THE ROLE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN LAND USE PROGRAMS Thesis for the Degree cf M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Nelson Ernest Ball 1966 THESIS LIBRARY A Mfghigan State Uni verity ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN LAND USE PROGRAMS by Nelson Ernest Ball This exploratory study was designed to assist the researcher develop an understanding of the features incorpor- ated in the design of community resource development programs, sponsored or initiated by the Cooperative Extension Service. The role of the Extension Service in the amelioration of land use problems, a role which is gaining increasing attention as a result of the urbanizing trend throughout America, was sel- ected as an area of study which promised to fulfill the re- searcher's objective. Extension's past, present and potential future role in the alleviation of land use problems was determined through an analysis of available literature and the collective res- ponses of fifty State Rural Areas DevelOpment Leaders, (or persons of equivalent rank in the Extension Service), to a questionnaire sent to them by the researchero The literature analyzed consisted of nine case studies descriptive of past and present Extension land use programs° Thirty of the fifty State Extension Leaders replying to the questionnaire indicated that their state was involved in an Extension land use programo These (thirty) respondents' answers to specific questions concerning the sc0pe, construction Nelson Ernest Ball and results achieved in their state's program were analyzed. The analyses of the questionnaire response and the case studies were then compared and interpreted in relation to the study objective. The evidence gathered indicated that land use programs are an ongoing part of Extension programming in thirty states, while these programs are not entirely consistent, there are similarities in construction, goals and results achieved. Generally, they are initiated at the local community or county level by the Extension Service in cooperation with citizen leaders and concerned public and private agencies, and are based upon citizen involvement in an educational land use pro- gram, involving situation study and leading to land use plan- ning recommendations. The following considerations for future land use pro- grams were formulated on the basis of evidence from the liter- ature review, questionnaire response and the researcher's insights. 10 Land use planning in urban, urban fringe and rural areas appears to offer an effective approach to the amelior- ation of the land use problems facing most American commun- ities° 2° Designing an Extension land use program requires a step by step process leading to isolation of land use prob- lems, determination of apprOpriate methods required to alleviate these problems, and selection of the needed Nelson Ernest Ball professional, technical and monetary resources necessary for fulfillment of program goals. 3. The Cooperative Extension Service can play a key role in the formulation of educational programs designed to allev- iate land use problems. Extension should assist citizens understand the planning process so that they may advise the planner during the planning stage, be capable of objective interpretation of the resultant plan and successfully imple- ment its provisions. 4. The determination of program content, educational methods, and area of Operation, (county, region, statewide) is dependent upon the needs and characteristics of the commun- ity, county, region, or state involved. 5. Involvement of formal and informal community leader- ship in all phases of a land use program appears to be vital to program success. 6. The involvement of professional leadership and tech- nical advice from agencies, groups or individuals external to the Extension Service is an important factor in a success- ful program. These considerations for program design suggest several implications important in the genesis and successful operation of Extension land use programs. 1. The problems of land use in most states are not ex- clusively related to agriculture and rural life. The dynamic effects of urbanization must be considered in the formulation of an Extension land use program. Acceptance of a land use Nelson Ernest Ball role by the Extension Service implies a willingness to change. Change may mean reorientation of programs, retraining staff, and establishment of new patterns of communication and cooper- ation with farm and non-farm agencies and organizations. 2. An Extension land use program relies heavily upon three sources of leadership; the Extension staff, other pro- fessional and supportive agencies, and formal and informal community leadership. Training programs for all types of leadership, designed to clarify concepts, emphasize the effects of change and suggest apprOpriate means of c0ping with land use problems, seem to be a vital step in program initiation. 3. Participation by professional planners or planning agencies in the formulation and implementation of land use programs seems to be important to successful program planning. This implies a need for close liason with planning agencies, (where they exist) and may mean employment of a professional planner on a consulting basis, during the formulation and throughout the educational phase of the program. This study has emphasized the diversity of and growing interest in the field of Extension land use programming. The researcher suggests that a more intensive study of this area would yield much information of value to future land use programs 0 THE ROLE OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN LAND USE PROGRAMS BY Nelson Ernest Ball A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource DevelOpment 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have provided encouragement and assistance throughout my Master's degree program and especially in the development of this particular study. To all who assisted, named and unnamed, I express my sincere appreciation. Special acknowledgment is extended to: Dr. William J. Kimball, my thesis advisor and committee chairman, for his guidance in pursuing this study; Drs. J. Allan Beegle, Mason E. Miller, and Milton H. Steinmueller, members of my study committee, for their assist- ance and suggestions: The personnel of the CoOperative Extension Service in each state, who took time from busy schedules to complete the questionnaire; John and Allan Steeves for their assistance in data analysis: The government of the Province of New Brunswick for the post graduate study grants, which helped make this study possible; My family for encouragement and support: My wife, Lenora, whose perserverance in the compil- ation of this project contributed immeasurably. Nelson Ernest Ball ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 LIST OF TABLES O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O I O ILLUSTRATIONS O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 LIST OF APPENDICES O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. IV. BASES FOR STUDY . o . o o o e . . . . . TheProblem............. Purpose and Objectives of Study . . . Basic Design Of StUdY e e o e e e e 0 BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS . . . o . . . Changing American Society . . . . . . Urban Sprawl and Land Use . . . . . . Planning for Orderly Land Use . . . . A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE CONTENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NUMBER OF LAND USE PROGRAMS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS Information To Be Gathered . . . . . The QUBBtionnaire o e e e o o o e o o The Respondents o o o e o e o e o o 0 Analysis of Questionnaire Response . DISCUSSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES AS THEY RELATE TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY . . . . iii 0 O O O O O O O Page ii vi vii 15 15 30 39 97 Chapter VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, L BIBLIOGRAP APPENDICES IMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . e o . . smarYeeoeoeoeeeeoeeee Considerations For Future Land Use Programs Implications For The Design of Extension LandUseProgramS........... StUdy Limitations 0 e e e e e o e e e 0 Recommendations For Further Research . . HY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O iv Page 113 113 115 121 123 125 128 136 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percent of Taxes Paid by Major Groups of Tax Payers Versus Percent of Benefits Attained e e e o e e s e e e e e e e e e . . 24 2. The Number of States Having a Land Use Program During All or Part of the Period June, 1955 to July, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . 65 3. Number of Years Land Use Programs Have Been a Part of Extension Programming During the Period, June, 1955 to July, 1966 . . . . 67 4. A Summary of the Reasons Given by Extension Leaders for Beginning an Extension Land U33 Program, July, 1966 e e e e e o e e e s 68 5. Goals of Land Use Programs As Reported by Extension Leaders, July, l966 . . . . . . . 69 6. Summary of Agencies, Groups, Organizations and Individuals Providing Assistance In Extension Land Use Programs at Local, Regional and State Areal Levels, July, 1966 71 7. Rank Order of Inclusion of Phases, Study - Education - Planning in Land Use Programs As Reported by Twenty-eight Extension Leaders, Ju1y, 1966 o e e . . e e e e e e e 72 8. Groups or Agencies Participating in Land Use Study and the Area Level of Their Involve- ment in Nineteen States, July, 1966 . . . . 74 9. Methodology of Group or Agency Involvement in Land Use Study by Area Level in Nineteen States, JUly' 1966 o e e o e e e e o o e s e 75 10. States Reporting Completion of a Land Use Inventory as a Result of Land Use Study, JUIY, 1966 o e o o o o o o e e o e e o o o e 77 11. Target Audiences for Land Use Education Pro- gram and the Area Level of Their Involve- ment in Twenty-six States, July, 1966. . . . 79 Table Page 12. Land Use Education Audiences by Area Level in Twenty-six States, July, 1966 . . . . . . 79 13. Major Educational Methods Used in Extension Land Use Education Programs by Area of Use in Twenty-six States, July, 1966 . . . . 81 14. Specific Methods Used by Extension in Educational Land Use Programs, by Areas of Use in Twenty-six States, July, 1966. . . 82 15. Extension Leaders Evaluation of Extension's Educational Land Use Programs in Twenty- Bix States, JUly' 1966 e o e e e e e e e e e 84 16. Groups, Agencies, Individuals Involved in Land Use Planning Programs and the Area Level of Their Involvement in Twenty-one States, July, 1966 e o o o e e e e e e e e e 85 17. Specific Groups, Agency, Individuals Working With Extension in Land Use Planning Programs and Their Level of Involvement in Twenty-one States, JUly, 1966 o e e e e e e e e e e e e 86 ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. Questionnaire Responses Indicating Scope of Extension Land Use Programs . . . . . . . . 66 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Correspondence With State Rural Areas Development Leaders and Questionnaire on Extension Land Use Programs In The United States...................136 B. Questionnaire Response Coding System . . . . . 151 vii CHAPTER I BASES FOR STUDY The Problem In mid November, 1620 after two months on the stormy North Atlantic, the tiny ship ”Mayflower” hove to off the shores of Cape Cod. All but the hardiest of its passengers were overwhelmed by the wilderness that faced them and un- prepared for its many challenges. Yet unprepared as they were, the colonists brought with them three things which Udall credits with eventually changing the face of the continent. First, they brought a new technology} second, they possessed a ”cast of mind“, which made them want to remake North America; and third, they brought a concept of ownership and property rights.1 Technology has been and is now an integral part of man's relation to land. The ability to use technology to ex- tract the many and varied prOperties of land for his enjoyment, comfort and security has been one of man's greatest victories. The social arrangements, laws and customs man has applied to land, its use and ownership, are another part of his relat- ionship to land. These arrangements have been responsible for our system of land use and land tenure. 1Stewart L. Udall, The Quiet Crisis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), pp. 13-15. 2 Though we may refer to technology and its effect on land, or various social arrangements and their effect on land, basically land use is the preserve of the individual person. ”Though we refer to land use changes, in every case there are flesh and blood people behind the changes,-- noble peOple, selfish ones, brave, timid, great and ordinary . . ."1 Thus, it may be generally stated that land use and land use change is a function of individual and societal decision making as affected by technologically induced social change. The first European settlers arriving in the United States were greeted by a vast wilderness, pOpulated by less than one million American Indians. As these first settlers overcame obstacles, early settlement began to grow at a rapid rate. The census of 1790 showed a pepulation of 3.9 million peOple, five percent of whom were urban. The rural pOpula- tion at that time was almost exclusively engaged in agricul- ture. Settlement continued with westward migration beginning early in the nineteenth century, by 1850 agriculture had reached the prairies and at the turn of the twentieth century much of the United States had been settled. The first two decades of the twentieth century were the turning point in agricultural land use. Agricultural expansion continued, but its areal expansion was about over. Urban areas, in contrast, began to expand. Automobiles, lMarion Clawson, Man and Land in the United States (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 4. 3 improved highways, increased mobility, reduced working hours, more leisure time, rising incomes and a technological revol- ution in agriculture, all were responsible and set the stage for the explosive urban growth which was on the horizon. The greatest change in land use since 1920 has been doubling of areas in special purposes uses, including highways, parks and urban residential areas. During the 1950's these uses absorbed 2,000,000 acres per year. Cropland, grassland and pasture were the source of forty percent, forests forty percent and twenty percent came from idle land. Expansion of requirements for land for nonmagricultural uses has affected agricultural land, in some areas agricultural land has shifted totally to special purpose uses, while in others farming Oper- ations have continued in the urban fringe. The impact of urban enroachment on agriculture is best illustrated in increas- ing tax burdens, tax levies in urban fringe areas may, and often do, exceed the productive capacity of the land for agricultural use.1 The trend to urban uses is almost certain to continue. Scofield reports that between 1950 and 1960 the population of the central city increased eleven percent, while the adjacent fringe areas increased a phenomenal fifty percent and wholly rural counties only seven percent.2 The increasing population 1The foregoing historical sketch of the changing land use situation is based upon the writings of Mark M. Regan and Hugh Wooten, "Land Use Trends and Urbanization", A Place To Live, The Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: THe United States Department of Agriculture, 1963), pp. 59-63. 2William H. Scofield, "Values and Competition For Land", A Place To Live, The Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 1963), p. 64. 4 in suburban and fringe areas has increased the demands on rural government. The new resident of the suburb wants ser- vices equal to those in the city. Snow removal, improved highways, schools, the list is almost endless. Farmers also face new problems where suburban development is uncontrolled, drainage patterns may be altered, streams polluted and nuis- ances created. As Stevenson once said: There is a new America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we like it or not. This new America is the sum of the many small changes--a new subdivision here, a new school there, a new indus- try where yesterday there had been vacant swampland-- changes that add up to a broad transformation of our lives. Our task is to guide these changes, for though change is inevitable change for the better is a full- time job. Our pOpulation and technology are increasing daily. With each forward step of these two variables, the problems of land use become more complex. Governmental decisions affecting these problems have not kept pace. As a result, we are now faced with problems in our cities, suburban, urban fringe, and rural areas. The broad problems of the rural areas differ only in degree from those of the purely urban fringe areas. As Suggitt has put it: "Both are floundering frantically in the vortex'of changing circumstances."2 Rowlands expresses much the same sentiment as he comments on 1W. A. Rowlands, "Today's Need For Planning and Zoning",Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 17, n. 2, (March-April, 1962), pp. 62:64, citing Adlai Stevenson. 2Frank W. Suggitt, "The Broad Problems of Rural Commun- ities”. A paper presented to the North Central Extension Dir- ectors Meeting (Manhattan, Kansas: September, 1960) (Mimeo) 5 land use change in the urban and rural areas: "Land use problems do not end at man-made political boundaries. The problems of the best use of land . . . overlap and overshadow all political boundaries."1 In an area of fringe growth the boundaries of the metrOpolitan area extend well out into the countryside. Rural people who live a considerable distance from "metro” feel its effects. Thus, both rural and urban peOple would seem to have a role and a responsibility to understand the dynamics of their situation and the means available to effectively deal with community problems. Timmons has summarized the problem and the need for citizen participation as follows: There remains the need for more widespread public participation in land policy formation. There is a need for interested and informed citizenry to partic- ipate along with technicians in the process of devel- Oping land use plans and objectives and the means of guiding land use change . . . Citizen study of and participation in minimizing land use problems is not a simple process. Many land use issues are relatively complex: the significant facts about them are not easy to acquire or weigh. Practical alternatives for public action often depend to a major degree upon the economic aspects of costs and returns. A primary problem is the difficulty of illustrating the long range benefits of 1Walter A. Rowlands, A Citizen Deve10pment Plan For Every Count (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Extension Service, Circular 617, 1963), p. 3. 2John F. Timmons, mSummary Remarks, National Confer- ence on Land and People” (United States Department of Agric- ulture, January, 1962), p. 14. (Mimeographed) 6 planned land use and balancing these against probable or pos- sible short term gains from unplanned use. With few exceptions, citizens are not in a position to make knowledgeable planning decisions, unless the facts are presented to them in an object- ive fashion. The process of citizen planning for land use change, seems to require peOple and agencies with the ability to per- form an educational role. Carroll Bottum has defined the role of the educator as: The educator”s role in community development involves helping a community to broadly identify and define its goals. He helps the community identify and rate the importance of various problems in attaining its goals. He helps the community put the problem in a decision making framework. He develops new alternatives for the community by inventing new arrangements or institutions to take care of new situations. He helps the community measure the costs and benefits of each alternative. He helps the community in its strategy in carrying out its objectives after they choose the approach they wish to 11330 One adult educational organization which has the organ- izational framework and financial arrangements required to undertake programs in the field of land use change is the COOperative Extension Service (CES). This organization has been described as a ". . . partnership undertaking between each state Land Grant College and University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in c00peration with local govern= 1J. Carroll Bottum, Community Resource DevelOpment Defined, presented to the Second National Extension WorkshOp in Community Resource Development (East LansingsMichigan State University, July, 1966), p. 3. 7 ments and local people."1 It is one of the oldest adult educational agencies, having been established in 1914 by the Smith-Lever Act.2 The Act states the primary purpose of the Cooperative Extension Service is ”. . . to aid in diffusing among the peOple of the United States useful and practical information on subjects related to agriculture and home econ» omics, and to encourage the application of the same . . ."3 The CBS in addition to being one of the oldest and most experienced educational organizations is also one of the largest. Extension participates in educational activities in almost all of the more than three thousand counties in the United States. The Ad Hoc Committee on Extension Organization and Policy maintains that because of past experience and present competencies, Extension is equipped to give educational lead- ership to develOpmental programs such as community planning. They give the following as qualifications: . Knowing how to get peOple involved in studying their situations and developing specific plans for solving problems and achieving goals. A great heritage of motivating and helping people organize to act, both individually and collectively, on their plans. . 1Paul A. Miller, (Chairman), The Coo erative Exten- sion Service . . . Today: A Statement of Sc0pe and Resppnc sibilit , Subcommittee on Sc0pe and Responsibility of’the I957 Extension Committee on Organization and Policy of the American Aesociation of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities, (April, 1958), p. 3. 2U.S. Congress, Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, amended, Public Law 83, 83d Cong., lst. Sess., 1953. 31bid. 8 A cadre of peOple who are trained in bringing about economic develOpment and social improvement of individ- uals and communities, and who will provide training to other staff members. Respected staff members located in most of the communities of the nation. Highly trained Specialists in many of the departments of the University of which it is a part. Recognition of the need for a team approach to both problems and areas and recognition to meet this need.1 In their policy statement of May, 1962, the Land and Water Policy Committee of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) lists twelve statements of policy. Four of these statements with direct bearing on land use changes are listed below. The general objective of the Department of Agriculture is to encourage land and water uses that will yield con- tinuing maximum benefits to the peOple of the United States. The Department should offer guidance to the type of land use and the pattern of rural residence to ensure community improvement, expansion, and development. The Department should cooperate with State and local agencies in furnishing technical services and inform- ation to guide land and water use where urban expansion is occuring. Greater emphasis should be placed on participation in planning at local, state, and national levels to provide for the conservation and wise use of land and water resources. 1Ad Hoc Committee on Extension Organization and Policy of the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities, Role of Extension in Economic Development and Social Improvement, Including the RAD Program (Washington, D.C.: November, 1962). 2U.S. Department of Agriculture, Land and Water Policy Committee, Land and Water Resources, A Policy Guide (Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, 1962), p. 3. 9 While this policy statement does not specifically mention the CES, it might be assumed that partially at least, the CES, because it is the educational arm of the USDA and because of its activity at the state and local level, would be expected to act on these statements of policy in some manner. Legally it has the power to act and practically, it is backed by the resources of the Land Grant University, a large number of cooperating USDA agencies, and many years of adult education experience. The role of the Cooperative Extension Service in alleviating the problems of land use change is of increasing concern to Extension Service Administrators, specialists and county workers. Evidence of this concern is evident when the content of annual state Extension conferences, professional meetings of Extension workers and the literature on land use change are reviewed. These concerns along with the author's personal experience as a former employee of an Extension agency in Canada, generated interest in studying the land use programs of the Cooperative Extension Service. Purpose and Objectives Of This Study This exploratory study was designed to assist the researcher develOp an understanding of the features incorpor- ated in the design of community resource development programs, sponsored or initiated by the Cooperative Extension Service. The role of the Extension Service in the amelioration of land use problems was selected as an area of study which promised 10 to fulfill the researcher's objective. This study was under- taken in the belief that ituwould yield information of suffic- ient reliability to allow formulation of recommendations for future Extension programs in this area, and further that this information might be useful to others who might wish to pursue more comprehensive and precise research on this subject. Basic Study Design The primary concern of this study was, to determine the features which might be part of future Extension land use programs. To attain this objective, past and present Extension land use programs were analyzed. The data used in this analy- sis were obtained from three sources. 1. A literature review of all available publications des- criptive of Extension land use prOgrams. The objective of this review was to determine in general terms the content and organization structure of Extension land use programs in the states from which literature was available. The material from each state reviewed was summarized, and case studies describing each state's program were formulated and analyzed. 2. A mailed questionnaire was sent to the ”Rural Areas Development Leaders“ or person with equivalent respon- sibility, in each state of the United States. The questionnaire was specifically designed for this study1 and focused on the period beginning with ”Program 1A sample questionnaire is enclosed in Appendix A. 11 Projection” in June, 19551 and extending to the present, (1966). The responses to the questionnaire were record- ed on the questionnaire by the respondents. The return- ed questionnaires were then coded and the data entered on punch cards or IBM cards. The data were then pro- 2 grammed on the CDC 3600 computer for statistical analy- sis, and an ”analysis of contingency tables" was thus obtained.3 The selection of the sample and formulation of the questionnaire are further discussed in Chapter IV. 3. Insights based upon notes and classwork in resource deveIOpment and over seven years of related experience in resource development and Extension efforts in Canada. Data obtained in the literature review and data gath- ered in the questionnaire were compared and analyzed. To efficiently analyze the data from both sources and relate it to the study objective, it was assumed that a framework for analyses was necessary. The makeup of the analytic framework 11955 was selected as a beginning date for two major reasons: It marks the beginning of ”Program Projection”, a new departure in building Extension programs with the aid of the peOple for whom the program is designed; the possibility of confusion with land use programs initiated under the ”Mount Weather Agreement“ was substantially eliminated. 2The Michigan State University Computer Center, where the study data were processed, uses the CDC 3600 computer, which is manufactured by Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3"Analysis of contingency tables“ is the name of the computer program applied to the data collected. Descriptions of procedures used in this program are available from the library of the Michigan State University Computer Center. 12 was determined on the basis of: a review of pertinent mater- ials related to Extension program planning, construction and goals; insights obtained from attendance at a seminar on land use programs sponsored by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, the Second National Workshop in Community Resource Develogment, and regular meetings of the Land Use Guidance Committee of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service: and from interviews with Extension Administrators and Specialists in the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. As a result of this procedure, a four step analytic framework was developed. All data reviewed were categorized according to the following steps: Step 1 0 Step 2 0 Step 3. Step 4 c To determine the extent, average tenure, reasons for and goals of Extension land use programs in the U.S. To determine the extent to which agencies other than Extension participated in the various land use pro- grams and the type of coordination used to effectively work with these agencies. To determine the degree to which the various states were involved in the phases, land use study, education and planning, the areal levels of involvement, the persons or groups involved, the Extension methods used and the degree of success attained. To obtain the subjective opinions of Extension workers in Administrative or Specialist positions, related to land use and land use program construction. 13 Terminology_ Cooperative Extension Service--refers to the off- campus, non-classroom educational institution which is a part or the Land Grant University. It is usually a unit of the College of Agriculture and Home Economics. The COOperative Extension Service has a Congressional charge to provide the people of the United States with educa- tional assistance in agriculture, home economics and subjects related thereto. Educational assistance is provided through a field staff backed by the resources of the Land Grant Univer- sity and consists of personal contacts, group activities and the use of mass media. Land Use--refers to the use that man individually, in groups and in communities, makes of his physical environment. His physical environment being interpreted as the earth's surface, including, water surface, building sites, farmland and soil, forests, mineral deposits, water resources, access to sunlight, rain, wind and temperature and all those man-made improvements attached to the surface of the earth. Land Use Progrgmf-a land use program for the purposes of this paper may be defined as an organized attempt by an agency, group, or individual, (in this case, the Cooperative Extension Service) to work with communities, counties or state- wide, in an effort to solve land use problems. Further, it involves a process of: (1) stud , leading to an inventory of the land use situation; (2) education, leading to an aware- ness of problems and alternative solutions: (3) lannin , 14 resulting in the development of blueprints for present and future land use. In the sense of this definition the end result may be activity in any, all, or none of the following; zoning ordinances, land use plans, subdivision regulations, special tax programs, community action, etc. Rural-urban fringe--the area just beyond the suburbs of a city, containing essentially open country, and charact- erized by mixed rural and urban land use patterns. It may also be defined as being located beyond the legal limits of a city, in the ”agricultural hinterland", exhibiting mixed patt- erns of land use, and being populated by peOple having rural and urban occupation. The area is usually unincorporated, has non-existent or lax zoning regulations, few if any munic- ipal services and has a good potential for increased population density. Urbanism--”. . . a mode of living by human beings characterized by a concentration of people in a relatively small area, necessitating special physical structure, special modes of conduct, and special regulations in order to sustain human life.”1 Urbanization-~refers to the prOportion or else a rise in the prOportion of the population concentrated in or moving to urban settlements.2 1Frank P. Zeidler, ”Some Social and Cultural Conseq- uences of Urbanism", Address to the Great Cities School Improvement WorkshOp, August, 1962. (Mimeographed) 2Kingsley Davis, "The Urbanization Of The Human Population“, Scientific American, Vol. 213, No. 3 (September, 1965), p. 41. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS In Chapter I the problem was described in general terms and the purpose and design of the study was outlined. The purpose of this Chapter is to review literature pertin- ent to the changing land use situation in America, the prob- lems it has spawned, and the use of planning as a solution to these problems. Changing American Society The city and urban areas have become the central focus of modern society. The emergence and development of the city has been a function of: the size of the total popula- tion: control of the natural environment: technological devel- opment: and developments in social organization. As each of these factors evolved over history, so has the city evolved. Cities have passed through five economic stages, each stage being related to the above four functions: a collectional economy: cultural nomadic economy: settled village economy: town economy: and metropolitan economy. As the city evolved through these stages it progressed from a centripetal to a centrifugal form of growth. The metropolitan city of today is the result of centrifugal forces generated by the movement from the center of the city. The tendency for the more affluent to move out from the center of the city and the 15 16 less advantaged to move in, has created the foremost problem in most metropolitan cities.l Urbanization has been the dominant feature of the changing American society. Our basic mode of life is no longer rooted in agriculture, but rather in a complex indus- trial economy founded on technology and geared to the auto- mobile, jet airplane, electricity, precision tools, machines and computers. The self sufficient idyllic community of colonial days is gone. It has been replaced by great urbanized areas characterized by specialization and impersonality. "One of the most significant implications of popula- tion and occupational change is that rural America is no longer farm America." The shifts in-pOpulation have been so extensive and the decline in farm employment so rapid in the past few years, that farming is performing a decreasing role relative to the total picture.2 Beal and Bogue in a study of U.S. population trends between 1950 and 1960 outline the following shifts in pOpulation which underline the great changes taking place. (1) There was a heavy papulation movement to metropol- itan areas. (2) Metropolitan growth was concentrated in 1A detailed description of the trend to urbanization may be found in: Phillip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore, The Study of Urbanization, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), pp. 1-19. 2John H. Southern, "Implications of POpulation and Occupational Change for Rural Areas Development“, Paper read at the 40th. Annual Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washing- ton, D.C. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1962), pp. 3-5. (Mimeographed) 17 suburban metropolitan rings. (3) In non-metropolitan areas there is a strong urbanizing trend. (4) Suburban fringes appeared around cities, towns and even villages.1 The population in the urban fringe areas is composed for the most part of people who are employed in the urban area, but prefer to live in the rural areas. The fringe area is an area of contrasts, as well as an area of high growth. The image of suburbia with its row upon row of identical houses populated by a homogeneous mass of people of similar social and economic status does not always apply in the fringe. Tar paper shacks and stately mansions share the fringe with indus- trial parks and producing farms. PeOple from all walks of life, migratory farm laborers, prosperous farmers and presid- ents of large corporations, may be found living in contiguous neighborhoods. Andrews and Eshleman in a study of the changing com- munity concluded that urban areas expand in three ways. Con- centric expansion of the central city by addition of new sub- divisions: development of non-contiguous clusters of residences and commercial areas along roads and highways leading to the city: and the indiscriminate location of individual homes in the open country farming areas.2 Understanding the changing lCalvin L. Beale and Donald J. Bogue, Recent U.S. Population Trends and Their Causes (Washington, 5.5.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1962), p. l. 2Wade H. Andrews and J. Ross Eshleman, The New Communit , Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, BuIIetin No. 929 EWooster, April, 1963). 18 patterns of the new community in rural areas is of fundamental importance. The result of urban expansion into rural areas has been given many names. Perhaps the most descriptive is “urban sprawl”. Urban sprawl and its effect on the community will be discussed in the next section of this Chapter. Urban Sprawl and Land Use The shifting of land areas from one use to another is a perfectly natural phenomenon in a dynamic econom -- particularly so in an economy characterized by a growing pOpulation, expanding demands for land products, high percapita incomes, and considerable free agency in oper- ators decisions regarding the ownership and use of land resources. Land resources move to those bidding most for control and to those uses which offer the highest returns. Wingo indic- ates the allocation of land takes place through a set of markets. The workings of these markets as they interact with our polit- ical institutions produce the indiscriminate type of growth called urban sprawl.2 Although the land supporting our cities is a small fraction of the total land area of the nation, the land affect- ed by the city is not. Vacant land on the edge of metropolitan areas is being absorbed at the rate of 1,000,000 acres per year,3 capital investments in homes, shopping centers, streets 1Raleigh Barlowe, “Minimizing Adverse Effects of Major Shifts in Land Use“, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XL, No. 5, (December, 1958), p. 1339. 2Lowdon Wingo, The Use of Urban Land: Past, Present, Future, Resources for the Future, Reprint 39 (Washington, D.C.: July, 1963). 3Committee For Economic Development, Guiding Metro- politan Growth (New York: 1960), p. 23. l9 and other improvements are fixing the environment for two or more generations. William H. Whyte, Jr. in an article discussing urban sprawl says: The problem is not an absolute shortage of land . . . The problem is the pattern of growth or rather the lack of one. Because of the leapfrog nature of urban growth, even within the limits of most big cities there is to this day a surprising amount of vacant land . . . And it is with this same kind of sprawl that we are viewing the whole metropolitan area of the future. Sprawl is bad aesthetics, it is bad economics. Five acres are being made to do the work of one, and do it very poorly. This is bad for farmers, communities, industry, utilities, railroads, recreation groups and is even bad for the developers.1 Walrath in a study of impacts of changes in land use, outlines some of the effects of urban growth. He points out that shifts in land use strongly affect the remaining farmers. He also recognizes that there are important problems that affect the community, school district, town and county in which the farms are located, as well as the contiguous neigh- boring areas with which they unite to form a larger area. Some of the more important problems are: farm problems-~changes in farm operation, price of land, fencing, trespass, taxes, weeds, highway traffic and entrapment through the process of being surrounded by subdivisions. Community problems: schools, tax base, highway relocation, community services, transportation 1William H. Whyte, Jr., “Urban Sprawl”, Reprinted from Fortune, January, 1958 (Detroit: Area Development Div- ision, Detroit Edison), pp. 103-104. 20 and recreation.1 A study by the University of Michigan supports the above and further expands on the problems created. They contend that sprawl development also tends to lower con- struction quality, pre-empt desirable land, block access to backlands, reduce travel speed on highways and increase water pollution.2 The remainder of this section will be devoted to an investigation of the impact of urbanization and sprawl on: agriculture, taxation, community services, transportation, and recreation. Agricultural Land Use The United States today faces no real crisis of land availability. For another generation or longer--as far as we can reasonably look ahead our position will not be critical. We can meet our own needs for food, fibre, forest products, recreation, and all the rest, we can even make modest contributions to the needs of other countries . . .3 While it is often suggested that the supply of land is insufficient, the above quotation from Marion Clawson and Ottoson's statement that United States' agriculture will be able to meet 1980 production with eleven percent less land than was in crops in 1959 suggest that the nation is not yet 1Arthur J. Walrath, Impacts of Changes In Land Use, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. ARS 43-95, (1959). 2University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, ”The Redeployment of Land, Water and Human Resources", Eggional Development Studies II (Ann Arbor: June, 1962). 3Marion Clawson, ”Land For Americans", Resources For The Future Policy Background Series (Chicago: Rand McNally and 500, I§KBYp Po 2: 21 deficient in surplus crapland.1 In fact, it is suggested by some authors including Clawson, that the present production surplus represents one of the nations prime land use problems. Bottum suggests that if agriculture continues to be progress- ive and additional markets are not available, the retirement of land from agriculture will become an economic consequence of agricultural progress.2 Assuming that we still have a plentiful supply of agricultural land available: why is urban sprawl and the trend toward urbanization important to agriculture? The economic impact of city growth on agriculture is more important than the actual loss of farmland. The most evident and perhaps most talked about economic problem of the farmer facing urbanization is the increased valuation of farm- land and its accompanying increase in proPerty tax. The in- creasing value of land adjacent to their farms makes it almost impossible for farmers to expand, while taxes have on occasion exceeded the productive capacity of the land.3 A second problem for agriculture in the fringe is shifting of farmland to non-farm uses: these non-farm uses 1Howard W. Ottoson, (ed.) Land Use Polic and Prob- 'lems in the United States (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 3), pp. vi-vii. 2J. Carroll Bottum, ”Land Retirement As a Solution of Supply-Demand Imbalance“, Dynamics of Land Use--Needed Adjust- ments, Earl O. Heady, Director (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1961), pp. 193-197. 3The effect of urban fringe growth on farming is <1iscussed in Arley D. Waldo, ”Farming on the Urban Fringe", .A Place To Live, The Yearbook of Agriculture, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: 1963), pp. 59-63. 22 will increase significantly by 1980. Farmland is now being used at the rate of one acre for every four to six persons added to the urban population.1 Barlowe in discussing the movement of land out of agriculture in Michigan, outlines three use classes with applicability to urbanizing areas throughout the country. A substantial amount has gone into construction of new highways: large areas adjacent to urban areas have been taken for residential homesites, shopping centers and other urban uses, including speculative holding of lands: a residual class has shifted to lower uses, includ- ing idling and abandonment.2 Expanding urban areas have created many points of conflict between the farmer and non-farmer. Farm problems caused in large degree by urbanization include high taxes, high cost of public service and development, farmland waste, stream pollution and flood control. These are important issues, important to agriculture and to the nation as a whole. The county of Santa Clara Planning Department has given the following three points as major issues which agriculture must face. While these issues specifically pertain to Santa Clara ¢:ounty, they seem to be relevant to the whole subject of :agriculture and urban sprawl and provide a fitting summation of agricultural land use problems in urban fringe areas. —___ 1Ottoson, Loc. Cit. 2Raleigh Barlowe, "Natural Resources", Project 89, ggnd and Water Resources, Research Report 52, MiEhigan State theiVersity, AgriCuIture Experiment Station (East Lansing: 1966), po 80 23 1. Are there economic or aesthetic reasons why the county should attempt to preserve some of the agricultural base? 2. In the light of pressures for the urbanization of land can agriculture continue indefinitely as a significant feature of the county's landscape? 3. Assuming that land will be needed for urban expansion which agriculture lands should, or could be preserved, if any? The Urbanizing Influence and Taxes Another problem that is causing much dissatisfaction is the assessment of land in the areas around growing cities. It is most acute in those areas where farmland is being trans- ferred into residential or industrial sites. As more people move into the suburbs, the demand for land on which to build houses, shopping centers and schools, stimulates the land market, and a considerable increase in land values is the usual result. When property is assessed in relation to its market value, as most state laws require, the assessed value is determined by comparison with the selling price of similar land in the area. The land market, because it is the final arbiter of which use shall continue on the land, may force farming out and allow the highest and lbest use, usually subdivision, to become predominant. The new suburban communities often have tax problems. Boylan has pointed out that the principal sources of local ‘ 1Santa Clara Planning Department, Land Use Issues In Santa Clara County, (San Jose, California: December, I963), Po 9. 24 tax funds are: taxes on private property (this is the major source): special and sales taxes: licenses and fees: self paying operations: shared taxes with the state and federal government. He gives the following breakdown of the average percent of property tax paid by major groups of urban land uses in thirty American cities. Table 1. Percent Of Taxes Paid By Major Groups Of Tax Payers Versus Percent Of Benefits Attainedl W % Of % Benefits Tax Payer Group Taxes Paid Received Residential 54 80 Business 28 10.5 Industrial 15 7 Vacant Land 3 2'5 This breakdown, (Table 1) points up the rather un- stable tax base in the typical suburban or fringe community, consisting largely of residential uses. When these commun- ities receive a rapid influx of urban families, they encounter problems of paying for new schools, community facilities and new services with a less than adequate tax base. Taxation can also have the effect of increasing urban sprawl, by causing ”leapfrogging” by developers. The process can best be described as, the cycle of interacting decisions of the developer and the tax assessor. The cycle has five steps and is capable of repeating itself. 1Miles Boylan, Economics of the Community (Chicago: Scotm, Fausman and Company, 1961), p. 76. 25 l. DeveIOpers seeking cheap land move into an agricultural area. 2. The county or city grants zoning and extends facilities. 3. Adjacent land is considered to have urban potential and the price increases. 4. The adjacent land is assessed for urban potential at an increased price. 5. The developers bypass these now high priced areas in favor of cheaper lands. The subjects of taxation and community services are inextricably interwoven in the workings of the modern community. The next part of this section is an attempt to describe the affect of urban sprawl on community services. Urbanization and Community Services Eight of every ten homes are now being erected in the £3tlbrurbs and each addition adds a new service burden to these communities.2 Each new house in a suburban development re- gftlires a package of public services which requires capital c>L‘I.‘t:lays ranging from $2500 to $35003 or more, depending upon the degree of utilization and the density of the development. Many of the new residents in suburban and fringe ‘1ervelopments are former city dwellers who are used to the bemefits of public services. Other fringe residents are from 111131 areas where,because of the space available, there wasn't ‘ 1County of Santa Clara Planning Department, Op. Cit., po 69 _ 2Committee For Economic Development, Guiding Metropol- 3flEan Growth (New York: 1960), p. 14. 31bid. 26 a particular need for high cost services. Both types of people soon find that they have problems . . ., problems resulting from lack of developmental planning or because growth has been so swift that services have not been installed. They find that the community is becoming an unhealthy place to live because there are still primitive sanitation facilities, there isn't a. good water supply, the soil is unsuitable for good drainage, streets and storm sewers are inadequate, as are provisions for fire protection, schools and playgrounds. The continued trend to urbanization has meant many Changes in the service requirements of suburban and fringe areas. The list of services that local government has to pro- Vide is long and detailed, the following are some of the more important: water, electricity, gas, sewage, storm sewers, disposal of solid wastes, garbage collection, police and fire I>Jcotection, safety programs, public health programs, control of nuisances, stream and air pollution control, welfare, educ- ation, recreation, hospitals, libraries, street maintenance, ITeacord keeping, transit, regulation«of buildings, housing, etc.1 This is an impressive list and serves to emphasize the salient Problems facing the rural township and the suburban city. Prob- lems which are central issues in the use of land for residential and agricultural purposes: problems which have a direct bearing on the size and the satisfaction of human needs. -i 1For a detailed discussion see Boylan, Op. Cit., Pp. 56-61. 27 The Effect Of Transportation On Land Use The development of a transportation system, providing an efficient, convenient and relatively cheap means of mobility has participated powerfully, if not decisively, in the changes that have taken place in the spatial distribution of people throughout the nation. With the develOpment of the automobile and the superhighway the urbanite was no longer tied to the length of the street car track, suddenly he found that he could move out of the city and commute to his work from the hinter- lands. With the realization of new mobility came the birth of the suburban and fringe dweller and the beginning of serious sprawl problems. Typically, highways and railroads converge on the core of the city. As they radiate out through the hinterland they relate the concentrated economic activities of the cities cent- ral core to the dispersed population of the suburb and open country. The dynamic force of transport exerts a powerful role in develOpment of the areas dependent upon it. New urban dev- elopments nucleate at points along the transport corridor. Gradually they expand outward and fill in the intervening land.1 It can be truly stated that "Transportation facilities are a major means whereby land is given productivity and value."2 1The effect of transportation is described in: Lowdon Wingo "The Uses of Urban Land", Land Use Polic and Problems in the United States, ed., Howard-W:_UEESEBE‘T¥inco1n, Univ- ersity of Nebraska Press, 1963): p. 238. 2Marion Clawson, ”Potential Demand for Non-farm Pro- ducts and Services Provided by Agricultural Lands”, D namics of Land Use: Needed Adjustments: Chairman, Earl O. Heady, (Iowa State University firess, 1961), p. 58. 'U I. ,. ll) 28 While transportation is a prime factor in shaping land use, it uses relatively little land. Dyckman in reviewing transportation studies in several American cities found that different types of land use gener- ated different types of traffic flow. The studies showed that by manipulating land uses traffic could be controlled.1 Thus, it would seem that there is a close interrelationship between transportation and the uses of land which it serves. It would seem that the problems faced by communities are significantly affected by the design and location of hgihways and other transportation systems. Recreation and Open Space The more men become crowded together in the tight cubicles of cities, the more they need and seek open space--space for privacy or space for flocking to- gether, space for play and strenuous exercise or space for relaxation and contemplation, space for a distant view, space to sense man's age-old kinship to nature, to see grass and trees and clear blue sky, to feel the coolness of water and the warmth of soil.2 Clawson states, in terms of numbers of people affected, recreation as a major land use is second only in importance to urban uses.3 He lists four factors as being responsible for increasing demands for outdoor recreation: the total pOpula- tion has risen: real income per-capita has increased: the 1John W. Dyckman, “Transportation in Cities", Scientif- ic American, Vol. 213, No. 13 (September, 1965), p. 164. 2County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation and Open Space (San Jose, California, February, 1962), p. l. 3Clawson, Land For Americans, Op. Cit., p. 35. ah5 AH..5. 5|.“ ‘1‘.\ .. -.\.b It 9 \a. Hi: 29 average work week has been shortened: improved travel facil- ities have allowed people to become more mobile.1 While demands for recreation and open space are continuing, the impact of urban sprawl is threatening to alter the environ- mental qualities of cpen space and the qualities of the land- scape adjacent to many American cities. The question of preserving cpen space, of setting up parks and recreation areas is complicated-~what kind of out- door activities do we want? How much land and water do we need, to properly meet probable future demands for outdoor recreation? In considering these questions, the quality aspect of outdoor recreation must be kept in mind. One can estimate, subject to error, the probable future demand for outdoor recreation, under anticipated pOpulation, income, leisure time and other conditions. The demands will be based largely upon what people want and are willing to pay for.2 The questions of recreation and land use would seem to be rather unclear. Perhaps this is only to be expected when it is recognized that there is a vast difference in values attached to recreation and the types of recreation individual persons like. The fact remains, we must look to the effects of urbanization on open space in the urban and 1Clawson, "Potential Demand for Non-farm Products and Services Provided by Agricultural Lands”, Op. Cit., p. 54. 2The factors involved in estimating the needs for recreation and open space are described in: Marion Clawson, "Land and Water for Recreation”, Resources for the Future PoligyBackground Series (Chicago: Rand McNaIIy and Co., 1963), p. 81} 30 rural areas, and we must also be aware of the effect that changing land uses may have on prime recreation areas. Urban sprawl seems to be the product of many factors, not the least of which is the impact of the changing American society. Many land use problems and issues resulting from urban sprawl or associated with the changing society have been mentioned in this section of this chapter. It is not suggested that these are the only land use questions which America faces today, it is implied, however, that the land use problems in the suburbs and urban fringe areas are of foremost importance to all affected by them. Further, although the completely rural counties have not been discussed, most of the problems described also apply to them. The question, what can communities do to cope with land use change might now be logically asked. The next section of this chapter outlines alternatives to many of the pressing issues of land use change. Planning For Orderly Land Use Freedom of individual action in property use often results in the chaotic situation described in the previous sections of this chapter. Because freedom of individual action may mean freedom for the individual developer, but loss of freedom for his neighbor, group action is often needed to ob- tain maximum individual and social goals. The need for group action is most felt in areas where the maximization of the individual develOpers interest has an adverse effect on his 31 neighbors, community's or the nation's interest. Public direction of land use to protect the interests of the average citizen and to maximize the total social returns from land resources is often called for on these occasions.1 Public direction of land use in this instance is equated with planning for the best use of land. Planning may be said to have a number of functions: Planning is a means of preparing for the future. Planning helps to get at the root of problems. Planning helps do first things first. Planning helps set sound policies for develOpment. Planning is a technique for coordination. The planning process is 3 means of correlating, educating and inspiring. There are three basic steps in the planning process: 1. An inventory or stock taking of the assets and liabil- ities that the community now has. 2. A study of the community resources found in the inventory, and the develOpment of a plan for the communities future. 3. The establishment of objectives or goals whereby the community can get from where it is now to where it wants to be.3 1For a more detailed description see: Raleigh Barlowe, Minimizing Effects of Major Shifts in Land Use, Op. Cit., pa 0 2Sears, Roebuck and Co., Community Planning Division, ABC's of Community Planning, (Chicago, 1962), p. 13. 3These three steps in the planning process were form- ulated from: W.A. Rowland's, Tthlanning_Process, a paper given at Purdue University (La Fayette, Indiana, May, 1966), p. : and, Erling D. Solberg, Planning and Zoning to Prevent Land and Water Problems in Suburbia, address given to Urban Extension Agents Conference (Farmingdale, N.Y., 1962). 32 Planning involves more than a survey, and a portrayal of trends, it also involves a conscious effort to guide the course of future events to help achieve desired objectives. “Public planning is a process of making rational decisions about future actions aimed at the attainment of community goals.'1 It would appear that land use planning has something of substance to offer to communities with land use problems. A number of authors have described the expected results from land use planning. A composite of their various ideas is in- cluded in the following list of expected returns from a land 2 use planning program. 1. A workable land use pattern for all uses, based on the goals of the community. 2. A programmed approach to building of community services and institutions. 3. Reservation of the best quality land for agricultural purposes, if this is the wish of the community. 4. A guide for private landowners in making individual plans to develop their property. 1W. M. Carrol, R. C. Wingard, and C. J. Wingfield, Rural Land Use Planning, Pennsylvania State University, CoIIege of Agriculture, Extension Service (University Park, 1965), p. 3. 2These ten expected returns are based upon Stuart Chase, “Zoning Comes to Town“, Reprinted from Reader's Digest, February, 1957 (Pleasantville, New York: Reader's Digest Assoc- iates, 1957): Israel Stollman, ”The Uses and Principles of Planning”, A Place to Live, The 1963 Yearbook of Agriculture, (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of—Agriculture, 1963), pp. 367-376: Walter A. Rowlands and D. A. Yanggen, "What's Your Stake in Land Use Planning?” Crops and Soils, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March-April, 1963), pp. 2-5. 33 5. A separation of the various functions within the community. 6. A transportation system complimentary to the community's needs and the desired patterns of land use. 7. Provisions for the preservation of the more fragile of land use arrangements. 8. Delineation of flood plains. 9. Preserve and develOp recreation, cpen space. 10. Helps keep the community arranged in an economically efficient, physically attractove and socially accept- able manner. A community plan does not necessarily mean that these benefits will be realized. To achieve these benefits the participation of the community's citizens in the planning process is eSSential. Citizen planning for community develop; ment is a complex process, involving the resources and tech- nical ability of government and private consultants and the knowledge, desires and goals of the citizens of the community. To facilitate an understanding of what is meant by the process of citizen involvement with government and private consultants in the process of community planning, it is proposed that this process might well be called community resource development (CRD). The definition of community development given by the International Cooperative Administration is used here to broadly define community.resource development: It is a process of social action in which the people of a community organize themselves for planning and action: define their common and individual needs and problems: make group and individual plans to meet their 34 needs and solve their problems: execute these plans with a maximum of reliance upon community resources, supplement these resources, when necessary with services and materials from governmental andlnon- governmental agencies outside the community. CRD is organizing for planning and action: by local people, for the future development of their community. In the context of land use, the community may be single ”local" community, a township, county or a region (all or parts of two or more contiguous counties.) The resources are the land which is defined in the economic sense by Barlowe as: "The economic concept of land can be defined as the sum total of the natural and man-made resources over which possession of the earth's surface given control."2 DevelOpment means, planning for the elimination or at least alleviation of the land use problems defined by the citizens of the community. What are some of the principles inherent in planning and action within the parameters of the CRD concept? The following have been develOped as a result of a review of a number of publications on the philosophy of community develop- ment. 1. CRD involves the active participation of local people in a concerted effort to improve their own social and economic condition. 1F. H. Sehnert, Community Development, quoting Inter- gational Epoperative Administration, (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University, 1961), p. 13. 2Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall nc., , p. . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 35 CRD means beginning where the people are and moving in the direction they choose. The citizens of the commun- ity have the responsibility of determining the direction of their development efforts. Outside resources, including the services of government and private consultants, are utilized by local citizens at each stage of the development process. A CRD program should be based on sound, hard, facts: facts must be used in a logical, systematic and organ- ized way to promote the planning and development effort. A CRD program should be based upon the needs of the community, including both social and economic aspects of community life. It is concerned not only with in- creasing economic productivity and per capita income, but also the social, educational and cultural phases of community life. Economic development on a cost - benefit basis is not enough, the social costs and benefits must be considered. CRD is and should be essentially an educational process. It involves identification and training of local leader- ship, studying problems and conflicts: learning how to solve problems: it is a process through which peOple learn to think, make their own decisions, and become “masters of their own destiny”. VOluntary cooperation, unspoiled by utilitarian motives or coercion, is the key to an effective CRD program. CooPeration must extend in two directions: among the 36 citizens of the community and between the citizens of the community and outside resource peOple providing tech- nical advice, funds and guiding counsel. 8. CRD is based on group action on an organized basis. It has been most effective when communities have organ- ized in a democratic fashion and attacked their problems in a planned systematic manner.1 When the community has completely analyzed its sit- uation, considered the views of all the citizens, appraised its future in light of past developments and the external forces and factors over which it has no control: then it should develop, within the broad guidelines of the goals determined through the CRD process, a plan for its future development. Completion of the plan is a major step toward directing the future land use situation of the community. It is unrealistic to assume that a plan alone will cause poor land use to disappear. Implement- ation will require the intelligent use of available planning tools. There are two major types of planning devices: first, there are informal controls including, customs, mores, public opinion, education: secondly, there are formal controls, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, the official map, 1These principles are based upon review of: T.R. Batten, Communities and TheirIDevelopment (London,Oxford University Press, I957): Arthur Dunham, Some Principles of Communit DeveloEment (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1960): Peter DuSautoy, The Or anization of a Community Develo ment Program (London, 0'?”zj or University Tress, 1962): G_—d__'£or on . Lippitt, ”The Importance of Human Resources in Community Resource Development", Proceediggs, First National Extension Workshop in Community Resource Development (East Lansing: MiEhigan State University, 1965). 37 public purchase, taxation agreements, new development tech- niques (cluster housing developments, for example), the land bank, priority development districts, long term contracts, urban renewal, condemnation, annexation by an adjacent mun- icipality, and the various codes, setting building structure, pOpulation density, etc. Formal controls are backed by the power of legislation and therefore have a legal basis, in- formal controls lack legal backing, but may in the long term be a useful method of controlling land use.1 Planning tools, with the exception of informal con- trols, are legal instruments regulating the use of land by individuals or groups. They are of most value when they are used in conjunction with a community plan developed by the community or by other groups with the assistance of the community.2 In the preceeding sections of this chapter, the effect of the changing American society and its offspring urban sprawl, on the American community was outlined. This section of this chapter described methods which communities have used success- fully to combat community problems with community planning. 1Tools for the direction of land use are more fully discussed in: Raleigh Barlowe, Minimizing Effects of Maaor Shifts in Land Use, Op. Cit., p. : ears Roe uc an Company Community Planning Division, Op. Cit., pp. 21-23: and Gerald F. Vaughn and Edward C. Moore, Idle Land in an Urbanizin Area: The Delaware“Ex erience, Agr. Exp. Station Bu at n University of DeIaware, duly, 1963), p. 2. 2This subject is covered very thoroughly in: Herbert H. Smith, The Citizen's Guide to Zoning (Trenton, N.J.: Chandler Davis PuEIisHing, I935). 38 The process described involved the community analyzing itself, studying alternative courses of action and setting goals for the future. The remaining chapters in this study will examine the role of the CoOperative Extension Service in programs designed to assist communities with their land use problems. Keg-l CHAPTER III A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE CONTENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NUMBER OF LAND USE PROGRAMS The purpose of this chapter is to outline, from the literature, the basic content and construction of land use programs which have been, or are now active in a number of states. The literature reviewed has been arranged into nine descriptive case studies by the researcher. It is hoped that these case studies will provide supplementation and support for the analysis of the results of the questionnaire describ- ing land use programs in the United States. In a later chapter they will be summarized and compared with the responses to the questionnaire. Past Land Use Programs1 Public efforts to influence the use of land are not a new phenomenon in America. Since the early days of settle- ment, there have been many spasmodic efforts to direct land 1This discussion of the history and program construct- ion of land use programs in the U.S. is a composite of des- criptions the researcher has read in reviewing the literature on land use planning. The facts and ideas presented are based upon the following sources: Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics, Op. Cit., pp. 476-478: K. F. Bartlett, Eand Use Plannin Its Be innin , Term Paper RD 801, Department of Resource DeveIopment, Michigan State University, No date: Herbert A. Berg, Land Use Plannin As An Extension Activity, A talk given to the Canadian Society of TechniCal Agriculturists, (Toronto, July, 1944): Donald J. Luebbe, Land Use Planning Under the Mount Weather Aggeement and Its-Implications for RD Area Resogrce Development, term paper, , Department of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1962. 39 40 use. The need to direct land use in a coordinated manner be- came an important issue following World War I. Throughout the 1920's many professional and lay people with an interest in the subject, agitated for a coordinated approach to the direction of land use. However, for many political and social reasons an organized program did not evolve until the 1930's. The Roosevelt administration of the early 1930's pro- duced many pieces of agricultural legislation. The Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) was one of these new pieces of legislation. In addition to a number of other features, the structure of AAA allowed for two-way communication between the “grass roots" and Washington. It also provided for a program designed to plan for the future in rural areas. An AAA committee was set up in each agricultural county in the nation and given the task of developing an overall agricultural program suited to the local area. These committees consisted of from ten to twenty members representing the agricultural interests of the county. In cooperation with the AAA planning division the county committee worked on a program of mapping the land use situation in their county. These maps were then used as a base for recommendations on conservation measures and better farming practices. The AAA was declared unconstitutional and passed out of existence in the mid thirties. In 1937 the Land Grant Colleges and the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture set up study committees to plan for and develop means of localizing and coordinating the many programs of the Roosevelt administration. The result of the work of 41 these study committees was the Mount Weather Agreement of 1938. The major points in this agreement have been summarized by the researcher as follows: 1. The develOpment of a systematic analysis of major agricultural problems with specific reference to land use. 2. Cooperative develOpment of ways to meet these problems. 3. DevelOpment of a factual basis for use by all agencies in redirecting their efforts. 4. Initiation and/or acceleration of means of bringing about change. 5. An educational effort for all: farmers, technicians and administrators. Land use planning under this agreement was administ- ered federally by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and in each state by the Land Grant College through its Extension Service. Each state designated a state leader of land use planning and assigned him the job of providing leadership and guidance to the counties. The county Extension Agents organ- ized county and later township committees to inventory agric- ulture resources and identify land use problems. The county committees were expected to develop land use maps and develOp- ment plans. The maps and plansrwere then sent to the state office where they were coordinated and where they could be used in developing state plans. The land use planning program continued into the early 1940's when, for a number of political and financial 42 reasons it was discontinued as a nation wide effort. The state of Michigan, however, continued the program until approximately 1950. As an aid in further understanding this first real attempt at land use planning, the program, as it operated in Michigan will be described. In Michigan the program functioned on the state, county and township levels. At the state level, a Land Use Planning Committee was set up to coordinate the program and analyze the results. The membership of this committee included farmers, (one from each type farming area), the Dean of Agric- ulture, the Directors of Extension and the Agriculture Exper- iment Station, and a representative from each state and federal agency having a program in the rural areas of Michigan. The county committees usually consisted of from forty to sixty people, the majority of whom were farmers. Other members included representatives from township supervisors, the U.S.D.A., chamber of commerce, women's organizations, etc. The committees were selected by the Extension Agent with the assistance of the County Extension Advisory Council, local farm organizations and township supervisors. The county committees were expected to: (1) Conduct an inventory of county resources, resulting in classifying all land into five categories based on their suitability for farming. (2) Identify major land use problems retarding agriculture. 43 In counties where an assistant agent was posted to work on land use, an extensive program was carried on at the township or local community level. These local committees were organized on a basis similar to the county committees and forwarded their work to the county committee for final approval and coordination into the total county effort. When the analyses were completed on a township and county basis they were presented to the state committee so that the com- mittee could consider the needs of all areas in making state plans. Recommendations approved by the state committee were then submitted to the appropriate agency for action. The accomplishments of land use planning in Michigan: 1. Preparation of county maps, showing areas suitable to various kinds of future development. 2. Recommendations of county committees led to establish- ment of zoning boards and planning commissions. 3. The county maps were used to guide conservation practices, credit recommendations, rural electrification and many decisions of major importance to the people affected. 4. Local leadership was developed. In 1950 Suggitt collected the evaluative Opinions of county agents who had been involved in the program. The following excerpts from his report emphasize some lessons for future programming. Six of the agents specifically mentioned the import- ance of agencies and farmers participating together in county planning for the purpose of achieving better ‘I‘ F.‘1 55 H-U 1:! ‘.I.1 MUM a.“ \uu-N h... [.1 A A 44 adaptation and application of all the agricultural programs. One former agent pointed to the need for some sort of a state level organization of this sort. The major criticism of the program is that it has lacked continuity and follow-up in the intensive counties. Several agents implied that land use planning, as an Extension function, must be defined as to object- ives, limitations, scope, function and relationship to other programs. Rural Resource DevelOpment and Land Use In New York2 Beginning with the pilot programs of the 1950's, New York has conducted education for individuals and families in the improvement and use of land released from agriculture for residential, recreational, and forestry purposes. This pro- gram was originally requested by local leaders who wanted an educational effort to help guide large areas into these three uses. One Extension agent was assigned to assist the pilot project. In 1963, a Rural Resource Development program was started in thirty counties. One-half of the counties estab- lished committees of local citizens to guide the local program. 1Frank W. Suggitt, I would Like To Say, a compilation of statements of County Agricultural Agents regarding the Land Use Planning Program, Michigan State College, 1950. 2This description of the program in the State of New York has been summarized for use here by the researcher, it is based upon papers by: Harlan B. Brumsted, “Training For Resource Development in New York“, Proceedin s of the First National Extension Workshop in Community Rgsource Development (East iansing: Michigan State University, July, 1965), pp. 165-176: ”The New York Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land”, Proceedings of the First Northeast Extension Seminar In Public Issues Involving Land TMorgantown: West Virginia University, CooPerative Extension Service, 1965), pp. 11-14. 45 In one three county area a regional program staffed with an Extension agent was set up. In this regional area the pro- gram was developed and guided by a thirty-five member citizen committee, (citizen leaders, local government officials, agency representatives from three counties). A second regional program covering a five county area was set up in 1965. In this case each of the counties has or is in the process of forming a resource development committee. The regional Exten- sion agent appointed to work with this regional program assist- ed in the formation and strengthening of these local committees. A small regional advisory board was then formed by drawing members from the local committees. Regional programs will be formed from the concerns put forth by the local committees. The objectives of the New York program are: “To help citizen leaders study the forces of change, and their impact, by utilizing information and profess- ional assistance already available to them from the community.” ”Following study and analysis to encourage these leaders to establish broad goals for the future course of their communities.” “To communicate their findings, recommendations and goals widely through the community, designing special educational programs for the purpose.“ ”To direct findings and recommendations to action- oriented groups and agencies, including Extension, so that their programs may be shaped more closely to expressed needs." To assist in regional and county organization, in the studies they undertook, and in the design of educational 1Brumsted, Training For Resource Development in New York, Op. Cite; Do 1660 N-l‘fi Q‘c 46 programs, a ”College Resource Development Committee“ was created. This committee has representation from the State Leader Office in each of Extension's three divisions and six subject matter departments: agricultural economics, rural sociology, conservation, agriculture engineering, agronomy, extension teaching and information. The Vermont Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land1 Vermont made a rather thorough study of resource develOpment programs in other areas before starting one in their state. The following is a description of some of the features they found in other programs and how they incor- porated them into the Vermont Extension program. From all of these programs in the New England States, New York, Ontario and elsewhere we learned a few lessons of both kinds-~things which should never be done again, as well as things which are worthy of emulation. Among the many lessons learned, four deserve special mention: (1) the need for coordination: (2) the necessity of a team approach: (3) the need to clarify concepts, prin- ciples and objectives: and (4) the necessity for an agency like Extension to retool before attempting to work in a new area such as regional resource planning and development. Lesson number l--the need for coordination is evident in six major areas. (a) Within the Extension Service. (Between specialists) (b) Between the Extension Service and the Experiment Station. 1This description is based upon: Frederic O. Sargent, ”The Vermont Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land”, Proceedings of the First Northeast Extension Seminar in Public Eggues Involvin Land (Morgantown, West Virginia University, Cooperative ExtenSion Service, 1965), pp. 15-23. 47 (c) Between administrators and those below them in the structure. (d) Between states. (e) Between state and federal agencies. (f) Interdisciplinary cooperation is indispensable when working in land use issues. Lesson number 2--a team approach. In studying issues related to land the first step is obtaining the facts about the land in question. Such information can be best assembled by a team. The team in Vermont includes: soil scientists, agriculturists, wildlife biologists, foresters, hydrologists, geologists, recreation specialists, sociologists and others. Vermont also has a research team defining regions of the state for planning purposes: a geographer, political scientist and an agricultural economist comprise this team. Lesson number 3--clarify concepts and objectives. This means to clearly define the objectives of the program before start- ing and to put an end to ”verbalese” and "alphabet soup". Lesson number 4--Extension needs to retool and re-evaluate. The emphasis is shifting from working with private individuals to working with the public. Public goals differ from private goals, they are more complex, they result from a public and democratic goals develOpment process. Public interest often conflicts with private interest, the Extension resource development specialist must be able to clearly identify the public interest before he can promote it. The Extension worker will require retraining in the principles required to work in this new field. 48 Vermont has applied these four lessons in building its present resource development program. It has not succeeded in achieving all the objectives set out in these lessons, but has attempted to work toward their achievement. West Virginia Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land1 In West Virginia the University's approach to public issues involving land can be summarized as follows: 1. Public issues are identified. 2. Research and data gathering to provide information for an educational program. 3. An educational program. Basically an endeavour to identify alternate courses of action the public may choose. In land use issues, Extension recognized the problems, it then develOped a team from Extension, rural sociology and the information division of the University. They then att- empted to meet the challenge by cooperating with other organ- izations and agencies in the state, including the Community Planning Association, State Department of Commerce, etc. Mass media and county agents were then used to disperse the information through the state. 1This program has been described by: Bruce M. John and Foster G. Mullenax, “The West Virginia Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land”, Proceedings of the First Northeast Extension Seminar_in Pu lC Iggges Involvin Land (Morgantown: West Virginia University, Cooperative Extension Seerce, 1965)p Ppo 24’300 49 gaggon°s Land Use and Related Resource Development Progggm} In Oregon the Total Resource Development (TRD) pro- gram is based on plans set at planning conferences held every ten years. These conferences take place over a one year period and involve many committees in the task of formulating state plans. Prior to 1955, urban interests were not included: since that time they have been. The written reports resulting from these conferences represent the feelings of the people and are the foundation for future programs. Oregon has capitalized on favorable attitudes to TRD and has made funds available to set up a Department of Resource Planning and Development, this agency has funds to make region- al studies. Two regional studies have been completed to date. The first was completed by a consultant, it did not involve the people of the region. The second study involved chambers of commerce, various citizen groups, consultants and the Univ- ersity. The goals of this study were an inventory of the total resources of the region and development of a regional plan which included, land use planning, water use, human resé ources, industry, circulation patterns, and guides for future physical development. This plan has been used by Extension and other development groups as a base for program planning. 1This description is based upon a talk given by Ted Sidor, Extension Resource Development Specialist, Oregon State University, at a land use seminar sponsored by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State Univer- sity, June, 1966. The researcher was in attendance and the notes taken at that time are used extensively in this case study. 50 Oregon is now considering much more sophisticated studies. These studies will involve working with the people, consultants and various agencies with the singular goal of developing projects. ”Lack of public participation in plan- ning results in plans that gather dust.” This program will utilize economists and other specialists plus local leaders in a total planning effort. The Oregon Cooperative Extension Service has initiated committees to work in coordinating beautification efforts. A Rural Areas DevelOpment (RAD) Committee made up of lay peOple has been developed in most counties and a State RAD committee has also been established: its objectives are: 1. Promoting, stimulating and planning for use of human and natural resources. 2. Coordinating the use of various programs. 3. Encouraging land use planning. Agricultural economists are now making a study of urban sprawl and outdoor recreation, they are attempting to determine: (a) how much land should be shifted to outdoor recreation, (b) how much forest land should be shifted to out- door recreation and (c) the agricultural land requirements for outdoor recreation. Planning in Oregon is on.a regional basis. The regions are established by counting the number of small towns and cities and dividing them into regions, (each region being made up of approximately the same number). In establishment of regions, consideration was also given to having each 51 region represent similar problems. Inter and intra-region cOOperation is also being promoted. The CES in Oregon has played an educational role in regional and land use planning. Extension has worked with consultants and involved area people in the planning process, plans developed with this team approach have gained much wider acceptance than plans developed by consultants working alone. Extension has also developed an educational program for the county bOards of supervisors. The objective of this program was creating awareness in local government that Extension was willing to help them get information on the social and economic needs of the area. Land Use Planning and Total Resource Development In Wisconsin1 Total Resource Development (TRD) in Wisconsin is a program in which the Extension Service and the U.S.D.A. agen- cies work together in a coordinated effort. It is an inter- disciplinary program involving lawyers, engineers, sociologists, economists and others from all sectors of the University and from state agencies. 1This discussion is based upon descriptions of the Wisconsin program by: W. A. Rowlands, A Citizens Development Plan For Every Count , Op. Cit.: and GaIe . Vandefierg, Totai Resource DeveIopment in Wisconsin (Madison: University EI’Wisconsin, Extension Service, I963): and notes taken by the researcher during a talk by Orlando Delogue, College of Law, University of Wisconsin, during a land use seminar, sponsored by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, June, 1966. 52 The counties are the building blocks for the program. The county agents coordinate and organize TRD at the county level, they work closely with the County Board of Supervisors and local citizens. The procedure followed in Wisconsin is outlined as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Extension agents role and responsibilities are defined. Support is gained from the County Board of Supervisors. Agency roles are clarified: county Extension staff, technical action panel (TAP), supervisory staffs and related agencies meet to coordinate efforts and make program suggestions. Sources of data and data needs are established. Data are gathered and steps are taken to organize citizen leaders. Agency representatives meet to review data and assign roles as resource persons to the various citizen committees and subcommittees. An official county resource development council is appointed, usually by the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors. The county resource development council, citizens organ- ization subcommittee and agency representatives meet to clarify projects and objectives. Subcommittees on various subjects meet and continue to meet until recommendations are formulated. (Examples of subcommittees, land use planning and zoning, indust~ rial develOpment, etc.) 53 10. Subcommittees meet with Extension agent and resource peOple to review and consolidate work. 11. County resource development council meets to put plans in final form. 12. County development plan is completed. 13. Action is encouraged on the plan. 14. Meetings are conducted to create public awareness. 15. Extension staff and TAP personnel summarize recommend- ations and submit them to the agencies concerned. 16. Programs are evaluated. 17. Extension agent meets with county council to review progress. Wisconsin has also set up a Department of Resource Development. It has been given responsibility for looking at programs and problems, setting up alternatives and coordinat- ing the activities of resource agencies. This department has set up a five phase study of the state, covering: population, economics, public facilities, land use and transportation. Planning in Wisconsin has been on a regional basis and under the coordination of regional planning agencies. The regional agencies organize citizen committees, these committees are appointed by county and state government. The membership consists of citizens selected because of recognized leadership in their community. The regional organizations look at their area and attempt to analyze it in preparation for develOping a regional plan. These plans are usually implemented in three ways: 54 1. Local government completely embraces the program. (This has not been a common occurrence.) 2. State government uses planning proposals as a basis for decision making. 3. Federal agencies use the plans as a qualifier in granting funds. In Wisconsin the Extension Service has become an all University activity. Extension has a responsibility to trans- late University ideas to the people of the state and to those within state government and the power structure. It must make its recommendations based upon facts backed by research. One of the most concrete things Extension has done is to provide guides that describe, for example, what zoning is, what is good zoning, why zoning, what does a good zoning ordinance look like, in essence, educational materials. New Areas Of Land Grant Extension Education1 This descriptive study by the Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment describes how the Cooperative Exten- sion Service and the University of Arkansas, Cornell Univer- sity, Iowa State University, and Pennsylvania State University undertook to educate the public on important public problems. In each of the four states a University team decided which broad public problem could best be looked at on a state- wide basis. ~Tne general objectives were: to select local .’ 1This study has been summarized here by the researcher from: Centertfor Agricultural and Economic Adjustment, New Areas of Land Grant Extension Education, CAEA Report 10“— (Ames: Iowa §tate University, 1962)° 55 problems that citizens deemed significant and timely: to analyze in layman's terms and in some depth, the interrelation of social, economic and political factors of the problems selected: and to emphasize the need for private or public action in dealing with the problems. Each University prepared four to six “fact sheets” on the problems identified in their state, the fact sheets pointed out alternatives, but they did not attempt to provide answers. In Arkansas and Iowa an effort was made to dissemin- ate information on the widest possible basis. In New York and Pennsylvania the audience was restricted to specific regions and areas. This difference was due to the different audiences Extension wanted to reach in each of the four states. In all cases, the key educational method was a discussion group of from six to twelve persons. This was self admin- istered discussion, in which interested individuals called to- gether friends and formed a group to discuss material present= ed in the fact sheets. At the end of the discussion series the participants completed an opinion record and forwarded it to the State Extension Office. The effort required statewide planning. The Exten- sion Service in each state produced fact sheets, organization guides, promotion brochures, and other educational materials. There was a coordinated statewide promotion campaign on radio and television and descriptive news releases in the press. The County Extension Office was the base of operations 56 and the county agent the coordinator of the county program. He was responsible for finding persons willing to establish a group, training them in discussion techniques and providing needed discussion materials. The support at state level went beyond supplying materials. There was a concerted effort to set up a state- wide climate of opinion that would encourage county leaders and organizational officials to act. The programs worked because: 1. The problems chosen for discussion were real and important. 2. The educational materials were first rate: prepared by a team of experts in their respective fields, readable and capable of promoting discussion. 3. This was a total Extension effort, state and county levels functioned as a coordinated unit. County offices received strong state support, and the whole effort was supported by non-extension scholars and off campus agencies. 4. There was a large public response. The New Jersey Farm Land Assessment Program1 In New Jersey agricultural lands surrounded by urban 1The material in this discussion was consolidated by the researcher from: John M. Hunter, “The New Jersey Public Affairs Program Issues Involving Land", Proceedin s of the First Northeast Extension Seminar in Puinc Issues InvoIving Land (Morgantown: West Virginia University, Cooperative Extension Service, 1965), pp. 31-34: and from notes taken by the researcher during a talk by Hunter at a seminar on land use. sponsored by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, June, 1966. 57 development were being assessed according to their value as urban land, ripe for subdividing. Thus, farms were often assessed at a rate which made it unprofitable to continue farming. To prevent the movement of land from agriculture, the University in cooperation with farmers, farm organizations and with the assistance of agri-business, launched a program de- signed to amend the state constitution to allow preferential assessment of agriculture land. The ”education” program coincident with the program consisted of the use of mass media and a ”legitimizing" committee made up of highly influential people in the state. Land Use Planning Legislation In California1 In California the University and farm groups worked together to achieve controls over urban sprawl in good agric- ultural areas. They worked with legislators and other groups, in an effort to achieve legislation which allows farmland to be kept in agriculture on a contract basis. In the process of influencing passage of the legislation, Extension and farm groups enlisted the help of interest groups, especially urban interest groups (open space, garden clubs, etc.) in achieving their goals. 1Based on notes taken by the researcher from a talk given by H. Snvder, University of California, (Davis), at the seminar on land use, sponsored by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, June, 1966. 58 The case studies reported in this chapter will not be summarized or analyzed here. In Chapter V they will be summarized and compared with the responses of State Rural Areas Development Leaders to the questionnaire on land use programs in the United States. It is felt that this pro- cedure will contribute to maintenance of objectivity in the analyses of the questionnaire data (Chapter IV) and provide an Opportunity to present a composite set of findings which can be related to the study objectives (Chapter I). CHAPTER IV QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS The material presented in this chapter is the des- criptive data concerning the questionnaire used, the number of respondents, the geographical location of the respondents and their answers to the questions in the questionnaire. The material is presented in the following sequence: (1) in- formation to be gathered, (2) the questionnaire used in data collection, (3) the respondents, and (4) analysis of data collected by the questionnaire on Extension Land Use Programs in the United States. Information To Be Gathered The discussion in Chapters I and II indicated that the problems of land use change are many and complex. It was pointed out that these changes can be either left to the vag- aries of the land market and the developer, or they may be directed through citizen planning to fulfill the goals of the community. Citizen planning was described as an area requir- ing the technical and educational skills and the guidance of professional resource persons. It was suggested that the Cooperative Extension Service (CES),has a legitimate and practical role to play in assisting communities through the provision of professional guidance to citizens participating 59 60 in the community resource development process. The question- naire was designed to determine the role the CES has played in the alleviation of land use problems. It was assumed that those in the CES responsible for program development could logically answer questions related to Extension's role in the field of land use programming. To this end, the individuals in each state, responsible for policy making in those fields which include land use (resource or community resource development), were asked to respond to the questionnaire asking of their state's land use program. The questionnaire was sent to the Cooperative Exten- sion Service and specifically to the State Rural Areas Develop- ment Leaders because: (1) the study was specifically aimed at obtaining views of an Extension program from administrators at the program development level: (2) it was assumed that there would be greater homogeneity in the respondents familiar- ity with and interpretation of terms used in the questionnaire: and (3) no other inquiry was made because of the numerous differences in the organizational structure and responsibilities of the various state and local governmental units and other units of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Questionnaire The questionnaire was divided into three parts: I. An overview of the land use program in each state: II. Specific questions on (a) land use study, (b) land use education, and (c) land use planning: III. Evaluation of the methodology used in Extension land use programs. 61 The questionnaire was formulated with the assistance of Extension administrators, specialist and development agents in the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. It was specif- ically constructed to gather data which would be helpful to Extension Administrators formulating a land use program in Michigan. The following is a summary of the information the questionnaire was designed to gather.1 (1) The scope of Extension land use programs. (a) The number of states with an Extension land use program. (b) The number of years land use programs have been part of Extension's program (since 1955) in each state . (2) Program construction. (a) Factors which influenced Extension to begin a land use program. (b) The general goals of Extension's land use programs. (c) The presence or absence of a coordinating body to direct all agencies involved in the program. (d) The types of resource agencies which have cooper- ated with Extension in a land use program. (e) The means used to implement the program. (i) The phases used and the order of use (study, education, planning). 1A sample questionnaire is enclosed in Appendix A. 62 (ii) The areal level at which the program was directed. (Local, regional, statewide) (iii) The groups or individuals, which were the target audience in each phase. (Study, education, planning) (iv) The educational tools used. (3) The product of Extension land use programs. (a) An evaluation of the results of study, education, and planning. (b) Specific land use measures implemented. (c) Subjective evaluation remarks of the respondents. The questionnaire was pretested by ten Extension work- ers who were participants in the Second National Extension WorkshOp in Community Resource Development. The pretest con- sisted of an interview in which each of the Extension workers were asked to respond to the questions which had been form- ulated. Following the first pretest the questionnaire was substantially changed to increase its readibility and to clarify ambiguity. The questionnaire was then pretested for a second time. This time the respondents were given the questionnaire and were asked to complete it without clarification from the researcher. When the questionnaire was completed the respond- ent reviewed each question with the researcher. The respond- ents in the second pretest were eight State Rural Areas Devel- opment Leaders, (or of equivalent positions in their State Extension Service), who were attending the above mentioned 63 Workshop. As a result of the second pretest very minor adjustments were made to the questionnaire. Procedure For Gathering Information1 The questionnaire was mailed to all states on July 26, 1966. A letter explaining the purpose of the study, a stamped, self-addressed envelope for returning the completed questionnaire, and a cover letter from the researcher's advisor, who is also the State Rural Areas Development Leader, was sent to each potential respondent. A follow-up postcard was sent to eleven potential respondents on August 17, 1966. All responses were received by October 15, 1966. The Respondents Responses were received from all of the fifty potent- ial Cooperative Extension Service (CES) worker respondents. Forty-five questionnaires were received by August 31, 1966 and these were used as a basis for analysis on the CDC 3600 2 computer. Three responses were received on September 6, one on September 22, and one on October 15. Since computer anal- ysis had been completed, these were included in the total count of states with land use programs, but not in the total analyses.3 1COpies of the questionnaire and the correspondence are in Appendix A. 2The Michigan State University Computer Laboratory Uses the CDC 3600 computer, manufactured by Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3Late responses were received from Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Oklahoma. 64 All questions on the questionnaire were not answered by all respondents. There are two reasons for this: (1) states not having an Extension land use program were asked to answer the first question only:1 (2) a number of questions, (spec- ifically numbers 1, 5, 8a, 9a, 10a) had qualifying statements attached indicating a "No” answer denoted that the question was not to be answered.2 On these bases it was assumed that an unanswered question or part thereof indicated that the part- icular state did not include as a major part of its Extension land use program, the subject covered in that particular question or part thereof. This will account for the variation in total responses from question to question. All tables are subject to this condition. Analysis Of Questionnaire Response The material presented in this section is the des- criptive data collected by the questionnaire on Extension land use programs in the United States.3 This material will be presented in the order which it followed in the questionnaire. The various parts of this section present data as they were gathered by each of the three parts of the question- naire. A brief discussion of the important data in the tables is conducted, and terms are defined as required. 1See Appendix A. 2See Appendix A. 3See Appendix A. 65 The data in the tables are presented as combined by the researcher after an initial computer analysis. All data from computer analysis were not used, because the small population numbers responding and the many possible combin- ations of variables resulted in many meaningless and non- significant combinations.1 Part I--An Overview of Extension's Land Use Program In Each State Question 1: Has the Cooperative or Agricultural Exten- sion Service in your State been involved in a Land Use Pro- gram at any time since June, 1955? Sixty percent of the fifty state leaders responding indicated they were involved in an Extension land use pro- gram. The data are presented in Table 2. Table 2. The Number of States Having a Land Use Program During All or Part of the Period June, 1955 to July, 1966 States Indicating a Program 30 States Indicating no Program 20 Total States 50 Illustration 1 is a graphic presentation of the data contained in Table 2, it illustrates the location of the states and their answers to Question 1. 1In one question for example-~nineteen possible com- binations emerged from a total population of twenty-eight respondents. nEuuuoum can mesa sofiuaouxm no umoom mcfiusowch uncommom ouwoccoaumoso .H .35.: £950.."— 33 .83 02 60.69.. 33 9.3 g 2<3ns, land use plans, subdivision regulations, special tax prOgrams, community action, etc. Please answer each question With this definition a_s_ your guid . The questionnaire is divided into three parts: I. An (Iverview of the Land Use Program in your State: II. Specific Questions on (1) Land Use Study, (2) Education and (3) Planning: III. Evaluation of methodology used in your Land Use Program. A QUESTIONNAIRE ON LAND USE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN JULY 1966 Name Position State I. AN OVERVIEW OF EXTENSION'S LAND USE PROGRAM IN YOUR STATE. 1. Has the COOperative or Agricultural Extension Service in your State been involved in a land use program at any time since June, 1955? Yes NO IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION (1) IS ”NO" PLEASE RETURN THE QUEST- IONNAIRE, ANSWERING QUESTION (1) ONLY. IF ”YES", PLEASE CON- TINUE. 2. During what years was a Land Use Program a part of your Extension Service's effort (since June, 1955)? (Years) Is it now part of your program? Yes NO 3. What influenced the COOperative or Agricultural Exten- sion Service to undertake a land use program in your State? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM(S). Check Requests from local citizen study groups. Requests from elected bodies. A survey of professional workers in adult education, natural resources, etc. A survey Of community Opinion in selected communities. 141 S. 142 Conflicts in land uses recognized by Extension leaders. Other: (Please Specify) Which of the following best describes the goals of Extension“s land use program in your State? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM(S). A basis for establishing zoning regulations. Citizen education and community develOpment. Education of local elected or appointed officials. A basis for future community planning. A means of obtaining assistance from various state and federal programs. 0 21‘ (D 0 76‘ Other: (Please Specify) (a) Was or is there a state-wide guidance (steering com- mittee with responsibility for directing the land use program in your State? Yes N 0 IF YOUR ANSWER IS ”NO" PLEASE GO ON To QUESTION 6. IF ”YES", ANSWER 5 (b). (b) What was or is the state-wide guidance committee's membership? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM(S). O D‘ 0 0 7“ COOperative or Agricultural Extension Service. Technical Action Panel Agencies. State Government Agencies. Farm Organizations. 143 Urban Organizations (Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) Citizens Organization (Unelected). Planning Commission(s). Other: (Please Specify) Which of the following agencies, organizations, and in- dividuals made major contributions to Extension's land use program in your State? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM(S): AT THE LOCAL LEVEL (LOCAL COMMUNITY, TOWNSHIP, COUNTY): REGIONAL LEVEL’TTWO‘ OR MORE CONTIGUOUS COUNTIES): AND STATE'EEVEE.' ”‘ Local* Regional* State* Specialist and professionals from the Land Grant University, other than those on the Exten- sion payroll. (Economists, lawyers, sociologists, etc.) State employees, (for example, employees of the State Depart- ment of Agriculture, Industry, Health, etc.) Consultant firms or individuals hired on a fee basis. Various federal financial assist- ance programs, Economic Opport- unity Act, Section 701, etc. Elected groups: county boards of supervisors, county commiss- ioners, state or county plan- ning commissions. Technical Action Panel and affiliated U.S.D.A. agencies. Citizens, other than those listed above. *If Applicable 144 Other: (Please Specify) II. SPECIFICfiUESTIONS ON EXTENSION'S LAND USE STUDY, EDUCATION AND PLANNING PROGRAM. The introductory page of this questionnaire refers to three phases in a Land Use Program, that is, stud , education and lannin . The questions in this section O this question- naire are an attempt to discover how you treated each of these three phases in your State. 7. (a) Has Extension's Land Use Program in your State included the following phases? v.22 :2 Study __ _ Education __ __ Planning (b) If more than one phase was included, in what order were they undertaken? PLEASE RANK. :25 Study ____ Education ____ Planning Land Use Study Land Use Study is defined as: assembly of State and/or regional information by a State technical committee, followed by area or regional expansion of data by local committees. Study here includes, a survey or inventory of physical featpres both nat- ural and man-made, of land (space) and its uses. 1Whenever Land Use Study is mentioned this definition applies. 145 8. (a) Has the Extension Service in your State undertaken Land Use Study (since June, 1955)? Y8 8 NO IF "YES”, ANSWER QUESTIONS (3) b, C, d: IF ”NO", PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION 9. (b) On what area basis has Land Use Study in your State been undertaken? The county or local level. Yes No The regional level (two or more contiguous counties or parts thereof).Yes No The state level. Yes No (c) Which of the following best describes the persons or groups most involved with Extension's Land Use Study Program in your State? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROACH(S) WHICH WERE GIVEN MAJOR CONSIDERATION. County or* Local Regional* State-Wide* Level Level Level Citizen study groups. Study by an elected or appointed planning body. Study by a consultant or consulting firm. Study by a State tech- nical committee (members from Land Grant UniverSn ity, COOperative Extenw sion, etc.) Study by a government body,(Example, State De- partment of Agriculture.) Other: (Please Specify) * If Applicable. 146 (d) Has Extension's Land Use Study Program resulted in an inventory of the land use situation at the state-wide level? Regional level? Yes No : Yes No Local level? Yes NO Land Use Education Land Use Education is defined as: creating awareness and under- standing of land use problems and alternative solutions among Extension's staff, select groups and/or all the people. 9. (a) Has the Extension Service in your State undertaken Land Use Education (since June, 1955)? Yes No IF ”YES”, ANSWER QUESTIONS (9) b, C, d, e: IF ”NO", PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION 10. (b) On what area basis has Land Use Education been under- taken in your State? The county or local level. Yes NO The regional level (two or more contiguous counties or parts thereof).Yes No The state level. Yes No (c) Which of the following persons or groups were the target audience for Extension's Land Use Education program? PLEASE CHECK THE AUDIENCE(S) WHICH WERE GIVEN MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN YOUR STATE. County or* Local Regional* State-Wide* Level Level Level Staff members Of the COOperative or Agric- ulture Extension Service. Citizen groups. Elected or appointed planning commissions. 1Whenever Land Use Education is mentioned this definition applies. *If Applicable. 147 All the peOple. Other groups: (Please Specify) (d) Which of the following education tools or methods were used to communicate the educational message to Extension's target audience(s)? PLEASE CHECK THE TOOL(S) OR METHOD(S) WHICH WERE GIVEN MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN YOUR STATE. County or* Local Regional* State-Wide* Level Level Level Training programs for Cooperative or Agric- ultural Extension Staff 0 Mass media (radio, T.V., newspapers, etc.) WorkshOps with members of elected or appointed planning bodies. Study discussion groups made up of citizens selected because of in- terest in and willing- ness to deal with the subject matter. ,_--. Publications, pamphlets, etc., for use by inter= ested individuals or groups. Other: (Please Specify) *If Applicable. 148 (e) Has Extension's Land Use Education program resulted in: very much : some : little : no change in citizen awareneSs of IanH use prOEIems anH aIternative solutions in your State? Land Use Planning Land Use Planning is defined as: organized efforts for involve- ment of local people in develOping economic and social blueprints for land use acpording to the availability of resources and peOples' needs. 10. (a) Has the Extension Service in your State undertaken Land Use Planning (since June, 1955)? Yes No IF ”YES” ANSWER QUESTION (10) b,c,d,e: IF ”NO", PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION 11. (b) On what area basis has Land Use planning been under- ~taken in your State? The county or local level. Yes No The regional level (two or more contiguous counties or parts thereof)Yes No The state level. Yes No (c) Which of the following groups or persons were in- volved in Extension's Land Use Planning program in your State? PLEASE CHECK THOSE WHICH WERE GIVEN MAJOR CONSIDERATION. County or* Local Regional* State-Wide* Level Level Level Local citizen study groups 0 Consultants or consult- ing firms. Elected or appointed planning commissions. COOperative or Agric- ulture Extension Serw vice. lWhenever Land Use Planning is mentioned this definition applies. *If Applicable. 149 Elected groups, (Example, county boards of super- visors, county commiss= ions, etc.) Other: (Please Specify) L— (d) Has Extension”s Land Use Planning program resulted in guided land use in your State? Yes NO (e) What specific land use measures have come about as a result of Extension's Land Use Planning Program? (Please List) III. EVALUATION. 11. (a) What was or is the most outstanding single factor which has contributed to the success of Extension's Land Use Program in your State? (b) What single factor would you point out as a pitfall which should be avoided in an Extension Land Use Program? 150 (c) Please comment briefly on any point or points of your program which you In ave not adequately been des- cribed in questions (1) through (11). (d) DO you wish a copy of the information obtained from this questionnaire? Yes NO We could also benefit by any materials used in your Land Use Pro- gram. If you have COpies to share, we would appreciate having any such materials. We are particularly interested in outlines of your program, guidelines for organizing land use study, mat- erials prepared for study discussion, etc. These materials should be sent to: Dr. William J. Kimball Extension Leader Resource DevelOpment Department Natural Science Building Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 /ksg July 26, 1966 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE CODING SYSTEM (The reSponses to the instrument for obtaining data on the role of the COOperative Extension Service in land use pro- grams were recorded on the instrument. These data were then coded according to the following coding system and incorpor- ated on punch cards for computer analysis.) Card Column Value Meaning 1 Blank 2 Years during which a land use program was a part of the Extension Service effort 1963 - 1966 1959 - 1962 1955 - 1959 No Answer ubWNH 3 Reasons for beginning a land use program DAMP Requests from local citizens study groups Requests from elected bodies Conflicts in land uses recognized by Extension leaders Combination Combination mammar- Combination Of 1 and 2 Of 1 and 3 Combination Of 2 and 3 of l and 2 and 3 None of above or no answer 4-5 The goals of Extension land use programs A basis for officials A basis for Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination kooxoooqmme. WNH \DH establishing zoning regulations Citizen education and community development Education of local elected or appointed future community planning of l and 2 of 2 and 3 of 2 and 4 of l and 2 and 4 of 2 and 3 and 4 of l and 2 and 3 and 4 None of above or no answer 151 152 Card Column On what area basis has land use study been undertaken in your state? 6 County or local level? 1 Yes 9 No or no answer 7 Regional level? 1 Yes 9 No or no answer 8 State level? 1 Yes 9 No or no answer 9 Area level of involvement of "Citizen study groups" in land use study Local level Regional level State level Combination of l and 2 Combination of l and 3 Combination of 2 and 3 Combination of l and 2 and 3 None of above or no answer \ONJONU'IwaI-J 10 Area level of involvement of "Elected or appointed planning bodies" in land use study 139 Same as for”Citizen study groups”- Column 9 11 Area level of involvement of ”Consultant or Consulting firm" in land use study 1-9 Same as for"Citizen study groups”- Column 9 12 Area level of involvement of "State technical committee” in land use study 1:9 Same as for "Citizen study groups” - Column 9 153 Card Column 13 Area level of involvement of "Government body“ in land use study 1-9 Same as for ”Citizen study groups" - Column 9 14-15 Methodology of group involvement in land use study at the local level Citizen study groups Elected or appointed planning commissions Consultant or consulting firm State technical committee Government body Combination of Combination of and Combination of and l and 2 2 Combination of l and 1 1 l r \DmQO\U1uh-UJNI—' and 3 10 Combination of and and 5 ll Combination of and and 3 12 Combination of and and 3 99 None of above 0 no answer and 4 and 4 and 5 NNWNfiwN 16:17 Methodology of group involvement in land use study at the regional level Citizen study groups Elected or appointed planning commissions Consultant or consulting firm State technical committee Government body Combination of Combination of Combination of and Combination of and l and l 2 3 Combination of l and 1 l 2 r and \Dm“~lO\U1-h-WNH and 3 and 4 and 3 and 4 and 5 Combination of and Combination of and Combination of and None of above O no answer WNNNbU'I-bw mrdhwdki mcoaawco l8 Methodology of group involvement in land use study at the state level Elected or appointed planning commissions Consultant or consulting firm State technical committee Government body bMNH Card Column 19 20 21 22 23 24 \OQKIOUI \OF‘ OH 154 Combination of 2 and 4 Combination of 3 and 4 Combination of 3 and 5 Combination of l and 3 and 5 None of above or no answer Has Extension's land use study program res- ulted in an inventory of the land use sit- uation? At the state level? Yes No or no answer At the regional level? Yes No or no answer At the local level? Yes No or no answer On what area basis has land use education been undertaken in your state? County or local level? Yes No or no answer Regional level? Yes No or no answer State level? Yes NO or no answer Card Column 25 26 27 28 29-30 0" \OxImU'l-bwlul“ mommqmwwaI-a 155 Area level of involvement Of ”Staff members of the Extension Service” in land use educa- tion programs Local level Regional level State level Combination Of l and 2 Combination of l and 3 Combination of 2 and 3 Combination of 1 and 2 and 3 None of above or no answer Area level of involvement of “Citizen groups” in land use education programs Same as for ”Staff members of the Extension Service” - Column 25 Area level of involvement of ”Elected or appointed planning commissions" in land use education programs Same as for ”Staff members of the Extension Service" - Column 25 Area level of involvement of ”All the people" in land use education programs Same as for "Staff members of the Extension Service" - Column 25 Target audience for Extension land use educa- tion programs at the local level Extension Service staff Citizen groups Elected or appointed planning commissions All the people Combination of l and 2 Combination of 2 and 3 Combination of 2 and 4 Combination of l and 2 and 3 Combination of 2 and 3 and 4 Combination Of l and 2 and 3 and 4 r None of above 0 no answer 156 Card Column 31:32 Target audience for Extension land use educa- tion programs at the regional level Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination \DQQONUl-bDJNH mHHP mNHo of of of of of of of of None of above 0 l l 2 2 1 1 2 1 r Extension Service staff Citizen groups Elected planning commissions All the peOple and and and and and and and and and and no answer and and NWNwahN 03th and 4 33 Target audience for Extension land use educa- tion programs at the state level Extension Service staff Citizen groups Elected or appointed planning commissions All the peOple Combination of 0 Combination of 0 _Combination of 1 Combination of 0 Combination of 0 None of above or and l and 2 and 2 and 2 and 3 and 1 and 2 and 3 no answer 34 Area level of training programs for ”The Extension Service" in land use programs Local level State level \DNIO‘U'IbWNP 35 Area level Of education programs 1-9 Same as for the Column 34 Regional level Combination of 1 Combination of 1 Combination of 2 Combination of 1 None of above or and 2 and 3 and 3 and 2 and 3 no answer “Mass media” use in land use ”Extension Service" - Card Column 36 37 38 39-40 mmummwaI—a mHHHHHHHHHH mwmqmmbuwwo 157 Area level of ”Workshops with elected or appointed bodies“ in land use education programs Same as for the ”Extension Service - Column 34 Area level of "Citizen study discussion groups" in land use education prOgrams Same as for the "Extension Service - Column 34 Area level Of use of "Publications“ in land use education programs Same as for the "Extension Service - Column 34 Educational tools or methods used to commun- icate the land use education message at the local level Training programs for AES staff Mass media WorkshOps with planning body members Citizen study groups Publications Combination of 2 and 4 Combination of 2 and 5 Combination of 3 and 4 Combination of 4 and 5 Combination of l and 2 and 3 Combination of l and 2 and 4 Combination of l and 2 and 5 Combination of l and 3 and 4 Combination of l and 4 and 5 Combination of 2 and 3 and 5 Combination of 2 and 4 and 5 Combination of 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 Combination of 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 Combination of l and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 None of above or no answer 158 Card Column 41-42 Educational tools or methods used to commun- icate the land use education message at the regional level 1 Training programs for AES staff 2 Mass media 3 WorkshOps with planning body members 4 Citizen study groups 5 Publications 6 Combination of 2 and 3 7 Combination of 2 and 4 8 Combination of 2 and 5 9 Combination of 4 and 5 10 Combination of 1 and 2 and 4 ll Combination of 1 and 2 and 5 12 Combination of 1 and 3 and 4 13 Combination of l and 3 and 5 l4 Combination of l and 4 and 5 15 Combination of 2 and 3 and 5 l6 Combination of 3 and 4 and 5 l7 Combination of l and 2 and 4 and 5 18 Combination of 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 l9 Combination of l and 2 and 3 and 4 99 None of above or no answer 43-44 Educational tools or methods used to commun- icate the land use education message at the state level 1 Training programs for AES staff 2 Mass media 3 WorkshOps with planning body members 4 Citizen study groups 5 Publications 6 Combination of l and 2 7 Combination of l and 5 8 Combination of 2 and 5 9 Combination of 3 and 5 10 Combination of l and 2 and 5 ll Combination of 2 and 3 and 5 12 Combination of 1 and 2 and 3 and 5 13 Combination of l and 2 and 4 and 5 99 None of above or no answer 45 Has Extension's land use education program resulted in: 0 No change in citizen awareness 1 Little change in citizen awareness Card Column 46 47 48 49 50 51 \OUN \DQO‘UlthNH 1'9 159 Some Change in citizen awareness Very much Change in citizen awareness None of above or no answer On what area basis has land use planning been undertaken in your state? County or local level? Yes No or no answer Regional level? Yes No or no answer State level? Yes No or no answer Area level of involvement of "Citizen study groups” in land use planning Local level Regional level State level Combination of l and 2 Combination of l and 3 Combination of 2 and 3 Combination of l and 2 and 3 None of above or no answer Area level of involvement of ”Consultants or consulting firms" in land use planning Same as for ”Citizen study groups" - Column 49 Area level of involvement of ”Elected or appointed planning commissions” in land use planning Same as for "Citizen study groups" - Column 49 Card Column 52 53 54-55 56 madam-bunk: mHHHHHH mine-unchio UTIbWNH m 160 Area level of involvement of the ”Extension Service" in land use planning Same as for ”Citizen study groups" - Column 49 Area level of involvement of "Elected groups” in land use planning Same as for "Citizen study groups” - Column 49 Persons or groups involved in land use plan- ning programs at the local level Citizen study groups Consultants or consulting firms Elected or appointed planning commissions Extension Service Elected groups Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination None of above O of of of of of of of of of of 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 r and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and NNww-buwaubN no answer wwbubU‘IU‘Ibw and 5 and 5 and 4 and 5 and 5 Persons or groups involved in land use plan- ning programs at the regional level Citizen study groups Extension Service Citizen study groups Combination of l and Combination of 2 and planning commissions Combination of l and appointed planning commissions and elected groups and consultants 2 elected or appointed 2 and elected or Combination of 2 and consultants and plan- ning commissions and elected groups Combination of 1 and 2 and planning comm- issions and Extension Service and elected groups Card Column 57 58 59-78 79-80 kWNH \O 161 Combination of l and consultants and plan- ning commissions None of above or no answer Persons or groups involved in land use plan- ning programs at the state level Elected or appointed planning commissions Extension Service Combination of l and 2 Combination of 2 and consultants or consult- ing firms None of above or no answer Has Extension's land use planning program resulted in guided land use in your state? Yes NO or no answer Blank State Georgia 15 Wisconsin Connecticut 16 Nebraska Alabama 17 South Dakota Missouri 18 Indiana Kentucky 19 New Hampshire Maryland 20 Illinois Utah 21 Vermont New York 22 Iowa Hawaii 23 Ohio Nevada 24 Washington California 25 Pennsylvania New Mexico 26 Massachusetts Virginia 27 Delaware North Carolina 28 Oregon