|
|
|
 |
Fritz Roka and Ginger Allen Introduction The South Florida Water Management District (District) is developing the Lower West Coast Basin Water Supply Plan. The plan will depend, in part, on the projected acreage of citrus, sugar cane and other agricultural production in the Basin. While actual agricultural acreage will depend on market conditions, it is likely that future agricultural development of citrus and sugar cane 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 crop land feasibility rating by section-township-range (STR) for the Lower West Coast Basin Planning Region (LWCB). The LWCB Planning Region includes Hendry, southern Glades, Lee, Collier and southeastern Charlotte 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 LWCB 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 by Dr. Thomas Obreza, UF/IFAS-Southwest Florida Research and Education Center. Individual soil series were grouped into one of three categories:
Of the three categories, flatwood represents better drained soils, while depressional represents poorer drained soils. Adequate drainage control provides more favorable conditions for agricultural production. Therefore, in terms of agricultural land suitability, flatwood soils are preferable to slough soils, which are in turn preferable to depressional soils. The District has created 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 were based on two criteria – 1) similar land preparation costs to convert from the current land use to agricultural 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 agricultural land development is greatest for land use groups 1 and 2. Feasibility for future agricultural land development decreases with land use groups 3, 4 and 5. Given the definition of land use group 6, there is zero probability of future agricultural development. Land already planted to either citrus or sugar cane were included within this group. Current land ownership (view table) was the third factor used in developing an agricultural cropland feasibility rating. County plat books provided names of individual land owners. Land use data were cross referenced to divide owners into six broad categories: 10. agricultural land owner with more than 160 acres; 20. agricultural land owner with less than 160 acres; 30. private land owner with more than 160 acres, but not affiliated with either agricultural operations or with any conservation organizations; 40. private land owner who are affiliated with a conservation organization; 50. publicly owned land; 60. urban / residential properties; Ownership categories 10 and 20 were further separated by type of agricultural land owner. 11. agricultural land owner with more than 160 acres and owns citrus grove; 12. agricultural land owner with more than 160 acres and owns sugar cane; 15. agricultural land owner with more than 160 acres and owns both citrus and sugar cane; 21. agricultural land owner with less than 160 acres and owns citrus grove; 22. agricultural land owner with less than 160 acres and owns sugar cane; 25. agricultural land owner with less than 160 acres and owns both citrus and sugar cane; A number of private non-agricultural landowners reside within the planning boundaries of future land acquisitions by public agencies. These landowners were assigned an ownership code of "41." Each STR was given an ownership rating based on the single largest landowner within the section. Underlying this rating analysis is the hypothesis that current ownership is an indicator of where future agricultural development is likely to take place. Larger agricultural land owners are assumed to be more likely to expand their agricultural operations because they are in a better position to reap the benefits from economies of scale. Land owners with experience in citrus or sugar cane production (codes 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, and 25) are assumed to be more likely to expand acreage than agricultural land owners without these enterprises. For landowners who have experience in both citrus and sugar cane, no judgement can be made as to which commodity would most likely be developed first. Excluded from future citrus and sugar cane production are public and private land owners of conservation and/or 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 LWCB is provided as an attachment to this report. Each block feasibility rating is a combination of soil, land use and land ownership codes. Given three soil categories, six land use groups and twelve ownership codes, there exists the potential for 216 rating combinations. For eleven land use and ownership combinations, there was no acreage in the LWCB. In addition, for the purposes of projecting future agricultural 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 124 rating combinations needed to be ranked. Table 1 presents a ranking of the 124 feasibility ratings for blocks within the LWCB. 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 LWCB. 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 every year. 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 Lower West Coast Basin Planning Region. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}