|
|
|
 |
Fritz Roka and Ginger Allen Introduction The South Florida Water Management District (District) is developing the Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan. The plan will depend, in part, on the projected acreage of citrus production in the Basin. While actual acreage of citrus production will depend on market conditions, it is likely that future citrus acreage also will depend on a set of criteria that includes soil features, property ownership and current land use. The objective of this study was to develop a citrus land feasibility rating by section-township-range (STR) for the Kissimmee Basin Planning Region. The Kissimmee Basin Planning Region includes eastern Highlands, northern Glades, and western Okeechobee Counties. Methods and Procedures Spatial maps were prepared that overlaid STR lines, soil series, and current land use. The District provided soil, public land and land use data. A new Kissimmee Basin spatial coverage was developed to rate land suitability for each STR block based on the above overlays and land ownership. Soil suitability codes were developed from previous work (reference Obreza). Individual soil series were grouped into one of three categories:
Of the three categories, flatwood represents the better drained soils. Therefore, in terms of suitability for citrus trees, flatwood soils are preferable to slough soils. Depressional soils, which are the most poorly drained soils, are the least favorable to citrus production. The District has divided land uses in the Kissimmee Basin into more than 100 codes, ranging from urban/industrial use to field crops to pastures to native landscapes. For this project (view table) the District land use codes were grouped into the following six categories (as a reference, District land use code numbers are indicated in parentheses):
The land use groupings reflect two criteria – 1) similar land preparation costs to convert from the current land use to citrus production; and 2) similar expected annual income potentials. For instance, it would be physically easier, and therefore less costly, to establish a new citrus grove in pasture land (code 1) rather than in wooded range areas (code 3). While land supporting row crops is cleared, and possibly less costly to redevelop from pasture to citrus, row crops generate a higher level of expected income than cattle production. Therefore, the opportunity costs of converting row crop production into citrus production is higher than converting improved pasture into citrus production. Based on the criteria of land development costs and income opportunity costs, feasibility for future citrus production is greatest for land use groups 1 and 2. Feasibility for future citrus development decreases with land use groups 3, 4 and 5. Given the definition of land use group 6, there is zero probability of future citrus development within this group. Current land ownership (view table) was the third factor used in developing a citrus feasibility rating. County plat books provided names of individual land owners and land use data was cross referenced. Owners were grouped according to six categories: 10. agricultural land owners with more than 160 acres; 20. agricultural land owners with less than 160 acres; 30. private land owners with more than 160 acres, but not affiliated with either agricultural operations or with any conservation organizations; 40. private land owners who are affiliated with a conservation organization; 50. publicly owned land; 60. urban / residential properties; Ownership categories 10 and 20 were further divided into agricultural land owners who were citrus growers. 11. agricultural land owners with more than 160 acres and owns citrus grove; 21. agricultural land owners with less than 160 acres and owns citrus grove; Each STR was given an ownership rating based on the single largest landowner within the section. The ownership rating developed in this project predicts future expansion of citrus acreage will likely come from larger agricultural land owners with current citrus production. Larger land owners are judged to be more likely to increase citrus plantings because they are in a better position to reap the economic benefits from economies of scale. Land owners with experience in citrus production (codes 11 and 21) are judged to be more likely to expand citrus acreage than agricultural land owners without citrus production. Excluded from future citrus production are public and private land owners of conservation and urban properties. Results and Deliverables An Arc-info coverage file detailing land ownership ratings and major land use type for each STR block within the Kissimmee Basin is provided as an attachment to this report. Each citrus feasibility rating is a combination of soil, land use and land ownership codes. Given three soil categories, six land use groups and eight ownership codes, there exists the potential for 144 ratings combinations. However, for the purposes of projecting future citrus development, feasibility rating on all parcels designated as urban / commercial properties and publicly or privately owned conservation land, should be rated equally low. For the remaining land use and ownership categories, only 63 rating combinations needed to be ranked. Table 1 presents a ranking of the 63 citrus feasibility ratings. The rating with the greatest feasibility for future citrus development is a flatwood soil (1), currently being managed as a pasture (1) by a large agricultural land owner with citrus groves (11) elsewhere in the Kissimmee Basin. The ranking described by Table 1 reflects a hierarchy of criteria. The greatest weight is given to soil conditions which broadly defines the limitations of how a given property can be developed. Next in order of importance is current land use which defines the expected land preparation and opportunity costs of converting a given property into citrus production. Finally, ownership attributes receive the lowest weight, primarily because of the implicit assumption that land ownership remains constant into the future. Obviously, land sales occur continuously. However, there does not exist any formal model to predict future land ownership. Summary and Disclaimer The relative ranking of citrus feasibility ratings embodies the normative reasoning of the researchers conducting the project and is not based on an empirical model predicting the placement of future citrus acreage. The citrus feasibility ratings developed in this project were designed to provide the District with qualitative guidance about where future citrus development is likely to take place within the Kissimmee Basin Planning Region. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}