1. Land Classification Systems and
Agricultural Land Use Planning
in Hawaii
Mele Chillingworth
Masters Candidate, UH Manoa
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management
Presentation to HIGICC Luncheon
Friday, October 30, 2009

2. Outline • Introduction
• State Agricultural Land
Use District
U Di t i t
• Land Classification
Systems
– LSB
– ALISH
– LESA
• Comparison and
Analysis of Systems

3. Introduction • “Problem Definition of
Problem
Hawaii’s Agricultural
Lands: An Evolutionary
History”
• How a problem is defined
determines how it can be
solved

4. State Land • Problems:
Use La
Law 1) rapid conversion of prime
id i f i
agricultural land to sprawling,
1961 “non-revenue producing”
residential uses;
2) land speculation; and
3) i ff ti county planning
ineffective t l i
offices
• Solution: statewide zoning
power
Land Use District Jurisdiction
Conservation State
Agricultural
g State and Countyy
Rural State and County
Urban County

5. Agricultural District
• “Catch-all” district from the start
Catch all
All Lands in Hawaii
Forest and
Water Built-up Areas All Others
Reserve
Areas
Agricultural
Conservation
Urban District District
District
(48%) (5%) (47%)

9. Land
Classification • 1960s-80s
1960s 80s
Systems • Ag District too large
• Part of broader national
efforts
• LUC boundary change
y g
process
• S i tifi b i f l d use
Scientific basis for land
decisions
• 1978: State to preserve IAL

10. What are
• Are capable of producing
Important sustained high agricultural yields
when treated and managed
Agricultural according to accepted farming
Lands? methods and technology;
• C t ib t t the St t ’ economic
Contribute to th State’s i
base and produce agricultural
commodities for export or local
consumption;
ti
• Are needed to promote the
expansion of agricultural activities
and income for the future, even if
currently not in production.
Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands

11. Lands meeting any of the criteria below shall be given
consideration:
• Land currently used for agricultural production;
• Land with soil qualities and growing conditions that support
agricultural production of food fiber or fuel- and energy-producing
food, fiber, fuel energy producing
crops;
• Land identified under agricultural productivity rating systems,
such as the agricultural lands of importance to the State of
Hawaii (ALISH) system adopted by the Board of Agriculture on
January 28, 1977;
• Land types associated with traditional native Hawaiian agricultural
uses, such as taro cultivation, or unique agricultural crops and uses,
such as coffee, vineyards, aquaculture, and energy production;
h ff i d lt d d ti
• Land with sufficient quantities of water to support viable agricultural
production;
• Land whose designation as important agricultural lands is consistent
with general, development, and community plans of the county;
• Land that contributes to maintaining a critical land mass important to
agricultural operating productivity;
• Land ith
L d with or near support i f t t
t infrastructure conducive t agricultural
d i to i lt l
productivity, such as transportation to markets, water, or power.
Fact Sheet, Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands

12. Three
Major • LSB: Overall Productivity Rating
Rating,
Detailed Land Classification, Land
Study Bureau, UH, 1965-1972
Systems
y
• ALISH: Agricultural Lands of
Importance to the State of Hawaii,
Hawaii
DOA, USDA/SCS, others, 1977
• LESA: Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment System, LESA
Commission, 1983 1986
Commission 1983-1986

13. LSB • Developed concurrent with USDA soil
survey
Overall
Productivity • Soils grouped into land types based on
soil & productive capabilities
Rating, – Soil properties
Detailed Land – Topography
– Climate
Classification, – Other factors such as technology, crop
type
– Excluded lands in urban use
LSB, UH,
1965 1972
1965-1972 • Two sets of productivity ratings:
p y g
– Overall Productivity Rating – “A” very good
to “E” not suitable
– Crop Productivity ratings for pineapple,
sugar, vegetables, forage, grazing,
g , g , g ,g g,
orchard, timber
• Soil types drawn over aerial photos
(variable scale)

14. LSB
Overall
Productivity • Acreage in Agricultural
Rating, District
Detailed Land
Classification,
– LSB A-C statewide:
LSB, UH, 447,250 acres (approximate)
1965 1972
1965-1972
– Percent LSB A-C:
24% of ag district

15. LSB
Overall • Strengths
Productivity – More useful than soil
Rating, survey with respect to
y p
Detailed Land agronomic suitability
Classification, – Land types generally
mapped d
LSB, UH,
1965 1972
1965-1972
• W k
Weaknesses
– Indexed to dominant crops
at the time (primarily sugar
and pineapple) & existing
inputs
p
– Very detailed

16. • National effort (USDA) to
ALISH inventory important farmlands
DOA/USDA, • National criteria applied,
UH/CTAHR adapted by USDA, CTAHR &
1977-78 DOA
• B d range of factors
Broad ff t
considered
– Soils climate moisture supply
Soils, climate, supply,
input use, etc.,
– Production-related factors
generalized

17. • 3 classes of important
agricultural lands
ALISH – Prime
• Soils with the best physical,
chemical,
chemical and climatic properties for
DOA/USDA, mechanized field crops
UH/CTAHR • Urban or built-up lands and water
bodies excluded
1977-78 – Unique
• Land other than prime for unique
high value crops,
high-value crops such as coffee
coffee,
taro, and watercress
– Other important agricultural
lands
• state or local importance for
production but neither prime nor
unique; need irrigation or require
q ; g q
commercial production
management

18. ALISH • Acreage in Agricultural
District
DOA/USDA,
UH/CTAHR – ALISH statewide:
1977-78 • 846,363 acres
(approximate)
– Percent ALISH:
• 43 8% of ag district
43.8%

19. • Strengths
ALISH – Criteria defined, can be
reapplied
– National standard
DOA/USDA, – Prime lands data is GIS-ready
UH/CTAHR – Takes into account local,
1977-78 unique crops: coffee, taro,
watercress
• Weaknesses
– Unique category not well
defined
d fi d
– Maps need updating to reflect
current crop conditions &
p
potential, e.g. papaya in
Kapoho

20. LESA
Land
• 1983 SState LESA C
Commission
i i
Evaluation
(Act 273)
and Site
– Standards & criteria for
Assessment identifying important agricultural
System,
y lands (IAL)
– Inventory of IAL
LESA
Commission, • LESA system
– Numeric scoring system
1983-1986
– Ad t d f
Adapted from USDA system t
– Used to identify lands or
evaluate individual sites

21. LESA
Land • Three components
– Agricultural production goals
Evaluation – Land evaluation (LE)
and Site • Soils, topography, climate
• Combines 5 soil ratings into single
Assessment score
– LCC
System,
y – ALISH
– LSB
– Modified Storie Index
LESA – Soil Potential Index
– Site assessment (SA)
Commission, • Non-physical properties (location,
1983-1986 land use)
• Th
Three categories of factors
t i ff t
– Farm productivity/profitability
– Land use potential/conflicting
uses
– Conformance with government
programs/policies

22. LESA
Land
• Acreage in Agricultural
Evaluation
District
and Site
Assessment
y
System, – LESA IAL statewide:
759,534 acres (approximate)
LESA
–P
Percent LESA IAL
t IAL:
Commission,
39.3% of ag district
1983-1986

23. LESA
• Strengths
Land – Takes into account other land use
policy considerations
Evaluation – Attempts at comprehensiveness with
use of all indices for LE portion
and Site – Most current
Assessment
y
System, • Weaknesses
– Most complicated of systems
– Some of LE indices are outdated,
need to be reconstructed for
LESA current/future crops
– Problems with SA criteria
Commission, • Subjectivity in assigning values and
weights to factors: no two people
1983-1986 would necessarily interpret the same
y p
way – open to manipulation
– Agricultural production goals
• Link to land requirements means that
when ag land is co e ted to non-ag
e a d s converted o ag
use, new land must be found to meet
ag production

24. Amount of land ratedsuitable for agriculture
Amount of land rated
suitable for agriculture
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
Acres
1,000,000
1 000 000
500,000
0
LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land State Agricultural
Intersections District
Agricultural Land Rating System

26. Only 9% of LSB Prime lands are not included in ALISH or LESA
So let s see where all the systems intersect
let’s
to see what lands they all agree could be IAL

27. Intersections

28. Areas of Intersection

29. Divergence

30. Areas of Divergence

36. Kemole
7,000 ft elevation

38. ALISH “Other” lands: state or local importance for
production but neither prime nor unique; need irrigation
or require commercial production management

39. 284,835
284 835 acres
83% (237,057 acres) is “Other”

40. Future fun • Why are the “Other” lands
with in that t
i th t category, not the
t th
others?
ALISH
– Erosion
– Need irrigation
– etc
• Document that in the
data
AGTYPE NOTE NOTE Cause
1 1 Erosion
3 1 2 Drought

41. What s
What’s the point?

42. Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
Acres
1,000,000
1 000 000
500,000
0
LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land State Agricultural
Intersections District
Agricultural Land Rating System

43. State Land Use Districts
Rural
R l Rural
Urban
0.3% Urban 0.3%
5%
5%
Other
35% Agriculture
Conservation Conservation 29% Conservation
Agriculture 48% 48%
66%
47%
IAL
17%
Current Districts LESA Commission Why not?
Recommendations

44. Questions
Q ti
Comments
Discussion
Thank you