percent would like to live in a rural area (in the
country), and 31 percent would like to live in a small town or city (pg #21). The majority
of Caucasians indicated they would prefer to live in a rural area (38 percent), and the
majority of Afiican-Americans would most like to live in a medium or large city (36
percent) (“Shaping Our Future; A report to the WK. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use
Issues in Michigan,” 1997, pg# 22 - 23).

Therefore, individuals are relatively satisfied with the type of community in which
they currently live; those that do want to make a change do not wish to make a major
change. Those who currently live in a rural area are the least likely to live in a different
type of community, and those who live in a large or medium city are most likely to live in
a different type of community.

When asked to describe the area in which they would like to live, 49 percent of all
respondents indicated they would like to live on a large rural lot, and 15 percent would
like to live in a newer subdivision. Twenty-three percent of all respondents would like to
live downtown or in an established neighborhood, and four percent are interested in
living in either an apartment or condominium (“Shaping Our Future; A report to the WK.
Kellogg Foundation on Land Use Issues in Michigan,” 1997, pg# 23).

When asked to prioritize what respondents felt was currently a problem in Michigan,

water pollution and the loss of forests and natural habitats were the top-ranked land use

15

problems in Michigan. Those who live in rural areas were more concerned about how
land use affects natural and wildlife habitats and land pattern uses. Those who live in
urban areas and African-Americans were more concerned about how land use affects air
pollution, traffic congestion, decline of older cities and the geographical segregation of
the races (“Shaping Our Future; A report to the WK. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use
Issues in Michigan,” 1997, pg# 21-22).

Question 13 on the survey asked, “In your opinion, do private property owners
generally have an absolute right to develop or use their land as they see fit?” F iffy-five
percent said property owners do not have an absolute right to develop or use their land as
they see fit (41 percent indicated they do, and three percent did not know). Of the 41
percent who believe property owners have absolute rights, 35 percent believe landowners
have a right even if the land has environmental limitation, and 27 percent say the owner
has absolute rights even if the public has to bear some of the development costs
(“Shaping Our Future; A report to the WK. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use Issues in
Michigan,” 1997, pg# 18-19).

“It is going to be extremely difficult to increase support for comprehensive and
meaningful land use policy in Michigan. First, citizens need to perceive either a current
or future problem with enough significance to capture their attention and raise
consciousness. They need to know of the many interconnections between development,
policy, individual action and the impact on quality of land, air, water, wildlife, plants and
people. To increase vocal support and advocacy efforts, Michigan residents will need to
truly believe that their efforts will be worthwhile. If levels of awareness, perceptions of

empowerment and knowledge of linkages increase, it is entirely possible that land use

16

could be more effectively managed in the future” (“Shaping Our Future; A report to the
WK. Kellogg Foundation on Land Use Issues in Michigan,” 1997, pg# 14 of Concluding

Remarks).

Solutions for Land Use Trends

Michigan is not the only state experiencing pressures associated with unexpected
growth pains. Many states across the country have experienced the same conflicts,
however many have developed solutions to help cope with land use trends while still
accommodating growth.

Maryland developed the Smart Growth Initiative, which attempts to target the issues
with the highest impact. Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative focuses on four target
areas, Priority Funding Areas, Rural Legacy, Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield’s, Live
Near Your Work and Job Creation Tax Credit (Maryland Smart Growth Initiative
Summary, 1998).

Maryland has permanently protected over 30,000 acres of farmland through
purchasing, donating or transferring development rights associated with the land. Some
counties in Maryland have voluntarily agreed to raise their own funds in order to
contribute to the state program. Harford County, MD passed a 5 percent conversion fee
to be paid by deve10pers when farmland is converted to other uses, and generates about
25 million dollars annually to the program (Dall’Acqua, J. 1997; Fighting Sprawl by
Growing Smarter: Maryland’s “Smart Growth Initiative”).

New Jersey is also committed to natural resource protection. New Jersey has

aggressively pursued a farmland and open space preservation program through a variety

l7

of state, county and municipal programs with a goal of compensating those landowners
who voluntarily agree to preserve their land. New Jersey is fortunate to have enjoyed
active leadership from their former Governor, Christie Todd Whitman. Governor
Whitman was responsible for championing a billion dollar bond initiative to preserve
farmland and open space. Ten million dollars for ten years in the form of grants
administered to those municipalities interested in developing natural resource protection
programs (O’Connor, J ., 1998; Remarks of Governor Christine Todd Whitman, National

Land Trust Conference).

Whitman (1998) Radio Message
“The farming industry in New Jersey faces a real threat — not blight or drought but
development. So much of the new office parks, shopping centers, and housing
complexes that have risen up on the New Jersey landscape have been built on former
farms. Why? Because farmland offers wide open spaces that are easy to clear and in
attractive areas of the state. But developing farms means losing that farmland forever.
It also creates a need for infrastructure that wasn’t needed before, such as more roads,
more sewers, and new schools. Just as important, it shrinks this vital industry. More
than half of all our farmland has disappeared since 1950. The Department of
Agriculture underscored the urgency of farmland preservation by stating that New
Jersey needs to save at least another 500,000 acres to keep farming as a viable
industry in the Garden State”(O’Connor J. October 16, 1998; Governor’s Weekly

Radio Message Addresses Farmland Preservation).

l8

New Jersey’s farmland and open space preservation programs include, Eight-Year
Programs, The Basement Purchase Program, The Transfer of Development Rights
Program and Right-To-Farm Ordinances (Burlington County Board of Chosen

Freeholders, brochure on New Jersey’s Preservation Programs).

Other Research Projects

Across the country, 24 states currently have farmland and open space protection
programs. The first examples of permanently protecting agricultural land can be seen in
many of the eastern coast states including Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire,
Vermont and many others. Utilizing other states experiences of developing farmland
preservation programs is important for Michigan to consider. Programs in the eastern
part of the United States have more than 30 years experience with farmland preservation.
Associated with these mature programs are both benefits and challenges.

Studies have been conducted on the subject of farmland preservation since the mid
1980’s. Research has shown, although many programs are over 20 years old, more study
is still needed to determine the long-term outcomes of farmland preservation initiatives.

Another study was conducted to investigate the historical development of the
Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program (New York) and to determine the
importance of long-term programs. Cromarty, 1999, explored the Suffolk County
Farmland Preservation Program as it approached its twenty-fifth anniversary and
examined the relevance to present day concerns about growth management. To
appreciate the significance of the program as a model for communities currently facing

agricultural conversion pressures, Cromarty, 1999, established an historical context

l9

through which a larger understanding of the Suffolk County experience can be realized
(Cromarty, 1999, Historical Index, pg #2).

The research approach examined the growth of farmland preservation programs
in the United States; the founding and expansion of New York; the development of Long
Island and Suffolk County, from their colonial beginnings to the present; the transition of
the county’s farming tradition; the origins, politics, implementation, and evolution of the
Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program; and the local, national and international
implications of the program. The result of the exploration was the creation of a historical
context which promotes a richer understanding of this pioneering preservation program.

The urban-rural fiinge in the past has been referenced in theoretical terms. Dunphy,
1997, conducted a study to evaluate the conflict occurring at the urban-rural fiinge.
Dunphy, 1997, proposed an innovative strategy which would contribute in forming a
more imaginative land use planning approach to address the problem of farmland
preservation and land use conflict between residential development and commercial
agriculture in the urban-rural fiinge. The strategy explored in this thesis was called the
site-scale design planning approach. The key operating elements of the site-scale design
planning approach are that solutions derived must be site or project specific, involve
buffering that are stable and unbreachable, and require that the proposed development be
compatible with the surrounding rural community character in terms of form, materials,
design and open space. Inherent to the successful application of this type of approach is
that the community must first clearly define which elements of the community’s rural

character are desirable and should be preserved (Dunphy, 1997).

20

To achieve the goals of conflict mitigation and farmland preservation, the site-scale
design planning approach relies heavily upon a number of factors: support by the political
authority of the area, inclusion in the community planning strategy, application in a legal
venue, ability to permit development that meets the design standards that maintain the
local community character (Dunphy, 1997).

Although farmland preservation programs that result in permanent protection of land
have existed for over 20 years, few economic studies have attempted to explain
landowners’ decision to sell development rights in voluntary purchase of development
rights or transfer of development rights programs. Nickerson, 2000, sought to investigate
the factors that influence landowners to sell development rights in these programs.
Expected returns were modeled as functions of factors that affect the value of the land in
alternative uses, in a way that explicitly treats development as a mutually exclusive land
use alternative to preservation.

Features of parcels that factored into agencies’ priorities when fimds must be
rationed were also included. For the most part, measures that were specific to the
landowner were not included because they were rarely observable. The data used to
model preservation and development decisions consisted of parcel level data from four
Maryland counties, where preservation occurs through several different programs.

Empirically, preservation decisions were modeled in both a multinomial logic and a
competing risks framework. Even though these models mimic different theoretical
approximations to the land use decision process, the empirical results from these models

are quite similar, in large part because of the importance of censored observations in the

data set (N ickerson, 2000).

21

Among the finding was that Calbert County’s transfer of development rights
program tends to favor the preservation of land that is likely to be the least productive in
agriculture, while Maryland’s State purchase of development rights program (which is
the prevailing preservation mechanism in Carroll and Frederick Counties) tends to
preserve land that is likely to be the most productive. Land owners who recently
purchased land, and who may have the greatest debt loads, also tended to be the first to
preserve. Evidence also existed that agency preferences for preserving parcels in clusters
encourage landowners to enroll parcels closest to existing preserved parcels. This and
other results relating to the location of preserved parcels relative to major employment
centers hold implications for the partial patterns of preserved farmland (N ickerson,
2000)

Farmland preservation programs exist, in some form, in all states. Most programs
pursue agricultural objectives, such as preserving productive soils and viable farms.
However, in some states the public may believe that programs should pursue broader
foals ofien associated with preserving open space. As farmland amenities have become
relatively more scarce than food and fiber, public concern has shifted away fi'om
protecting agricultural production, toward preserving rural environmental quality (Kline,
1996)

Choosing appropriate policies requires accurate information describing public
preferences regarding farmland preservation. Kline, 1996, sought to investigate public
preferences. Qualitative information provided by focus groups survey data from a sample
of Rhode Island residents, was used to identify and compare public objectives regarding

farmland and open space preservation (Kline, 1996).

22

A system of structural equations was used to examine preferences for farmland
preservation goals among residents with different socioeconomic characteristics. Paired
comparisons data from the survey were used in a dichotomous choice model to measure
public preferences for preserving hypothetical farmland and open space parcels. An
intertemporal conceptual model of farmland preservation was used to drive optimal
farmland preservation paths. The analysis showed that Rhode Island residents believe
environmental objectives should be important goals of farmland preservation programs
(Kline, 1996).

Public preferences for preserving farmland compared favorably with preference for
preserving other types of open space. Lands that protect endangered species and
groundwater were preferred. Broadening the scope of farmland preservation programs to
address environmental goals may increase the public benefits generated by those
programs (Kline, 1996).

Wentzien, 1996, attempted to analyze attitudes toward the new Delaware Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) program. The Delaware PDR program was designed to
preserve farmland in production agriculture by compensating farmland owners for
“selling” the development rights inherent in their property. When development rights are
sold, an easement is placed on the deed prohibiting future development. The attitudes of
Delaware residents toward and their willingness to pay (WT P) to financially support the
Delaware PDR program were measured (Wentzien, 1996).

The attitudes about opinion statements and preferences toward hypothetical future
development scenarios were presented to survey participants, and a bootstrap hypothesis

test was utilized to determine if the attitudes varied between members and non-members

23

of social subgroups. A conjoint design was chosen to analyze how respondents traded off
different levels of land, farmland preserved, and an increase in income tax to financially
support the Delaware PDR program. A logistic regression was used to fit the model
parameters. The negative of the ratio of the marginal variable was used to estimate the
WTP for several subgroups. A bootstrap re-sampling procedure was then used to
construct a 90% confidence interval for each WTP estimate (W entzien, 1996).

The survey results indicated that the Delaware residents supported the new Delaware
PDR program. A majority of the survey participants supported the use of tax money to
preserve farmland and a WTP of $35.66 in additional income tax to preserve 1,000 acres
of farmland in NCCO over the next ten years was derived. Although different WTP
estimates were measured for different subgroups, the null hypothesis of no difference
could not be rejected (Wentzien, 1996).

More than 750,000 acres of farmland have been lost since the enactment of Public
Act 116 of 1974, the Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act. The rate of
farmland loss is expected to continue at a similar pace if land use policies remain
unchanged. Numerous initiatives have been recently undertaken to reduce the loss of
farmland. PA. 116 has not been considered, likely due to its performance record. The
purpose of this study was to determine if enhancements to PA. 116 incentives could
reduce the loss of farmland. One thousand three hundred and forty landowners with PA.
116 farmland development rights agreements were surveyed to research questions. The
study was conducted after landowners had an opportunity to terminate or change
farmland agreements due to a statewide reduction in property tax that reduced the tax

relief value of the PA. 116 program (Weintzien, 1996).

24

More than three-quarters of the farmland agreements were not changed under the
window of opportunity. Landowners who did not change their farmland agreements
indicated to maintain agricultural use of the land and percent the development of
farmland. Landowners who change their farmland agreements, did so to take advantage
of potential non-agricultural development opportunities. Enhanced PA. 116 incentives
would encourage landowners to continue their farmland agreements, thereby reducing
farmland loss. The most preferred incentive was the elimination of the property tax lien
(W eintzien, 1996)..

Eligibility for a PA. 116 tax credit was also important for landowners to continue
their farmland agreement(s). Landowners preferred a 3.5 percent of household income
circuit breaker threshold to provide tax credit eligibility. Given the results of this study,
policy makers were encouraged to consider enhancements to the Farmland and Open
Space Preservation Act incentives as a viable alternative to reduce the loss of farmland.
The study also showed landowners were not very knowledgeable of contemporary land
use issues and concepts. Michigan State University Extension was encouraged to explore
forming partnerships with public and private groups to improve land use educational
programming for citizens and public officials (Weintzien, 1996)..

Controversy over land allocation in the urban fringe (rural land experiencing
pressure fiom suburban development) often results from the direct conflict of tow
competing uses—agriculture and residential development. Carver, 1998, evaluateded the
use of multi-criteria/multi-objective decision making for land use allocation in
Tippecanoe County, Indiana. The goal of such an analysis was to develop a predictable,

reliable, and effective method of inventorying land resources and identifying future

25

development patterns which conserve a landscape’s agricultural productivity and viability
while satisfying demands for urban expansion. Carver’s study also integrated multi-
criteria evaluation techniques and GIS to provide a methodological platform for decision
analysis and an operational framework for decision-making. Results show that changes
in preferences for spatial allocation of land uses. Specifically, as the importance of the
agricultural objective is decreased, a sprawling development pattern results.

The loss of agricultural land to urban uses has increasingly become a subject of
major concern to planners, governments, and the rural community. In following, it was
the purpose of this research to investigate the loss of agricultural lands to other land uses
and the methods employed to prevent such losses. There are three basic types of land use
controls (i.e., the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power to tax)
available to state and local governments. Of these, police power and the power to tax are
the most commonly used land preservation techniques. The first state to create a tax
relief program to preserve agricultural land was Maryland in 1956. Since then all 50
states have adopted some form of prevention measure. The various methods include: (I)
Preferential Property Tax Assessment; (2) Preferential Property Tax Assessment with
Deferred Taxation; (3) Preferential Tax Assessment with Deferred Taxation; (4) Circuit
Breaker Tax Credits; (5) Capital Gain Tax; (6) Inheritance and Estate Taxation; (7)
Comprehensive Planning; (8) Agricultural Zoning; (9) Agricultural Districting; (10)
Purchase of Development Rights; (11) Purchase and Resale or Lease with Restrictions;
(12) Development Permit System; (13) Transfer of Development Rights; (14) Right to

Farm; and (15) Land Banking. The “inheritance and estate taxation” technique followed

26

by “preferential property tax assessment with deferred taxation” and then by “right to
farm laws (W eintzien, 1996)..”

This research investigated the effectiveness of three state agricultural land
preservation programs (i.e., California, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) and identified
and evaluated those shortcomings and/or patterns that existed in these programs. Each
state program utilized different land preservation techniques, each with varying degrees
of success. The degree of success was based upon the amount of local government
participation with the stage program and/or with their own localized program. Based on
the analysis of the research data, a model (Rural land preservation model) was formulated
for planning and implementing new agricultural land preservation programs. The loss
and protection of the Nation’s agricultural lands is a problem that local jurisdictions
cannot handle effectively. The solution to this problem must be accomplished by State
and/or Federal government involvement (Weintzien, 1996)..

Bonti-Ankomah, 1997, assessed the economic rational of farmland protection
policies in Ontario. The property rights literature was reviewed to discuss the extemality
rationale of government regulation of farmland development. The findings are that
property rights along with nuisance and trespass laws can be used as an alternative to
land use regulation in the allocation of land, and thus argues against the extemality
rationale of farmland protection policies.

An analysis of farmland area, cropland area and food production in Ontario was
undertaken to assess the food security rationale of farmland preservation. The results

indicate that food production in Ontario has consistently increased over time. Conversion

27

of farmland to non-farm uses is therefore not a major threat to food production at the
present time (Bonti-Ankomah, 1997).

An economic model was developed to determine the optimal land allocation. A
farmland rental demand function was also estimated. The result indicates that the
demand for farmland has an elasticity of $0.14 for the counties and period investigated.

Sensitivity analysis indicated that shadow values of farmland protection policies are
larger the higher the price ratio of non-farmland to farmland and the more elastic the non-
farmland demand elasticity. A comparison of the shadow values of this study with
estimated willingness to pay for amenity benefits associated with farmland indicates that
the shadow values of farmland protection policies are greater than the willingness to pay
for amenity benefits (Bonti-Ankomah, 1997).

However, the shadow values estimated in the study were gross values and did not
take into account all external benefits and costs associated with farmland and non-
farmland. Furthermore, future benefits and cost of alternative land uses were not known.
Estimation of those benefits and costs were beyond the scope of the study. It could not,
therefore, be concluded on the basis of the shadow values, that current farmland policies
were unjustified. The conclusion on the justification of farmland protection policies can
only be made afier including all benefits and cost and weighing these shadow values to
the discounted future benefits of farmland protection policies (Bonti-Ankomah, 1997).

Ramsey, 1994, examined one particular constraint faced by agriculture: the
implications of land competition and the resulting land use conflicts. This was done by .

identifying and describing land competition issues at two scales: a provincial overview

28

and a detailed case study of one agricultural region in the Province, the Lethbridge-
Musgravetown Agricultural Development Area (LMADA).

The issues were identified through questionnaires completed by professionals in the
Agriculture Branch of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture (provincial overview)
and to the farmers in the LMADA (case study). The issues were then clarified and
reinforced with key informant interviews with resource users and agencies identified as
competing for land with agriculture. Following the examination, two main policy options
were described. These options were drawn fi'om the existing literature, including
experiences in Newfoundland and Labrador (Ramsey, 1994).

The first option was for the implementation of farmland preservation policies,
including restrictive zoning differential taxation, Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR’s) and Right-to-F arm Legislation. The second option was for a policy of Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP), also known as Integrated Resource Management (IRM). These
options were presented with reference to both the existing literature, examples of such
policies in other jurisdictions throughout North America, and information obtained in the
questionnaires and key informant interviews (Ramsey, 1994).

In recent years many urban fiinge areas have been experiencing rapid population
growth. This has led to the conversion of land from agricultural to residential use at a
fairly rapid rate. Therefore, farmland preservation zoning laws have been passed in many
of these areas. Thomson, 1991, wanted to determine the effect of such a zoning
ordinance on the local land market. The study area was McHenry County, Illinois. In
1979 the county increased the minimum lot size for agricultural land from 5 acres to 160

acres. This decreased the substitutability of agricultural land for residential land. If the

29

zoning board does not allow rezoning then the supply of residential land would be
restricted (Thomson, 1991).

Two tests were used to determine the effect of zoning on the land market. The first
was a test for selectivity bias. If there was evidence of selectivity bias in the land value
equations, then zoning was said to be following the market. The other method was to
look at the trend coefficient in the residential land value equation. If the zoning
ordinance is restricting the conversion of land from agricultural to residential use, then
the supply of residential land will be relatively constant. Therefore, given increasing
demand for factors such as population growth, the value of land is expected to increase
over time. This was found to be the case (Thomson, 1991).

The final part of the dissertation dealt with the program of outliers. An alternative
estimation method, least median of squared (LMS) was used. This was a more robust
regression technique than ordinary least squares. The results were compared with the
ordinary least squares estimates. In addition, various outlier diagnostics were examined
(Thomson, 1991).

In June 1979, The National Agricultural Lands Study was undertaken to assess the
status of the nations farmland and examine methods of protecting this vital national
resource. Prime agricultural land was being converted to housing and commercial
developments at an alarming rate. Existing preservation programs including
comprehensive, zoning, agricultural districting, tax incentives, purchase or transfer of
development rights, conservancies and combinations of these were studied (Wolosiewicz,

1989).

30

The current investigation was conducted to determine the status of those programs in
1989. Substantial amounts of farmland are being protected through various preservation
methods. New programs are being implemented and existing programs modified to
afford more protection to agricultural land. Loss of farmland is now more widely
recognized as a problem and is being successfully addresses on the state and local levels
throughout the United States (Wolosiewicz, 1989).

Lehman, 1998, examined twentieth century concerns for the adequacy of the nation’s
agricultural lands and federal policy responses designed to preserve farmlands from
conversion to other uses. Against a backdrop of agricultural abundance, and particularly
the rapid settlement of western lands in the late nineteenth century, the need for
agricultural conservation has been a minor but important theme.

Various strands of concern about wasteful agricultural land use, the Progressive
conservation movement, High Bennett’s soil conservation crusade, and the land
utilization movement of the 1920’s, all culminated in New Deal efforts towards
agricultural land use planning. A land acquisition program, soil conservation districts,
and county land use planning under the Mount Weather agreement all contained elements
of federal agricultural land use planning, but none of these policies were entirely
successful (Lehman, 1998).

Scarcity concerns were muted during the 1950s and 1960s as agricultural
productivity scared, but in the 70s agricultural land use issues re-emerged for a variety of
reasons. Decades of sub urbanization, domestic and global population growth, renewed

worries about soil erosion, fears of oil and water shortages, and the United States’ sudden

31

increase in farm exports beginning in 1972 all contributed to a new concern about the
adequacy of the nation’s supply of farmland (Lehman, 1998).

This idea became a theme of the federal land use planning legislation in Congress,
and found some support in the Department of Agriculture, although most of the
bureaucracy remained hostile to land use development and were often only partially
successful. Moreover, this, combined with USDA reports of increasingly rapid rates of
farmland loss and a relatively small reserve supply of cropland, prompted a small band of
farmland preservationists to introduce farmland protection legislation in Congress in
197 7. Lehman, 1998, argued that the program of the conversion of agricultural land to
other uses remained unsolved, largely because of the short-term mindset under which the
issue was discussed.

Dischinger-Smedes, 1997, examined the relationship between rural land divisions for
residential purposes and the use of the minimum allowable lot size for such development
as stipulated in local zoning ordinances, and to determine any association between lost
size ordinances and the extent to which agricultural land is affected in residential parcel
creation. A two-stage cluster design was utilized to inventory parcels activated in 213
township quarter sections between 1975 and 1995, with evidence, fi'om aerial
photography, of residential use, or that were deemed by the researcher as likely
residential use parcels.

Results for the parcel data from the seventeen townships stratified by agricultural
zoning district minimum lot sizes, indicated that this particular technique was effective in

limiting the amount of rural or agricultural land being parceled for urban use. Analysis of

32

residuals form the regression model showed small lot size requirements to be associated
with greater residential parcellation (Dischinger-Smedes, 1997).

Townships with small minimum lot size requirements also had significantly greater
agricultural conversion ratios than townships with minimum lot size ordinances of 10
acres or greater. Among the most significant factors in parcellation were the population
growth rate, the extent of agricultural land use, and the acreage of farmland enrolled in
Michigan’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Programs (Dischinger-Smedes,
1997)

Washtenaw County, Michigan township planning commissioners, farmers and other
citizens completed a photo-questionnaire dealing with (1) preferences for various natural
and developed settings, (2) the adequacy and satisfaction associated with three cluster
housing development scenarios, and (3) land planning issues concerning development
and preservation (Sullivan, 1991).

The results indicate that residents of the rural-urban fiinge hold very strong
preferences for agricultural and natural settings, and strongly dislike multiple family
housing developments devoid of trees. Individuals support the preservation of rural
character and show little enthusiasm for economic development strategies designed to
increase the population of their community. Participants provided adequacy and
satisfaction ratings of three cluster housing development designed to preserve varying
amounts of farmland. Results indicated that cluster housing developments were most
acceptable when the site and development had a high degree of compatibility.

Individuals living in multiple family housing and those living on relatively small lots

33

found cluster housing developments more acceptable than those living in single family
housing, or on relatively large lots (Sullivan, 1991).

Further research was called for two scales of observation. At the scale of an
individual dwelling, the questions relate to needs residents of the rural-urban fringe had
for ownership, privacy and contact with nature. At a larger scale, there was the question
of what makes for compatibility between residential site development and adjacent rural
land uses (Sullivan, 1991).

Participation in the agricultural land district enrollment and development rights
acquisition program of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation
(MALPF) was examined as the adoption and diffusion of an innovative agricultural land
preservation policy by Maryland farmland owners (Pitt, 1986). In personal interview,
each of the 104 study participants answered a series of 128 questions relating to nine
hypotheses on MALPF program participation. Point biserial correlations were calculated
to differentiate non-participants, participants, district members who have not offered
easements, from those who have, and participants who have sold easements from those
who have not. Factor analysis and logic regression were used to develop predictive
models of: (a) joining a district; (b) offering an easement; and (c) successfully selling an
easement (Pitt, 1986).

Contact with other landowners already engaged in successively higher levels of
participatory behavior and contact with formal agricultural land policy communication
channels are important to both differentiating among the four levels of MALPF program

participation and predicting landowner participatory behavior. Higher levels of

34

participation are evident among landowners located in more remote portions of rapidly
growing counties (Pitt, 1986).

Landowner attitudes toward government institutions, environmentalism, and farming
as a way of life influence MALPF program participation, as do landowner practices in
financial management of the farm enterprise. These findings suggest MALPF program
modifications may be needed in the form of: offering a period of trial district enrollment
and trial easement sales; intensifying efforts in marketing and information dissemination;
and targeting recruitment efforts at specific segments of Maryland farmland owners (Pitt,
1986)

Local Trends in Clinton County

Clinton County is a diverse bedroom community located north of Lansing on I-69
and US-127 corridors. The southern tiers of the county have experienced rapid
residential and commercial growth causing rural communities to become suburbs of
Lansing. Many residents live, shop, and have their children attend local schools, yet
work in Lansing.

This trend of “bedroom communities” has caused increased strain 0 existing
resources by increasing the need for road repair due to the increase in commuter traffic,
noise complaints and congestion. From 1980 to 1990 the number of commuters, with a
lO-minute drive remained constant, however commuters who must drive 20 to over 45
minutes a trip increased (U .8. Census Bureau). These trends indicate an increase in
commute time due to urban residents relying more heavily on vehicular travel than public

transportation (Tri-county Regional Growth Study, 2001; US. Census Bureau, 1997).

35

According to the most recent census data the majority of the county’s population is
concentrated in the lower three townships, Dewitt, Bath and Watertown. These three
townships are also experiencing the most rapid loss of farmland to 5, 10 and 15-acre lots.
These parcels are split in rural areas demanding at least a 10-minute commute just to
drive to town. With an increase in the commute distance and drive times over 20
minutes, much of this is due to land fragmentation into small rural lots. The majority of
households own more than 1 vehicle causing greater strain by doubling commuter traffic
on rural roads (Tri-county Regional Growth Study, 2001)

Clinton County land base is approximately 571 square miles and currently
accommodates 64,753 residents with the majority being female, representing 50.3 percent
of the total population (Clinton County US. Census, 1997). Therefore, there are
approximately 113 people per square mile in the county. The most densely populated
areas of the county are the three southern townships, Watertown, Bath and Dewitt.
According to the US. Census Bureau Michigan accommodates 175 persons per square
mile.

The rate at which the population is growing in Clinton County does not exceed the
density of people per square mile. Clinton County residents are not densely populated in
the urban areas, which perhaps accounts for the land fiagmentation and loss of productive
farmland. Clinton County’s population only increased by 11.8 percent from 1990 to
2000. However the number of persons per household has decreased to only 2.7 as of
2000 (U .8. Census, Clinton County, 1997).

The number of housing units relative to population is inversely related. In the past,

as population increased so did the demand for additional housing. However, today our

36

population is remaining fairly constant, yet the number of housing units is increasing at
twice the rate and the number of persons per household is decreasing. No longer are
extended families sharing dwelling units. This requires more space for less people and
using increased resources to service those few people per household (US Census, Clinton
County, 1997).

Many residents of the Clinton County area prefer the “open space” and rural
atmosphere of the community. What many do not realize is that by fragmenting the land
into 5, 10 and 15-acre lots, they destroy the very reason they desired the community in
the first place (Tri-county Regional Growth Study, 2001).

The Michigan Society of Planning Official recently conducted a study which
illustrated how population rates and land consumption are becoming inversely related.
The study said that with an 11.8 percent increase in population, Michigan will use the
same amount of land for one million more people as was used for nine million people in
1970. Perhaps a good definition of sprawl is consuming land at six to eight times the
population growth rate (Trend Future Report; Michigan Society of Planning Officials,
1995).

As population increases, so do burdens of funding public services. Clinton County’s
public schools are experiencing a tremendous amount of growth due to the influx of
urban residents (US Census, Clinton County). Conversely, schools in Lansing are
struggling to keep enrollment constant from year to year as they are experiencing a loss.
It is not difficult to see, parents are taking children out of Lansing schools and
transferring them to school districts in surrounding areas (Tri-County Regional Planning

data).

37

As reported earlier, agriculture is Michigan’s second largest industry contributing 37
billion dollars to the economy every year. Agriculture has a relative impact in Clinton
County. Agriculture is a vital component to the local economy contributing $100 million
annually and accounting for 23 percent of all economic activity in the county (Ag census,
1997). However the county is experiencing a rapid loss of farmland. Between 1982 and
1997 Clinton County lost over 22,000 acres of farmland or equivalent to the size of one
township. Forecasters predict that if current trends continue Clinton County could loose
an additional 40,000 acres of farmland between 2000 and 2020 (Tri-county Regional
Growth Study, 2001).

In 1991 the agricultural parcel count was 5,055 and the residential was 17,936. In
1999 the agricultural parcel count dropped to 4,769 with residential parcels increasing by
almost 4,000 total acres equally 21,894. The trend Michigan has experienced is also
happening in Clinton County. Agricultural parcels are rapidly decreasing while
residential is increasing almost twice as fast (T ri-county Regional Growth Study, 2001 ).

The number of septic systems has also increased. Therefore public sewer and water
usage is no longer an accurate account of development pressure because it does not
consider the number of new homes on individual well and septic systems. Unfortunately,
soil types conducive for agricultural practices are also best suited for septic systems, due

to drainage and perk ability (Tri-county Regional Growth Study, 2001).

38

Summary

The migration of urban residents to rural areas has created low-density development
and fragmentation of large parcels in 5, 10 and 15-acre lots. Michigan has lost over
lmillion acres of farmland from 1982 to 1997, equivalent to a piece of land larger than
the size of Rhode Island. The migration of people from urban areas to the suburban
rings of growth has placed additional strain and pressures on surrounding productive
farmland. According to the Michigan Society of Planning Officials’ Agricultural Trends
Fact Sheet (1997), in the last 35 years, over one million pe0ple have left central cities.
Suburban areas grew 20 percent in the last 20 years, whereas urban areas only
experienced a one percent growth (MSPO Ag Trends Fact Sheet, 1997).

Not only do negative land use trends affect urban and rural areas, but perhaps even
more importantly they have far reaching consequences for an entire industry —
agriculture. More than 1 million acres of farmland have been lost in fifteen years from
1982 to 1997. Contributing to the impact of farmland loss is that 53 percent of all
agriculture production comes from the 25 urban-influenced counties (Metropolitan
Statistical Areas — MSA) in which more than 45 percent of all the cropland in Michigan
is located. These areas have the greatest development pressure, and collectively,
represent over 75 percent of Michigan’s total farmland lost, according to US. Census of
Agriculture (1997).

Moreover, based on these staggering land use trends, a study of the threshold for
Clinton County was determined as the most appropriate course of action. Much
speculation has occurred over whether the state-wide land use trends were also prevalent

in rural areas, and if the assumptions drawn from land use trends on average across the

39

state could in-fact be realized in Clinton County. Local officials felt they needed a much
stronger platform of quantatative data to pledge support for farmland preservation and
gain feedback from their constituents. Based on land use trends, impacts on the
agricultural industry, other local surveys such as Leelanau, Lapeer and Public Sector
Consultants, which all concluded basically the same findings, that the loss of agricultural
lands and land use trends were creating negative impacts on our states resource base, a
survey instrument was developed to determine the level of concern for Clinton County

residents and the knowledge level of farmland preservation strategies.

40

Chapter 3
Methodologies

Introduction

The primary purpose of this study was to identify the perspectives of Clinton County
residents, both rural and urban on land use trends, community understanding of these
trends, the need for governmental action, level of community support and the use of
farmland preservation strategies.

This chapter includes a description of the sample and population, instrument
development, procedures used for data collection and a discussion of validity and

reliability of data collected.

Research Design

This study used survey research methodology. The identification of the population
was a critical step in the research process. Two types of population are generally
described in the research literature: The “target” population and the “survey” population.
According to Rossi et al. (1983), the target population is described as the audience that
the researcher would like to study. The survey population is the population that is
actually sampled and for which data may be obtained. Therefore all individuals in the
population have an equal and independent chance of being selected as a member of the
sample.

A list of eligible units comprising a population was developed, from which, the

sample was obtained. This list was called the sampling frame. Members of the

41

population were selected one at a time and independently. Once they were selected, they
were not eligible for a second chance and were not returned to the pool.

A sample of 1500 registered Clinton County voters was produced. The primary list
(population) consisted of all registered voters in the county, approximately 45,000 voters.
The estimated population of Clinton County according to the latest census data is 60,000
people. The voter’s registration list was obtained from the county clerks office and was
in Microsoft Access format. The data had to be unzipped and converted from Access into
Microsoft Excel to be in a usable format. After the data was converted, a random sample
of 1500 was completed using Microsoft Excel. The list was compiled and saved as a

separate file. Over 490 surveys were returned yielding a 31 percent response rate.

Instrument Development

The instrument questions were primarily derived from the literature reviewed.
However, the Clinton County committee met several times and discussed questions they
wanted answered. Modifications were made to the instrument to include appropriate
committee questions. Examples of similar surveys were presented and questions that
were appropriate and applicable were also considered for the instrument. The instrument
was taken to the broader Agriculture and Open Space (AOS) committee, which included
county commissioners, for a series of discussion meetings to obtain feedback and input.
The committee considered wording of questions and content. The instrument was revised
to reflect the suggestions of the committee.

The committee recommended adding an open space component to the survey

instrument. The committee felt investigating both open space and farmland preservation

42

efforts would minimize cost and assist the county in developing its county parks and
recreation plan. The first half of the instrument was dedicated to open space questions in
order to reflect the committee’s recommendations. Approximately four questions were
dedicated to open space issues in the county including access, usage and diversity of
options. For purposes of this study, farmland preservation was decided to be the primary
focus of the research project. Although open space was a concern for the county, the
researcher felt it was too broad to include both in the study and farmland preservation
was more specific. The mail questionnaire was also designed after specific research
question reflecting the objectives of the study.

Open space, land use trends, farmland preservation and demographic information
were included in the instrument. The AOS committee reviewed the final draft of the
survey and approved it for dissemination. The survey was also reviewed and approved
by MSU’s University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) to
insure non-discrimination, non-bias and confidentiality.

A Likert-type questionnaire was designed to measure the impact, importance and
priorities of land use by county residents. The instrument contained both closed and
open-ended questions. The instrument was based on a number of questions. The first set
of questions asked residents to identify issues in the county they felt to be a concern. 1 =
not a concern, 2 = slight concern, 3 = concern, 4 = strong concern and 5 = very strong
concern. After the first two sets of questions, respondents were asked to “write” the
answer they felt was of the greatest importance. This question helped to insure that
respondents were consistent and also indicated their commitment. The number of

responses dropped relative to selecting a numeric answer. Respondents were perhaps less

43

likely to take the time to write an answer as they were to circle a response. Therefore, the
researcher can assume, respondents who wrote answers to questions two and four on the
survey instrument felt strongly about expressing their opinion.

The second set of questions asked what priority should be placed on specific efforts
in the county: 1 = not a priority, 2 = a slight priority, 3 = a priority, 4 = high priority, 5 =
a very high priority. The third set of questions asked voters to indicate the extent to
which they would support additional public financing to pay for additional services
(listed below the question), 1 = don’t support, 2 = slightly support 3 = support, 4 =
strongly support and 5 = very strong support.

The forth set of questions asked respondents to indicate how important protecting
farmland and open space and state and local government involvement are to them, 1 =not
important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = important, 4 = quite important, 5 = extremely
important. The fifth set of questions pertained to funding and whether respondents would
support a modest tax or fee, 1 = don’t support, 2 = slightly support 3 = support, 4 =
strongly support and 5 = very strong support.

The sixth set of questions required respondents to indicate how their level of support
would perhaps change if the state were willing to provide a 3:1 funding option ($3 of
state money for every $1 generated locally). Voters were asked to circle one of the
following responses: much less likely, less likely, no diflerence, more likely and much
more likely. Respondents were then asked respondents to evaluate the ways government
agencies use various programs to regulate the use of private property, 1 = don’t support, 2

= slightly support, 3 = support, 4 = strongly support and 5 = very strongly support.

The next set of questions asked respondents to indicate the approaches they would
like to see used to protect farmland through a series of different strategies including
limiting the number of new homes in rural areas through stricter land use and zoning
regulations, direct or encourage more development in and around existing cities and/or
villages and provide reduced property taxes to farmers who voluntarily agree to not
develop their land. Respondents were also asked how to felt about paying farmers who
voluntarily agree to permanently protect farmland from future development through
conservation easements and allow developers to build more homes than zoning currently
allows in exchange for financially supporting a farmland preservation program in Clinton
County.

The next four questions of the survey instrument asked respondents specific
,questions regarding funding options. These options include a dedicated restaurant meals
tax, a real estate transfer tax, and a dedicated mileage. The last set of questions ask
demographic information used to access where respondents live, in what type of
community, in what type of community would they prefer to live, how long have they
lived in the county, how long do they intend to live in the county, age and education

level.

Validity, Usability and Reliability

To determine the validity and usability of the instrument, a diverse l8-member
Agriculture and Open Space (AOS) committee consisting of city representatives, county
and drain commissioners, farmers, realtors and township officials was used. The

committee was developed prior to the instrument development to investigate Clinton

45

County land use trends and develop workable solutions. The committee served as a panel
of experts for content, validity of the instrument. Faculty at MSU served as a panel of
experts for face validity of the instrument. A pilot study was conducted with a like group
of individuals not included in this study to determine reliability. Based on the reliability

test, the instrument was deemed reliable.

Data Collection

Data were collected by sending the instrument, with a detailed cover letter outlining
the need for the study and importance of the samples response, to the selected sample of
registered Clinton County voters. Two weeks after the initial introduction of the survey
was sent, a reminder post card was sent to all (not just non-respondents) individuals
sampled, urging them to take 5 minutes, fill out the survey and return it.

As returned survey’s were entered and tabulated a list of non-respondents was
formed. Non-respondents were mailed a third and final follow-up letter with a survey
included. Another copy of the survey instrument was included to non-respondents in
case of it being lost or thrown away with the first mailing.

Approximately 1300 individuals of the total 1500 sampling received a third and final
return notice. The third and final mailing including a letter stressing the urgency of
returning the survey, that it was the last opportunity . The follow-up letter proved to be
successful as approximately 200 additional surveys were received. Early and later
respondents were compared to control for non-response error. No significant differences

were found, therefore the results can be generalized to the total population.

46

Data Analysis
The data collected fiom the survey instrument was analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics (e. g. fi'equency, mean,

percentage, standard deviation, etc.) were used to analyze the data.

47

Chapter 4

Study Findings

The purpose of this study is to identify the perspectives of Clinton County residents
on land use and farmland preservation trends and impacts. Furthermore, the study
determined if a farmland preservation initiative would be feasible in Clinton County
through identifying the level of understanding and support of each strategy. This chapter
will describe the responses of the survey respondent using tables and narrative of each
question. As reported in chapter three, 1500 questionnaires were mailed to a random
sampling of registered voters in Clinton County. Of these, 493 were returned,
representing a return rate of 31 percent. Graphs were used to show relations,
comparisons and distributions in a set of data. Graphs may show absolute values,
percentages, or index numbers. Graphs were used to help convey a memorable image of
the overall pattern of results.

Tables were used due to their efficiency, enabling the researcher to present a large
amount of data in a small amount of space. Tables usually show exact numerical values,
and the data are arranged in an orderly display of columns and rows, which aids

comparison.

Demographic Profile of Clinton County Residents
The respondents of the survey were registered voters in Clinton County. Selected
demographics are displayed in figures and tables. Of the survey respondents, 57.9

percent were male and 41.9 percent were female.

48

The majority of respondents held “some college education accounting for 35.5 percent
followed by high school diploma, 25.8 percent then college graduates at 22.5 percent then
advanced degrees at 14.1 percent and finally less than a high school diploma only
accounted for 4.2 percent of the respondents.

The age of respondents was distributed throughout with 29.6 percent being between
50-59, 23.5 percent between 40-49, 16.1 percent between 60-69, 13.8 percent between
30-39. As reported in Chapter 3, the average age of farmers in Michigan is 55 years of
age. This is an accurate representation of the age group of farmers that will be
determining how their land will change hands.

Approximately 30 percent of the respondents live on a rural lot less than five acres,
25.5 percent live in subdivisions on less than five acres and 17.3 percent live on a large
rural lot, non-farm (more than five acres.) Therefore, the majority of residents in Clinton
County live in fairly low-density areas with large tracts of land suitable to sustain more
than one dwelling unit. Fourteen percent live on an operating farm.

Thirty two percent of the respondents indicated they would prefer to live in a
farming area, followed closely by 26.4 percent wanting to live on large rural lost and 11.2
percent indicating they would prefer to live in a village. Moreover, the residents living
on large rural lots prefer to stay there that do not, would prefer to.

Of the respondents that live within a city limit of Clinton County, 52.5 percent live in
Dewitt, 41.7 percent live in St. Johns and 1.7 live in Laingsburg.

Of the respondents that live within a village limit, 21.4 percent live in Wacusta, 19.6
percent in Fowler and Ovid, 14.3 percent live in Elsie, 12.5 percent in Westphalia, 7.1

percent in Eureka and only 5.4 percent live in Maple Rapids.

49

Of the respondents that live in a township of a city or village, the majority live in
Dewitt and Bath townships with fairly equal representation across the broad of all other
townships. This data set is consistent of population distribution with recent Clinton
County census data. The Census determined the majority of residents reside in Dewitt
and Bath.

As reported in Table 1, 96.5 percent of the respondents own their current residence
while 3.5 percent rent. Additionally, of those that own their residence, 65.8 percent own
under 10 acres, 18.9 percent own between 10 and 40 acres and 15.2 percent own 40 or

more acres (see Table 2).

 

 

 

 

Table 1.

Do you own or rent your residence? (N = 485)
Characteristics N Bergept

Own 468 96.5

Rent 17 3.5

Total 485 100

Table 2.

lyou own, how many acres do you have? (N = 407)
Characteristics N41192:? m;
Under 10 acres 268 65.8

50

(Table 2. continued)

1040 acres

40 or more acres

Total

77

62

407

18.9

15.2

100

Nearly seventy nine percent of the respondents live within a half mile of an operating

farm. Of those, 90.5 percent indicated it had been a pleasant experience for them (see

Table 3.)

Table 3.

Do you live within ’/2 mile of an operating farm? W = 481)
If yes. has the experience been pleasant for you? (N = 3 77)

Clm‘teristics
Yes

No

Uncertain

Total

Ifyes...

Characteristics

Yes

Uncertain

No

Total

Met
379

89

13

481

15m
341

19

15

481

51

Bare—€1.11
78.8
18.5
2.7

100

m:
90.5
5.0

4.0

100

The distribution of concerns in Clinton County are the loss of farmland, loss of
family farms, loss of open space, rapid residential growth, fragmentation of land by low
density development, rapid business and/or commercial growth, loss of wetlands, loss of
outdoor recreation lands, deterioration of downtown areas, loss of sense of community,
lack of affordable housing, lack of park and recreational facilities, lack of adequate public
transportation and time spent commuting to work. Finding indicated that the loss of
farmland was the highest concern for respondents on a scale of l — 5.

One out of every two people indicated loss of farmland as the number 1 concern
facing Clinton County today, followed closely by loss of family farms. Clinton County is
predominantly a rural community composed of agriculture and related industries (Table

4).

52

Table 4.

Distribution of current concerns in Clinton County

 

 

Concerns in Not a Slight Concern Strong Very Mean
Clinton County concern concern concern strong (St. Dev)
concern

N % % % % % %
Loss of 471 4.0 8.1 11.7 22.1 54.1 4.14
farmland (1.15)
Loss of family 474 4.2 8.2 14.8 21.5 51.3 4.07
farms (1.17)
Loss of open 468 4.3 9.3 16.6 29.0 35.7 3.87
space (1.27)
Fragmented 452 8.0 13.9 24.8 24.3 29.0 3.52
land by low (1.26)
density
development
Rapid business 471 8.9 14.9 24.0 25.5 26.8 3.46
or commercial (1.27)
growth
Loss of 467 9.0 18.6 20.1 23.8 28.5 3.44
wetlands (1.32)
Loss of sense 468 12.2 20.7 28.0 22.6 16.5 3.10
of community (1.25)
Deterioration of 467 1 1.3 21.0 31.3 21.8 14.6 3.07
downtown (1.21)
areas
Lack of 469 16.2 20.7 27.7 19.4 16.0 2.98
affordably (l .30)
housing
Lack of park & 463 21.2 23.3 27.9 17.9 9.7 2.72
recreational (l .25)
facilities
lack of 461 28.2 25.4 23.6 12.4 10.4 2.51
adequate public (1.30)
transportation

 

 

53

As reported in Table 5, Protecting forest and woodlands was the area residents felt
was a priority, high priority and a very high priority (88.6%) (combined). However,
Protecting farmland from development was second at (a priority, high priority and a very
high priority, combined) 87.1 percent with 52.2 percent of the respondents indicating it
was a “very high priority” compared to protection of forest and woodlands at 42.4
percent of the respondents indicating it as “high priority”. Protecting land along river
ways was third (85.4% a priority, high priority and a very high priority, combined) and
preserving wetlands and marshes was forth (78.5% a priority, high priority and a very

high priority combined).

54

Table 5.

Distribution ofpriority ofefibrts in the county

 

Effort Not a Slight A priority High Very high Mean
priority priority priority priority (St. Dev.)
N % % % % % %

Protecting 479 5.4 7.3 12.1 22.8 52.2 4.18

farmland from (2.29)

development

Protecting 474 2.5 8.2 18.4 27.8 42.4 4.13

forest and (2.60)

woodlands

Protecting 468 4.1 10.5 20.1 27.1 38.2 3.85

land along (1.16)

river ways

Preserving 470 7.4 13.8 20.2 22.3 36.0 3.70

wetlands and (1.54)

marshes

Expanding 467 24.0 23.6 21.8 13.5 16.9 2.77

public hunting (1.43)

and fishing

opportunities

Building more 464 24.6 27.6 23.3 16.2 8.4 2.56

hiking and (1.25)

biking trails

Building more 464 20.3 32.5 27.8 13.6 5.8 2.52

county parks 0-”)

and sporting

activities

Expanding 462 23.6 32.0 27.1 11.5 5.8 2.44

existing state (1.14)

parks

Building 465 68.2 20.6 7.7 2.2 1.3 1.48

public golf (~33)

courses

Scale Mean 3.40
(1.49)

 

 

55

When asked what services the public would support additional financing for, road
repair and maintenance came first (86.8% a priority, high priority and a very high
priority; combined) then emergency services such as fire and police protection (82.5% a
priority, high priority and a very high priority; combined) followed by farmland
preservation programs (76.1% a priority, high priority and a very high priority;
combined).

However, 29.9 percent of the respondents indicated they “very strongly support”
compared to road repair and maintenance at 20.5 percent and emergency services such as
fire and police protection at 19.8 percent. Farmland preservation programs are clearly

supported by the public in terms of public financing for services (Table 6.)

56

Table 6.

Distribution of public financing to pay for services

 

Services

Road repair and
maintenance

Natural
areas/open
space
preservation
programs

Emergency
services

Upgrading and
expanding
school facilities

Public Parks

Farmland
Preservation
Program

Public
Transportation

Expansion of
sewer and water
for future
business and
land
development

Scale Mean

478

470

479

475

470

472

472

469

Don’t

support

%

4.6

9.1

8.8

13.3

20.2

11.5

34.7

41.6

Slightly Support

support
%

8.6

14.7

8.8

16.8

33.0

12.3

29.2

29.4

%

32.4

29.6

35.1

32.4

30.6

25.1

24.6

18.3

Strongly
support

%

33.9

20.0

27.6

22.1

10.6

21.1

6.4

7.9

Very
strongly

support

20.5

26.4

19.8

15.4

5.3

29.9

5.1

2.8

Mean

(St. Dev.)

%

3.57
(1.05)

3.47
(1.93)

3.41
(1.16)

3.09
(1.24)

2.52
(1.44)

2.18
(1.13)

2.18
(1.13)

2.01
(1.08)

2.80
(1.27)

 

57

Clinton County residents value farmland and support its protection to maintain
environmental benefits of open space (90.9% a priority, high priority and a very high
priority; combined), to save farmland for future food production (88.4%) and to preserve
the rural character of Clinton County (87.9% a priority, high priority and a very high
priority; combined). Moreover, 50.8% of the respondents indicated saving farmland for

future food production as being “extremely important” (Table 7).

58

Table 7.

Reasons for protecting farmland in Clinton County

 

Reasons

Maintain
environment
a1 benefits of
open space

Save

farmland for
future food
production

Help family

farms

remain in
the future

Slow down
and control

development

Preserve

rural

character

Support

local

agricultural
related
business and

jobs

Avoid

public cost
of services

Expand

public

access for
recreational

use

Scale Mean

473

482

484

478

475

473

469

470

Not
important
%

3.8

5.4

3.9

6.5

4.4

6.3

12.2

20.2

Slightly
important
%

5.3

6.2

8.9

9.4

7.6

7.4

17.7

26.6

Important

%

18.6

16.2

16.5

17.2

22.5

22.8

22.6

33.4

Quite

important

25.2

21.4

23.1

22.2

26.9

29.8

21.1

10.0

Extremely
important
%

47.1

50.8

47.3

44.8

38.5

33.6

26.4

9.8

Mean

(St. Dev.)

4.07
(1.10)

4.06
(1.18)

4.03
(1.22)

3.89
(1.25)

3.88
(1.14)

3.77
(1.18)

3.32
(1.35)

2.63

(1.20)

3.71
(1.20)

 

59

When asked which option residents was most important for action to be taken, 45.7

percent indicated it was “extremely important” to take action to preserve farmland and

39.3 percent indicated it was “extremely important” to take action to preserve open space

 

 

Impgrtant
%

15.2

23.5

 

Quite Extremely
Important Important
% %

24.3 45.7

22.9 39.3

and natural areas (Table 8).

Table 8.

Distribution of importance for government ofi‘icials to take action

Action Not Slightly

important important

N % %

Local gov.

preserve 481 5.0 9.8

farmland

Local 80V- 476 3.8 10.5

open space

natural

areas

Scale

Mean

Mean

(St—DE.)
%

3.96
(1.20)

3.83
(1.17)

3.90
(1.19)

 

Respondents indicated maintaining environmental benefits of open space (88.9%

important, quite important and extremely important, combined), to slow down and control

development (82.2% important, quite important and extremely important, combined) and

to preserve rural character (82% important, quite important and extremely important,

combined) as the main reasons for protecting open space and natural areas in Clinton

County (Table 9).

60

Table 9

Distribution of reasons for protecting open space and natural areas

 

Reasons

N
Maintain
environmental 474
benefits of
open space
Slow down
and control 474
development
Preserve rural 480
character
Expand
access for 469
recreational
opportunities

Expand public 472
hunting and

fishing
opportunities

Scale Mean

Not
important
%

3.2

7.2

6.5

17.1

22.2

Slightly
important
%

8.0

9.5

11.5

26.7

24.6

Important Quite

%

17.1

19.4

20.2

33.3

25.2

important
%

26.4

20.3

26.0

13.9

15.5

Extremely
important
%

45.4

43.5

35.8

9.2

12.3

Mean
(St. Dev.)

4.03
(1.11)

3.85
(1.32)
3.73
(1.24)

2.71
(1.17)

2.79
(2.19)

3.42
(1.41)

 

As reported in Table 10, respondents value the importance of farmland preservation

(66.7% important, quite important and extremely important, combined) and indicated

support for a modest tax or fee to help protect it. Approximately sixty four percent

support a modest tax or fee to help protect open space and natural areas and 42.8 percent

(important, quite important and extremely important, combined) support a tax or fee for

maintaining county park and recreational areas. These responses tend to indicate residents

prefer to “see” open space and farmland and not use it, as a park and/or recreational area.

61

Table 10.
Distribution of respondents support for a modest tax or fee

 

Service Don’t Slightly Support Strongly Very Mean
Support Support Support Strongly (St. Dev.)
Support
N % % % % %

Help protect farmland 484 20.0 13.2 20.0 20.9 25.8 3.19
(1.46)

Help protect open 476 19.1 17.4 24.2 19.7 19.5 3.03

space or natural areas (1.39)

Establish & maintain 473 29.0 28.1 26.8 10.0 5.9 2.36

co. park and (1.17)

recreational areas

Scale Mean 2.86
(1.34)

 

If the state contributed a 3:1 match, for every one-dollar generated locally, the state
would match three dollars, 61.1% indicated they would be more likely to support a modest

tax or fee to fund a farmland preservation program (Table 11.)

62

Table 11.
More or less likely to support a modest tax or fee to fund farmland preservation if the state
provided a 3 :1 match

 

Character Much less Less likel) No More Much Mean
likely difference likely more (St. Dev)
likely
N % % % % %
460 9.1 5.2 24.6 40.0 21.1 3.59
(1.15)

 

As reported in Table 12, 83.3% (support, strongly support and very strongly support,
combined) indicated they would support restricting development to protect farmland,
82.9% support restricting development to protect open space and 81.1% support regulating

the development and/or expansion of mobile homes (Table 12).

63

Table 12.
Distribution of support for government regulatory practices

 

Regulation Don’t Slightly Support Strongly Very Mean
support support support strongly (St. Dev)
support
N % % % % %

Regulatingthe 470 10.9 7.9 14.9 18.1 48.1 3.85
development of (1.38)
mobil/manufactured

homes

Restricting development 473 9.3 7.2 16.7 25.4 41.2 3.83

to protect farmland (1.30)
Restricting development 473 6.8 10.1 19.2 23.7 40.0 3.81
to protect open space and (1.26)
natural areas

Regulating development 470 8.3 13.6 26.0 20.0 32.1 3.54
for the protection of (1.29)
wetlands

Regulating development 470 8.3 13.6 26.0 20.0 32.1 3.54
for the protection of
wetlands

Regulating design of 464 12.3 16.4 33.4 23.7 14.2 3.11
development projects to (1.20)
incorporate open space

Regulating the location of 471 18.0 14.9 28.5 21.9 16.6 3.05

single family homes (1.33)
Acquiring private property 469 25.2 28.4 34.5 8.7 3.2 2.36
for public use (1.05)
Scale Mean 3.36
(1.26)

 

Directing or encouraging more development in and around existing cities and/or
villages is the approach most Clinton County residents prefer to see used to help preserve
farmland (81.2% support, strongly support and very strongly support, combined). Seventy
nine percent prefer to provide reduced property taxes to farmers who voluntarily agree to
not develop their land and 74.8% support limiting the number of new homes in rural areas

through stricter land use zoning and regulations (Table 13).

65

 

Table 13.
Support for approaches to preserve farmland in Clinton County

 

Approaches Don’t Slightly Support Strongly Very strongly Mean
support support support support (St. Dev)

N % % % % %

Provide reduced property 476 12.2 8.4 14.3 23.7 41.4 3.74

taxes to farmers who voluntarily (1.39)

agree to not develop their

land

Direct or encourage more 474 9.5 9.3 26.6 23.0 31.6 3.58

development in an around existing (1.28)

cities and/or villages

Pay farmers who voluntarily agree 473 15.9 9.7 18.4 21.1 34.9 3.49
to permanently protect farmland (1.45)
from future development through

a conservation easement

Limit the number of new 480 12.9 12.3 20.2 22.7 31.9 3.48

homes through stricter (1.38)
zoning

Allow a developer to build 463 50.1 18.4 17.3 7.8 6.5 2.20

more homes than zoning currently (1.25)

allows in exchange

for financially supporting farmland

preservation programs

Scale Mean 3.30

(1.35)

 

There are many options for funding a farmland preservation program. Seventy five
percent support a farmland conversion fee, which is paid by developers when farmland is
developed. Over 68% support reprioritization of existing general funds and 25 percent

support a bond referendum using existing revenues to pay off debt (Table 14).

66

 

Table 14.
Support for funding mechanism for a farmland preservation program

 

 

Mechanism Don’t Slightly Support Strongly Very Mean
support support support strongly (St.
support Dev)
N % % % % %
A farmland conversion fee 464 16.6 7.8 15.3 22.8 37.3 3.57
(1.47)
Using existing general 458 18.1 13.5 29.3 17.7 21.2 3.12
firnds (1.42)
A real estate transfer tax 461 37.1 15.8 15.6 16.9 14.5 2.56
(1.48)
Bond referendum 446 28.7 19.3 29.6 11.9 10.5 2.56
(1.30)
A property tax mileage 457 41.8 20.6 22.5 8.3 6.8 2.18
(1.25)
A restaurant meals tax 462 63.9 13.6 11.5 4.1 6.3 1.77
(1.24)
Scale Mean 2.63
(1.36)

 

Lastly, as reported in Table 18, lack of knowledge and awareness for the potential
farmland preservation options was significantly lower than expected. Many people do
not fully understand the programs and how they operate. Eighty percent were unfamiliar
with the purchase of development rights program, 82% were unfamiliar with the transfer
of development rights program and 84% were unfamiliar with agriculture security areas
or districts program. Understanding and articulation for each of these programs must be

raised if a successfirl farmland preservation program is implemented in Clinton County.

67

Table 15

Familiarity of government and other land use programs among Clinton County residents

 

Program

Michigan Farmland & 471
Open Space preservation
Act (PA. 116)

Conservation Reserve Program 471

Purchase of Development Rights 468
(PDR)

Transfer of Development Rights 467
(TDR)

Urban Growth Boundaries or 467
Or Urban Service Districts

Agriculture Security Areas or 464
Districts

Scale Mean

Not
familiar
%

56.5

66.2

79.5

82.2

83.7

84.1

Somewhat Very

familiar
%

28.9

22.9

16.0

15.4

13.7

14.4

familiar
%

14.4

10.8

4.3

2.4

2.6

1.5

Mean
(St. Dev)

1.62
(1.15)

1.45
(.68)

1.37
(2.81)

1.20
(.46)

1.19
(.45)

1.17
(.42)

1.33
(1.0)

 

68

Chapter 5
Summagy, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

Summary

There is a great deal of support for farmland preservation efforts in Clinton County
and throughout Michigan. Communities understand the importance of sound land use
planning, design regulations and protection initiatives. Like any issue, the rubber meets
the road when discussions of how to fund a program are brought to the surface. Citizens
and public officials alike would like to see a project brought to fruition, however are
uneasy regarding fimding mechanisms.

As reported in Chapter 2, Literature Review, there is a clear direction on supporting
a program, however the question comes down to how does public opinion influence
officials and their desire to change and influence policy. It also begs the question: If
officials understand the desires of the public with clear quantitative date, can they shape
policy without extreme repercussions? The answer depends on two components. One,
does the official posses leadership characteristics enough to champion an issue and
expand political capital for it? Two, what are the values and beliefs associated
personally? Farmland and Open space preservation programs have clear emotional
characteristics attached to them. It is important to assess both political and personal
views.

Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the perspectives of residents of
Clinton County on farmland and open space preservation efforts, if they feel trends are
occurring and affect them, and also to perhaps develop a countywide farmland

preservation program. A simple random sample of 1500 registered voters in Clinton

69

County was drawn and had a 30 percent response rate. A closed and open-ended
questionnaire was designed to measure trends and perspectives on land use issues.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.

The statement of a major study conclusion is presented under each research question.

A brief discussion is also presented along with recommendations. At the end of this
chapter, recommendations for future research are also made. Based upon the finding
presented in this study the following conclusions, recommendations and implications were
formed.

Research Question 1
What are the current resource and/or land use concerns facing Clinton County?

Conclusion

- The loss of farmland in Clinton County is clearly a high concern among residents.
Nearly 88 percent of the respondents indicated it as a concern, strong concern or
very strong concern.

- The loss of family farms was the second most popular concern with 87.6 percent
of the respondents indicating it was a concern. Respondents chose the loss of
farmland and the loss of family farms as the two highest concerns in Clinton
County over other concerns such as affordable housing, public transportation,
commute time, loss of wetlands and loss of sense of community.

Recommendation

- Residents understand and recognize the landscape change in their communities
and contribute much of it to the loss and fragmentation of agricultural land. These

trends must be investigated to award merit and creditability to the urgency of the

70

issue. It is in public officials best interest to develop an agenda for addressing the
land use concerns of its citizens as a high importance issue in the county.
Officials must recognize that residents are aware of land fi'agmentation and
encourage grass-roots, community action groups to organize and help address
much the concern. They must also encourage partnership among local officials

and these action groups for feedback and input throughout the process.

Implication

If public awareness is not heightened in terms of landscape change and rural
character, communities will continue to grow as they always have. Allowing
growth to occur by chance rather than by choose.

Communities have conducted survey’s, held public forums and hosted many
events to investigate the concerns of the citizens. Through further investigation
must come action. Many questions in the survey instrument lead in the direction
of creating change.

Research Question #2

Among other county priorities where does farmland preservation fall in terms of

resource management and public needs?

Conclusion

One out of every two respondents indicated protecting farmland from
development was very high priority, even over wetland preservation, state park
creation, hiking and biking trails and county parks for sporting activities.

Many resources demand protection, however respondents on this survey indicate

farmland protection to be the highest priority over other priorities for protection.

71

Recommendation

Clinton County must place a priority on farmland preservation through further
investigation of “inadequate resources”.

Investigate the revenue streams, which enhance or help create larger sprawling
problems. For example, large minimum lot sizes, expansion of sewer and water

services to areas outside of growth zones, road expansion, etc.

Implication

Although much of the growth follows the market, public policies can create
incentives for growth in unwanted or unplanned areas.

If changes are not made in areas of revenue spending to cut unwanted incentives
for growth, the market will continue to allow development to occur in the same

manner it always has.

Research Question #3

What are reasons for protecting farmland and open space in Clinton County?

Conclusions

Over 90 percent of the respondents indicated protection farmland was important,
quite important or extremely important for maintaining the environmental
benefits of open space.

Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated it is extremely important to protect

farmland to ensure future food production.

72

Recommendations

Create an internal county committee to make recommendations of how to better
use public dollars and resources. This committee should be knowledgeable of
land use trends in Clinton County and understand available programs.

Their recommendations should include shifting resources from the growing rural
areas to redevelopment and expansion of downtowns. Incentives for Brownfield
re-development and walkable communities are great ways to deincentivize

unmanaged growth in rural areas.

Implications

Are there techniques and tools already in place that can be utilized to help protect
farmland? Perhaps zoning, and other planning tools could be used to dove-tail
with more permanent solutions.

It is critically important to not use public tax dollars for programs that create
incentives for unmanaged growth and expansion. As indicated, respondents feel
strongly about the reasons for preserving farmland and entrust public officials to

use revenue in a responsible manner.

73

Research Question #4

What is the level of importance, according to residents, for protecting farmland in

Clinton County?

Conclusions

Over 45 percent of the respondents indicated it was extremely important state
and local officials take action to preserve farmland. Nearly 85 percent indicated
it was either important, quite important or extremely important for local and state
officials to take action to preserve farmland.

Farmland preservation is clearly a concern citizens feel is critical enough to
address at the county level. Residents recognize that the “market” is not
adjusting for natural resource protection and therefore requires county officials to
intervene with action.

Residents are perhaps not aware of the environmental, social and economic
benefits farmland generates in a community. They only understand their
contentment for farmland being bulldozed and housing developments

constructed next door.

Recommendations

 

Develop a Purchase of Development Rights program in Clinton County to allow
interested landowners and opportunity to be reimbursed for equity in their land in
exchange for a permanent conversation easement.

This program would include selection criteria, administration guidelines,
easement language, points based appraisal methods and installment purchase

agreements.

74

The county after adopting the PDR ordinance should fully implement the
program following the administration guidelines and including appointing an
Agricultural Preserve Board to oversee and make recommendations back to the

County Commissioners.

Implications

If Clinton County wants to continue to enjoy growth and prosperity among its
community, it must implement strategies, specifically the Purchase of
Development Rights Program to ensure those resources, which attract people to
locate there, are preserved and protected.

Discussion have occurred, the citizens have voiced their concerns and intent for
protecting farmland, however, action must be taken to ensure these issues can be
meaningfully resolved.

Developing and implementing a Purchase of Development Rights program will
not only aide farmers but send a message to all citizens that county officials are

concerned and willing to take action.

75

Research Question #5

Is there a significant lack of understanding of farmland preservation techniques?

Conclusions

When asked “How familiar are you with the government and other land use
programs including Purchase of Development Right, Transfer of Development
Rights, Agriculture Security Areas or Districts, Michigan Farmland and Open
Space Act (PA. 116), Conservation Reserve Program (CPA) and Urban Growth
Boundaries or Urban Service Districts, there is a significant lack of familiarity.
Almost 80 percent of the respondents indicated they were unfamiliar with the
Purchase of Development Rights Program, over 82 percent indicated they were
unfamiliar with the Transfer of Development Rights Program and 84 percent
were unfamiliar with Ag Security Areas or Districts.

There is a severe disconnect between the tools used to address the land use issues
of highest priority or greatest concern and county residents. Clinton county
residents are feeling the effect of scattered and hap-hazard growth however do
not fully understand the tools that are available to address these issues.
Furthermore residents are not only unaware of the programs but even further
disconnected with program administration and how these tools could directly
impact them.

Percentages ranging from 80 to even 90 percent of residents who are unaware of
these programs send a clear message that strong and concerted educational
efforts must be put forth in order to enjoy the success outcomes these programs

could offer.

76

It is clear, growth and the manner in which it occurs is a concern to Clinton
County residents. If residents’ only understand how these programs could
benefit their community and even achieve the goals they desire, they would
perhaps be more inclined to engage in public discussion and support these

programs on the ballot.

Recommendations

Workshops and educational seminars on the specifics of each program need to be
coordinated and open to all interested or concerned citizens.

A workshop designed specifically for public officials should be conducted as
well.

Evaluations and surveys need to be conducted upon conclusion of these
workshops to indicate an increase in awareness and understanding.

Pilot programs should also be considered as an option for bringing awareness to
county residents. Offering a pilot program/study for a TDR, PDR Ag Security
Area or Urban Services District, allows elected officials a cushion — they neither
have to support nor oppose a program. Officials can take a wait and see stance,
allowing program coordinators an opportunity to demonstrate the value of the

tool.

Irrprlications

 

Knowledge, awareness and understanding by all citizens, especially public
officials and the agricultural community, are essential to a successful farmland

preservation program.

77

- Lack of understanding and awareness will cast confusion and doubt among

voting citizens, and could ultimately lead to an unsuccessful program.

Research Question #6
Would residents be willing to support a modest tax or fee to support farmland
preservation programs?
Conclusions
- Almost 60 percent of the respondents supported some form of mileage/tax, or were
not sure with no opinion. Many respondents support alternative methods of funding
such as a farmland conversion to be paid by developers, 3 real estate transfer tax or
bond referendum.
Recommendfiations
- Form a campaign team to poll the possibility of a successful mileage or ballot
initiative.
- Begin campaign strategies and make recommendations to the county commissioners
for educational and awareness strategies.
Implications
- Survey response indicates there is a significant amount of citizens that due to lack of
understanding are unsure of how they would vote.
- In almost every election “fence sitters” can make or break a successful ballot

initiative. This group must be identified and reached.

Farmland preservation efforts are clearly a priority for residents in Clinton County, the State
of Michigan and perhaps across the country. The question is not is this a concern, but what
will come our landscape if nothing is put into action. The disconnect between the concerns of

the citizens and action taken by local units of government

79

Bibliography

Cromarty, R., (1999). The historical development of the Suffolk County Farmland
Preservation Program (New York). Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A 60/30,
569,(UMI No. 9924172)

Dunphy, A.M., (1997). Balancing residential growth with commercial agriculture in the
urban-rural fringe: An analysis of design methods. Dissertation Abstracts International,
MAI 37/02, 513 (UMI No. MQ31566)

Nickerson, C., (2000) Characterizing participation in farmland preservation programs.
Dissertation Abstracts of International, DAI-A 61/09,3687 (U MI No. 9985322)

Kline, J. (1996) Measuring Public Preferences to improve the design of farmland
preservation programs (land use, environment, open space). Dissertation Abstracts
International, DAI, Vol. 57-10A, 4470 (UMI No. 9707389)

Wentzien, D., (1996) .Analysis of attitudes toward and WTP for farmland preservation
in New Castle County, Delaware, using a conjoint design and bootstrap techniques
(Development Rights, Willingness to pay). Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI,
Vol. 58-01A, 241. (UMI No. 9718781)

Krizek, A., (1998) Circumstances and interests of RA. 116 farmland owners,
implications to Michigan farmland protection policy (Land development, the Michigan
farmland and open space preservation act). Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI,
Vol. 60-03B, 879 (UMI No. 9922338)

Carver, A., (1998) Optimizing patterns of land use: the application of a multi-
Criteria/multi-objective model for land allocation in the urban fringe (farmland
preservation, rural communities, urban sprawl, suburbs)

Bonti-Ankomah, S., (1997) Economic Analysis of farmland protection policies in Ontario
Dissertation Abstracts International DAI, Vol. 58-07A, 2767 (U M1 N0. GNN20455)

Myers, 8., (1984). Agricultural land preservation programs: a critical investigation of
land-use planning techniques. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI, Vol. 45-O9A,
3008 (UMI No. 8428795)

Ramsey, R., (1994) Land Competition issues affecting agriculture in Newfoundland and
Labrador (M) Abstracts International, MAI No. 34/02, 621 (V 01. No. MM01908)

Thorson, J., (1991) The effect of government restrictions on the supply of land.
Dissertation Abstracts International DAI-A 52/08, 3006 (V 01. No. 9203395)

80

Wolosiewicz. A., (1989) An analysis of farmland preservation techniques in the United States
at state and local levels. Dissertation Abstracts International MAI 28/02, 225 (Vol. No.
I 338560)

Lehman, T., (1998) The National interests in farmland preservation: a history of federal
policy in the twentieth century. Dissertation Abstracts International DAI-A 50/02, 531
(V o]. No. 8905661)

Dischinger—Smedes, J ., (1997) Residential land parcelization and agricultural zoning: the
minimum lot size method, Ottawa County, Michigan. Dissertation Abstracts
International MAI, 36/04, 984

Sullivan, W., ( 1991) The rural-urban fringe: urban growth and the preservation of
agricultural lands (land preservation. Dissertation Abstracts International
DAI 52/07a,2729

Pitt, D., (1986) Factors associated with the adoption of an innovative agricultural land
preservation policy by Maryland farmland owners (Diffusion). Dissertation Abstracts
International DAI 47/O4b, 1473

Daniels, Tom (1999). When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the
Metropolitan Fringe: Washington DC. Island Press

Daniels, T., Bowers, D., (1997) Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and
Farmland .° Washington DC. /Covelo, California Island Press

Dempsy, D. ; Foreword by Former Governor William G. Milliken, (2001) Ruin & Recovery:
Michigan ’s Rise as a Conservation Leader: The University of Michigan Press

81

   

u(litigiiirjjjj(3)11):