1	Michigan Land Resource Project A look at the future of land use in Michigan and the impacts on its land-based industries…
2	Funding provided by: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek The Frey Foundation of Grand Rapids
3	Participants in the Study Oversight: Public Sector Consultants, Inc., Lansing Land Use Projections: Michigan State University Stuart Gage Bryan Pijanowski David Skole Economic Impact Assessments: Agriculture: Jake Ferris (MSU) Forestry: Michael Moore (UM) Mining: Mark Roberts & Gary Campbell (MTU) Tourism/Recreation: Charles Nelson (MSU) Communication: Pace & Partners, Inc., Lansing Evaluation: Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., Lansing
4	Introduction-Setting the Tone Michigan’s land-based industries – agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism and recreation – contribute $63 Billion (30%) to the state’s economy Land use change is a significant issue, which could have a profound impact on these industries in the future Land-based industries contribute to our scenic landscape and quality of life Polls show that citizens care about land use change: 72% are concerned about loss of agriculture land, 65% believe that loss of forests is a serious problem
5	Michigan Diversity
6
7	Goals of the Study of Land Use Change Provide, through quantitative measurement, a credible estimate of the present and future land use patterns for the entire state Evaluate the impact of land use change on Michigan’s land- based industries, if current trends continue, for 2020 and 2040 Determine what would be the cumulative impacts of current land use trends for Michigan’s economy (and ecosystems)
8	Approach and Method Identify and use standard land use classes to examine change in land use over time Built (residential, commercial, industrial), Agriculture, Forest, Other Vegetation (non-forest non-agriculture), Wetland, Water Use existing digital maps of land use and landscape features including: MiRIS land use data from 1980 (last statewide data) 17 (out of 83) countywide updated in 1995 Consider roads and infrastructure in place as of 2000, as well as rivers and lakes, and other mapped features Extrapolate to project change based on the most current information 17 key counties were updated in 1995-99 to provide a model base.
9	Approach and Method Use trends identified from 1980 to 1995, current geographic relationships, and demographic & economic projections, to project future land use through GIS and mapping technology Utilize a computer simulation model to estimate the future land use for Michigan Changes in land use – conversion of forests, farms, and other landscapes to built areas for 2020 and 2040 Evaluate the rate of land development vs. population growth rate US Census data (The mean rate is 8 times greater– i.e. an 8-to-1 ratio) Conduct an Analysis of Land Fragmentation Fragmentation statistics
10	Trends and Patterns of Change in Michigan County Population Trends Central City vs. Surrounding Area Trends Land Area to Population Growth Rates
11	Southeast Michigan Population
12	Southeast Michigan Population: Livingston & St. Clair counties
13	West Michigan Population
14	Northern Lower Michigan Population
15
16
17
18
19
20	Land to Population Growth Ratios 1960-1990
21	Geographic Patterns of Michigan’s Land Use Statewide Projection of Land Use based on: Historical Base (1980) Updated 17 County Land Use in 1995 A spatial-temporal simulation model based on Neural Network technology (a model that learns from the past) Base 1980 (where we were (are?)) The Foreseeable future (Year 2020) The Next Generation (Year 2040)
22	17 County Training Set
23
24
25
26
27
28	Results: Future Trends
29
30	Maps of Specific Land Class Change Agricultural Land Use Change Forest Land Use Change Built Land Use Change Specific region of Michigan SE Michigan Western Michigan Traverse City Region
31	Lost Ag. Land (-17%): 1980 - 2040
32	Lost private Forest land (-8%): 1980-2040
33	New Built Area (+178%): 1980-2040
34	Land Use Change from 1980-2040 in Southeast Michigan
35	Southeast Michigan Region 1980
36	Southeast Michigan Region 2040
37	Land Use from 1980-2040 Southwest Michigan
38	Land Use from 1980-2040 Northwest Lower Michigan
39	Economic Impact The map of land use projections used in economic analyses to evaluate the impact on each of these major land-based industries: Agriculture Forestry Mining Tourism Evaluated both the loss of land and the fragmentation of the landscape Related these factors to productivity and economic changes within the targeted industries.
40	General Impacts on All Industries Conflicts between neighbors and industries will likely increase. Distances between support industries and businesses will increase and transportation costs will rise, potentially cutting profits. Most of the assets of the land-based industries are in the land. They will be easily priced out of the area, while development fragments land once dedicated to those activities. Loss of open space that the land-based industries provide for our quality of life, rural landscape, and wildlife habitat.
41	Land Conversion
42	Fragmentation
43	Fragmentation Analysis Understand the methods and meaning of fragmentation Analysis by land use class for each county Analysis countywide Apply the analysis to model projection and examine trend Change in built land fragmentation patterns Change in agricultural fragmentation patterns Change if forest fragmentation patterns
44	Database Development
45	Landscape and Class Variables
46	Countywide Fragmentation Variables
47	Database Query
48	Landscape Classification
49	Landscape Diversity Concept
50	Michigan County Examples
51	County Class Partitioning
52	Analysis of Landscape Classes
53	Simpson Diversity index
54	County Land Use Land Cover Diversity
55	Built Fragmentation
56	Forest Fragmentation
57	Agriculture Fragmentation
58	Economic Impacts: Agriculture Michigan will lose 15% of its farmland by 2040, with about a 25% loss in metropolitan areas. Agricultural diversity will diminish as the land in fruit declines by 25%, dry beans by 36%, potatoes by 16%, and vegetables by 13%; acreage in major field crops will remain about the same. The 40% of farmland in uses such as hay, pasture, woodland and idle, will drop by a third. Production will increase on most crops as rising yields per acre offset falling acreages, if, as assumed, the potential of biotechnology is realized. Dairying will remain viable even with a 25% decline in cow numbers, but all livestock sectors will need to adjust to meet environmental standards.
59	Economic Impacts: Forestry Trees may increase on abandoned land, but net forestland loss will approach 10%, with greatest losses in southern lower Michigan by up to 25%. Forest lands will be increasingly fragmented into smaller, less manageable, and less economically viable blocks. Increased built area will force forest managers to alter management practices, restricting harvest frequencies and adding to production costs. Both wildfire danger to homes and local opposition to forestry and mill operations will likely increase as development moves into rural areas, especially in the northern Lower Peninsula.
60	Economic Impacts: Mining Building and construction costs will rise as transportation of materials, such as sand, gravel, and stone, occurs over longer distances when local deposits are urbanized. Growth in the built area and land fragmentation will change ownership patterns and mineral rights, making future oil and gas exploration and recovery difficult and costly. Growth in the built area is increasingly co-located with existing clay, gypsum and other materials deposits, creating land use conflicts and increased production costs. Accessibility to land for mineral exploration, development, and production is a principle factor that is directly and negatively impacted by urbanization, sprawl, and land fragmentation.
61	Economic Impacts: Tourism & Recreation Built area increases along transportation corridors will reduce the aesthetic appeal and draw of Michigan’s destination resorts and recreation areas. Small changes can have big impacts. Land use change and landscape fragmentation will reduce wildlife corridors and recreational trails. The tendency for land use change adjacent to lakeshores and streams will reduce water quality and habitat and create a decline in inland lake and cold-water fisheries. Land owner conflicts and safety zone requirements will impact and restrict access to recreational uses of huntable lands. Each 30x30 structure creates a 16 acre safety zone around it.
62	How should we react to the study? Groups involved were surprised at the extent of potential change Research Advisory Organizations This study provides a basis for discussion of Michigan’s future Inform the debate The datasets and projections provide excellent resources to do further work E.g. ecological consequences of land conversion University departments need to be proactive regarding future directions Urbanization of the Earth System
63	Land Use Fragmentation
64
65
66	LUCC Research Priorities Workshop Outcomes Understanding fundamental causes and drivers (1^st of 8): How will LUCC evolve over the next 50 years in the face of multiple stresses of global change and economic globalization? Institutional policy contexts and constraints (1^st of 7): What are the policy responses to global and local environmental change that specifically relate to LUCC regulatory and local zoning practices? How have these changed over time? Interactions with climate, ecosystems, atmospheric chemistry and water (1^st of 6): What is the effect of climate change on LUCC change and land productivity? Global Biosphere and Earth System (1^st of 5): How might LUCC alter global carbon and nitrogen budgets in natural and manages systems?
67	We have some copies of the LUCC Research Enterprise Science Plan Others can obtain one at: http://landuse.msu.edu We encourage you to examine it and provide feedback
68	Advisors to the Study Michigan Economic & Environmental Roundtable Members MEER President - James DuBay AFL/CIO – Tim Hughes East Michigan Environmental Action Council – Elizabeth Harris Greater Downtown Partnership, Inc. – Larry Marantette Hanson Cold Storage Company – Jordan Tatter Michigan Environmental Council – Lana Pollack and Conan Smith Michigan Farm Bureau – Al Almy Michigan Municipal League – George Goodman Michigan Retailers Association – Larry Meyer Michigan State University – Gordon Guyer and William Taylor Michigan United Conservation Clubs – Dennis Fox and Jim Goodheart The Dow Chemical Company – Joy Hutchison The Nature Conservancy – Helen Taylor Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce– Hal VanSumeren Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner – Janis Bobrin
69	Other Participants in the Study Advisory Council Crystal Mountain Resort – Chris MacInnes International Paper – Mark Pontti Michigan Chamber of Commerce – Jim Barrett and Kevin Korpi Michigan Farm Bureau – Al Almy Michigan State University – Gordon Guyer and William Taylor Michigan United Conservation Clubs – Dennis Fox and Jim Goodheart The Frey Foundation – John Frey and Milt Rohwer
70	"“The 37 million acres..." “The 37 million acres that are Michigan is all the Michigan we will ever have…” - Michigan Governor William Milliken
71	View and download the report at: www.publicsectorconsultants.com
72	You can make a difference! “I will invest my money in people.” W.K. Kellogg