<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />(-~ ")
<br />
<br />N
<br />~
<br />(')
<br />~
<br />
<br />cvcr, King not~d increased coliform cou\s
<br />in lake water adjaCt'.nt to campgrounds l'n
<br />the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (3), and
<br />w.~ we observ(>d that sOme pit to' that
<br />i:{ same area w:re i~G re-
<br />~ard to ~~~~~f;:Ll le. ' a
<br />care I \. ~l( p~' t~ilet schc lC
<br />haph", placing OhCIV"\iil%'?l by a c
<br />campi )a~ tD ~:i;~st'4ohlCt1mes re n
<br />"ater I ItlOn. . i' R
<br />The ( tl . t I' fI.\l)\'J'iJIJ', ~~ers
<br />feel's ha 1 es,oQ\! l'li'fllill>\s a ladous.
<br />It shonld J}(tt).l'.\b~ asis for recommenda~
<br />tions 011 wa\te disposal. Burial at ~Ilfficient
<br />e1t'ptl) or far enough pw~)' from campsites
<br />to p~\'(~nt direct contnet with feces by sllb~
<br />s('qll~:tll campers is Il('edcd to prevent the
<br />spread of disease, From a Sierra Club
<br />swd)' on feces disposal in wilderness (6), it
<br />is ohdollS that modification of camper be-
<br />havior is needed to accomplish this goal.
<br />Thl' altenwtive is acceptance of a .~Illall but
<br />re<11 health haz<ll"d or a reduction in rHUH-
<br />/)('(.s of visitors at heavily lIsed campsite.s,
<br />Pre~cnt recommel~dati()ns-onc bro-
<br />chure .stales that biological disposers will
<br />take care of wastes "in a few days"~.are
<br />partly responsible for inadequate attention
<br />to this problem by campers. An educa-
<br />tional program Illay have positive results.
<br />Di.~tance from the campsite and from
<br />watPl' drainage COllr.ms; the dispersal of
<br />cal~holl\S; alld cllrcfllt complete burial
<br />should he emphasized. The location of
<br />carnp.siles aud tlwir IIS(' level should reneet
<br />these rcqllirt~lllcllts.
<br />The use of latrines is' a separate subjt.'Ct
<br />with its own problems (1, 4), including in~
<br />cre<l!i{'d ('hanel' of insect transmission and
<br />water pollution. A regularly used latrine
<br />will havc a contilllUlI population of bac-
<br />teria and viruses. Latrines rnight be consid-
<br />('fed for locations with concentrated use,
<br />especially by large grOl~ps. In wilderness
<br />areas, the appropriateness of such concen-
<br />trated use seems questionable in any casc,
<br />
<br />HEi'EHENCES CITED
<br />I. lIelldt't" Johll C., George H. Stankey, and
<br />Hobprl C. I.ucas. HJ7R. Wildl'I"1l('.~," lIulIlagc-
<br />II/i'IIt. Mist'. Pub!. No. 1365. Forest Service,
<br />1l.S. Dt'pl. Al-!:l".. Wa~hington. D.C.
<br />2. Ilughc.\. E. C. WHO. TIle ('olllposfillj!. oj
<br />mlmid/la! ll'(/.~/('S. In M.\..v.M. Bcwick [ed.l
<br />!/ll/I(!lJ/wk of Orgallir' Wash' COm'l'rsiOlI.
<br />Vail No.\trul1d Hcillhold Co., New York,
<br />N.Y.
<br />J, Kinj.!;. John. 1071. The effect.I' oj I"eCl"('(l!iOll(J!
<br />1/.\'(' {/II wal('/' I/IW{ily ill tl/(, ddJlify oj ('(11111'-
<br />.~it('.\' ill/he' ho/mdm!l wllll'fs cmllll' OTl'Q. M.S.
<br />tlll'sh. Unh. Minn., St. IJauL
<br />4. Lt'OJHlrd. H. E.. and II. J. Plllmley. W7D.
<br />flll/lIllII IN/.\.ft' dispo,wl! ill 1'(I.\'lerr/ b(Jck(,o/lll~
<br />flY, J. Forestry: 349.:3fj2,
<br />5. SiI\'t'n\l<lll, C., and D. C. -Erman, 1mU, Ai.
<br />flilll' /lIk('s ill Kings Canyo1/ ,"',ratiolla! Park,
<br />(:alifomia: Ha,\'('Ii"e ('(}/ulitio/ls (//l(1 l'o.",I'ibh'
<br />1j('~!..\' of ri.\'ilor /lS('. J. Environ. i\Jllllagt'. S:
<br />,;) H"
<br />Ii, Stallky. J. T.. II. T. lIarwy. ,me! H. 1.
<br />
<br />_.
<br />
<br />.I:!::i!."l~'~
<br />
<br />--
<br />
<br />"'
<br />
<br />Hartesveldt. 1979. Wilderness impact study.
<br />Consolidated Publications, Inc. Palo Alto,
<br />Calif.
<br />7. Swalley, B. R. 1980. The use oj sewage
<br />slud[{e as a Jertilizer. In M.W,M, Bewick
<br />[ed.J llandbook of Organic Wa..te Conver-
<br />sjoll. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co" New
<br />York, N. Y.
<br />8. Temple, Kenneth L., Anne K. Camper, and
<br />
<br />Gordon A. McFeters. 1980, Survival of two
<br />enterobacteria in Jeces buried ill soil under
<br />field conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbial.
<br />40, 794.797.
<br />9, Wellings, Flora Mae, Arthur L.:-Lewis, and
<br />Carrol W, Mountain. 1977. Survival oj virm-
<br />es in soiluTlder natural conditions. In Frank
<br />M, D'Itri [cd.} Wastewater RenovatioTl and
<br />Reuse, Marcel Dekker. New York, N.Y. 0
<br />
<br />
<br />~valuating a.gric~lt,,!ral land
<br />use change In illinOIS
<br />
<br />Falke Dovring, David L. Chicoine, and John B. Braden
<br />
<br />ABSTRACT: The National AgriCllltural Land, Study (NALS) was tested for lIIinow on
<br />the basis of a critique of Census oj Agriculture 'data and statistics compiled by the North-
<br />eastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), Census data were tested with the aid of
<br />rertangular coordinates from the Illinois State Geological Survey ami other sources, An-
<br />alysir; of the Census data showed that those from the mail cenSllSC'<" (1969, 1974, and 1978)
<br />had exaggerated the extnlt oj land in farms. This overcmmt was especially sfrikir/g in the
<br />1.978 Census (1.5 million acres), jorcing the ('onr/usion that farmland had declined much
<br />more than Census data would indicate. NIPC' data for the six couTlties in the Chicago
<br />metropolitan area showed rapid conversion to urban land use (45 percent in the 11 years
<br />jrom 1964 to 1975). This classical case oj urban decentralization was accompanied by
<br />very slow population growth but (I rapid rise in per capita real income, pointing to rising
<br />afflllcnce as the drivillgjorce inland conversion, As a conclu'lion, the NALS estimates for
<br />rates of lewd conversion from agricultural to urban lises were upheld for Illinois,
<br />
<br />THE National Agricultural Lands Study
<br />(NALS) was undcrtaken in 1979 to
<br />dctermine how much farmland in the
<br />United Stutes was being converted to non-
<br />farm uses and to identify means of rcdllc~
<br />ing such conversion (13). Many critics of
<br />NALS have expressed skepticism about the
<br />land use data used in the study (7, 11. 17.
<br />19). Their contention is that the NALS
<br />data overstate the rate of urbanization,
<br />thus making farmland conversion appear
<br />more rapid than it actually has been (7),
<br />We studied land use measurement data
<br />in Illinois in an effort to confirm or refute
<br />the NALS findings. We also examined land
<br />use trends in the Chicago metropolitan
<br />area to determine the causes of conversion
<br />prcssures, Both aspects of our study per~
<br />mitted us- to make several interesting con*
<br />elusions about farmland conversion data
<br />and trends in Illinois, one of the nation's
<br />most important agricultural states.
<br />
<br />Farmland conversion in Illinois
<br />
<br />Underlying aggregate land use statistics
<br />are problems of data definition and mea.
<br />
<br />Folk!' J)ovring is a proje.\wor and David L
<br />Chicojrlc and John B. Braden are assistant pro-
<br />fes,~'on'. Department oj Agricultural EnHlomics,
<br />Univ('T.\.ityof 1l1inoL... Urbana. 61801. ThL\'stlldy
<br />was a part oj projects 30-/,5-05-3.'11. 332, and
<br />3:)6 oj th(' Agrh'ltltural E.tpcriment Stafjo/!. Col-
<br />h>gc of Agriculture. Urliversity of lJIilloL...
<br />
<br />surement. Categorizing land use can create
<br />inconsistencies, for example, in distin-
<br />guishing between fore<it and pasture. Mea~
<br />surernent distortions can influence assess.
<br />meots of the magnitude orland conversion
<br />as well as trends in land use.
<br />Farmland conversion in Illinois is of spe-
<br />cial interest because the state has some of
<br />the best farmland in the United States,
<br />Equally significant is the fact that conver-
<br />sion in 'Illinois has taken place against a
<br />backdrop of low rates in population
<br />growth, For decades, population growth
<br />in Illinois has been slower than in most
<br />other Midwest states. During the last
<br />decade, the state's rate of population
<br />growth, 2.8 percent (about 0,28 percent
<br />compounded annually), was among the
<br />slowest in the country (26). Between 1970
<br />and 1980, net migration from Illinois
<br />amounted to 375,000 people. Yetfarmiand
<br />conversion appears to have accelerated
<br />during that time.
<br />NALS listed an average of 106.000 rural
<br />acres in Illinois as land converted to urban,
<br />built~up, transportation, or water-related
<br />uscs annually between 1967 and 1977 (12).
<br />This conclusion was based upon a compar~
<br />ison of 1967 and 1977 inventories of rural
<br />land by the Soil Conservation Service (23,
<br />24). In contrast, the 197H Census of Agri.
<br />culture indicated an amount of Illinois
<br />farmland that was virtually the same as in
<br />
<br />November.December 1982 359
<br />
|