Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A state-funded land retirement program (Reinvest in Minnesota) was initiated in 1986 to help control soil erosion, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat. These specific objectives and a limited acreage goal suggested the need for an innovative method to classify marginal cropland. Soil productivity (PI) and erosion resistivity (RI) indexes developed from the Soil Conservation Service National Resources Inventory and SOILS-5 data bases are combined in a two-way classification to allow the distinction of four land classes. Non-productive and erosion-prone lands identified by the method are targeted for program enrollment. Local soil conservation officials developed a final list of eligible soil map units based on their knowledge of local soil and topographic conditions. Results to date suggest that this land classification system has been successful because local input is accommodated, eligibility can be changed depending on acreage or budget constraints, and it has the flexibility to complement federal farm policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Larson et al. (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: