1 / 28

SISTEM RATING LAHAN PERTANIAN

SISTEM RATING LAHAN PERTANIAN. Earl Yamamoto, State Department of Agriculture February 5, 2000. Deskripsi : Statewide USDA & UH soil surveys Soil data used by all systems Agricultural suitability as limited by soil & climatic conditions System favors mainland field crop & mechanization

makaio
Download Presentation

SISTEM RATING LAHAN PERTANIAN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SISTEM RATING LAHAN PERTANIAN Earl Yamamoto, State Department of Agriculture February 5, 2000

  2. Deskripsi: Statewide USDA & UH soil surveys Soil data used by all systems Agricultural suitability as limited by soil & climatic conditions System favors mainland field crop & mechanization 8 Classes I-VIII, best to worse Effective cutoff=LCC Class IV Productivity estimated only for limited crops Sugar, pine, pasture, woodland Soils mapped statewide Land Capability Classification - USDA 1972

  3. Land Capability Classification - USDA 1972 Acreage in Agricultural District LCC I, II & III statewide: 381,609 acres (estimate) Percent LCC I, II & III: 20.6% of ag district

  4. Overall Productivity Ratings,Detailed Land ClassificationLSB, UH 1965-1972 Description Developed concurrent with USDA soil survey Soils grouped into land types based on soil & productive capabilities Two sets of productivity ratings: Overall Productivity Rating-“A”, very good to “E”, not suitable Crop Productivity ratings forPine, sugar, vegetables, forage, grazing, orchard, timber Soil types drawn over aerial photos (variable scales)

  5. Description Part of national effort (USDA) to inventory important farmlands National criteria applied, adapted by USDA, CTAHR & DOA Adopted by State Board of Agriculture, 1977 Broad range of factors considered Soils, climate, moisture supply, input use, etc., Production-related factors generalized ALISH : DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78 Advance slide

  6. Description 3 classes ofimportant agricultural lands Prime Soils with best physical, chemical, & climatic properties for mechanized field crops Excludes built-up land/urban, water bodies Unique Land other than prime for unique high-value crops--coffee, taro, watercress, etc. Other important agricultural lands State or local important lands for production, not prime or unique; needing irrigation or requiring commercial production management ALISH : DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78 Advance slide

  7. ALISH : DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78 • Acreage in Agricultural District • ALISH statewide: 846,363 acres (estimate) • Percent ALISH: 45.8% of ag district • Strengths & weaknesses of ALISH • Strengths • Criteria defined, can be reapplied • National standard: being used by USDA & other states, basis for agricultural programs, ag grants & loans, & agricultural policy nationwide • Prime lands data is GIS-ready: surveyed, digitized, maintained by USDA, shared with State GIS • Takes into account local, unique crops: coffee, taro, watercress • Weaknesses • Unique not as well-defined, no clear cut criteria • Maps need updating to reflect urbanization & current crop conditions & potential, e.g., papaya in Kapoho

  8. Description 1983 State Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Commission(Act 273, Session Laws, 1983) Standards & criteria for identifying important agricultural lands Inventory of important agricultural land LESA system Numeric scoring system USDA system to determine impact of federal activity on farmland Used to identify lands or evaluate individual sites LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 • LESA Description • State of Hawaii Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Commission established by Act 273 of 1983 legislative session, to develop standards & criteria for identifying important agricultural lands, inventory of important agricultural lands • LESA system • Background • Numerical land rating system • Adapted from USDA system, initially developed to determine impact of federal activity on farmland • System can be used to identify lands or evaluate individual sites

  9. Description Three components Agricultural production goals Land evaluation (LE) Soils, topography, climate Site assessment (SA) Non-physical properties (location, land use) LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 • Three components • Agricultural production goals • Land evaluation, primarily physical properties (soils, topography, climate) • Site assessment, relative quality of site or area based on non-physical properties like location, land use, to reflect agricultural viability

  10. Description Ag production goalsfor crop acreage requirements Amount of land required to attain ag production objectives Estimates based on current & expected levels of production, population & per capita consumption Typical crops profiled: Sugar, pine, mac nuts, coffee, local dairy, eggs/poultry Crop acreage used to set cutoff score for LESA IAL lands LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 Advance slide

  11. Description Land Evaluation (LE) Combines 5 soil ratings into single score for land capability LCC ALISH LSB Modified Storie Index Soil Potential Index LE score is weighted average LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 Advance slide

  12. Description Site Assessment (SA) Based on USDA LESA manual, selected locational, environmental, operational factors 10 site factors;categories of factors: Farm productivity/profitability Land use potential/conflicting uses Conformance with government programs/policies Soils rated for each criterion, weighted, summed Final LESA rating=(LE rating+SA score) divided by 2 Threshold score for LESA IAL based on projected acreage Mapping & GIS coverage limited LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 Advance slide

  13. LESA: LESA Commission 1983-86 • Acreage in Agricultural District • LESA IAL statewide: 759,534 acres (estimate) • Percent LESA IAL: 41.1% of ag district • Strengths & weaknesses of LESA • Strengths • Takes into account other land use policy considerations • Attempts at comprehensiveness with use of all indices for LE portion • Most current in terms of existing conditions • Weaknesses • Most complicated of systems • Lots of factors, variables • Score & methodology not easy to understand • Can result in multiple scores in large sites • Some of LE indices used are outdated, need to be reconstructed for current/future crops • Problems with SA criteria • Some factors vague, difficult to define • Subjectivity in assigning values & weight to factors: no two people would necessarily interpret same way; open to manipulation • Source data for mapping is of poor quality or not available; has yet to be mapped as required • Tends to bias toward conversion of ag land • Agricultural production goals: • Limited to crop regime at one point in time; poor predictor of future opportunities, too many uncertainties (technological change, change in markets) • Link to land requirements means that when ag land is converted to non-ag use, new land must be found to meet ag production goals • Not GIS-ready: Needs to be redigitized to reflect scores

  14. Common features Soils-based with factors for topography, climate Vary in consideration of other attributes like crop yield Limitations to agricultural productivity considered in some form Mostly physical and climatic limitations All are available on State GIS in some form Pembandingan Sistem-sistem • Common features • (For most part) Soils- or agronomy-based, soils data (soils, topography, climate), vary in degree to which other attributes like crop yield are considered • All incorporate limitations to agricultural productivity in some form, but mostly physical and climatic limitations • All are resident in some form on State GIS

  15. Perbedaan yang utama: Soils-based systems exclude other factors related to ag profitability Determination of ag land requirements LESA system unique in its use of agricultural production goals Other systems do not predetermine land requirements Incorporation of land use policy considerations LESA includes policy criteria Land use policy dealt with in other systems only by the exclusion of urbanized, built-up, subdivided land Pembandingan Sistem-sistem • Major differences • LE-only systems omit other factors related to ag profitability, like distance to markets, farm size, etc. • Determination of ag land requirements • LESA system unique in its use of agricultural production goals to determine land requirements • Other systems do not predetermine land requirements; acreage limited only by lack of suitability for crop use • Incorporation of land use policy considerations • Major component of LESA is factoring in policy criteria • Land use factored in other systems only by the exclusion of urbanized, built-up, subdivided land

  16. Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture LEAST LCC 21% of ag district LSB 24% LESA 41% ALISH 46% MOST Pembandingan Sistem-sistem

  17. Evaluation criteria(based on CTAHR, 1990) Ease of use Low cost, clear explanations, factors well-defined Objectivity Measurable factors with quantifiable data Consistency Scores would be same across individuals, clear definitions, interpretations consistent, no incentive for score manipulation Adaptability Can be readily updated to reflect change GIS-readiness Pembandingan Sistem-sistem Advance slide

  18. Ease of Use Easiest LCCStraightforward use of soils data ALISH LSBCrop indices & inputs would need to be reassessed; more cost to State Difficult LESAMost complex, scoring system is opaque, mapping problems; most costly to define & use Pembandingan Sistem-sistem Advance slide

  19. Pembandingan Sistem-sistem • Objectivity • Most objective • LCC • LSBCriteria clear/quantifiable for both • Less objective • ALISHNo standardized way to define “unique” • Least • LESAFactors not clear, difficult to quantify & map • Objectivity • Most objective: LCC & LSB criteria clear/quantifiable • Less objective: ALISH because criteria for “unique” not clear • Least objective: LESA, factors not clear, difficult to quantify or map

  20. Pembandingan Sistem-sistem • Consistency • Most consistent • LCC • LSBProperties, criteria clear • Less so • ALISHBoth “unique” & “other” introduce variability • Least • LESAVariability in interpreting, assigning values/weights to factors • Consistency • Most: LCC, LSB • Less consistent: ALISH • Least: LESA, variability in interpreting, assigning values to factors

  21. Pembandingan Sistem-sistem • Adaptability • Most adaptable • ALISH Criteria can be reapplied, accommodates unique crops • Less so • LCCCriteria constant, least sensitive to local crop potential • LSBDated, system indexed to sugar & pine & farm practices at time • Least • LESAComponents outdated; indexed to sugar & pine; productivity goals rigid; most difficult to update • Adaptability • Most: ALISH, criteria relatively constant, easy to reapply, allows for consideration of crops unique to Hawaii & diversified ag on less productive lands • Less: • LCC, does not account for unique local conditions, crops, improvements in ag management/inputs, otherwise, criteria fairly constant, can be reapplied • LSB, needs considerable reworking to update indicator crops for productivity • Least: LESA, lots of factors requiring update, remapping; some LE factors old, need to be reconstructed; productivity goals not flexible; keeping system current potentially involves reevaluating all factor scores for all soil mapping units statewide (time- & labor- intensive)

  22. PembandinganSistem-sistem • GIS-readiness • Most GIS-ready • LCCUSDA NRCS maintains GIS soils data, source of State GIS data • ALISHOn State GIS, USDA soils data for update available • Less so • LSBOn State GIS, data old • Least GIS-ready • LESAData on State GIS of questionable value/need to redigitize; problems encountered in mapping factors Advance slide

  23. Example of how one factor--irrigation--changes ratings ... withoutirrigation ... goodag lands WITH irrigation

  24. Two views of Lanai pineapple under different rating systems--LSB “D” vs. ALISH “Unique” ALISH LSB “C” “Unique” “D” Advance slide

  25. LSB • Two views of Hanalei Valley taro under different rating systems--LSB “E” vs. ALISH “Unique” ALISH “unique” Advance slide

  26. 3. All need to be updated to reflect present conditions--some more than others 4. In general, system is more robust if: Emphasis is on resource suitability System criteria are well-defined • Summary • 1. Each of the systems has limitations in application--none ideal • 2. Ratings change with change in conditions or opportunities

  27. In considering a system... Purpose of ratings:identify resource,system will be soils-based Factors of land use policy more appropriate for public decision making process,creates problems if built into rating system Must weigh value of additional time/money spent on development & maintenance of system

  28. Credits Department of Agriculture James Nakatani, Director Earl Yamamoto State Office of Planning, DBEDT David Blane, Director Ruby Edwards Chris Chung Dennis Kim, State GIS Program

More Related