Bulletin - Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (Volume no.379-398) online

the desire for more and better job opportunities on the part of these youths will
almost certainly be affected if the desire for more vocational training is satisfied.
Moreover, these young people have shown that they want their social organiza-
tions to fit in more closely with their struggle to achieve recognition in society.

This brings out at least one further consideration. In getting jobs, the young
people showed that they have had to be largely self-reliant. Why not let them
pool their self-reliance? A young people's community placement bureau, even
though difficult to set up, would have the advantage of striking at several basic
problems. It would provide the needed placement service, and would also enable
the youths to demonstrate their own importance. In finding a place for boys
and girls in our society, methods should be used which will afford them the best
opportunities to work out their own destinies.

Publication of this Document Approved by Commission on Administration and Finance
4M-1-42-8278



Massachusetts
agricultural experiment station

Bulletin No. 387 December, 1941



Interrelationship of

Land Uses

in Rural Massachusetts

By David Rozman



The extent and signifcance of the various land uses and their relationship to
each other are analyzed with a view to providing a basis for a balanced system
of land utilization.



MASSACHUSETTS STATE COLLEGE
AMHERST, MASS.



INTERRELATIONSHIP OF LAND USES
IN RURAL MASSACHUSETTS

By David Rozman,i Research Professor in Economics



CONTENTS



Page

Introduction 2

Sources of information 3

Trend of land utilization in Mass S

Land in farms 5

Improved land 5

Land suitability 8

Factors affecting agricultural land utiliza-
tion 12

Climate 13

Erosion and deterioration of soil 13

Non-resident ownership of land 15

Disappearance of local industries 15

Land values 16

Value of buildings 18

Farm taxation 20

Residential land uses 21

Part-time farming 24

Recreational land uses 25

Water supply areas 27



Page

Airports and flying fields 27

Military camps and areas for defense

activities 27

Highways 27

Woodland 27

The industrial factor 29

Town groupings on the basis of major fac-
tors in land utilization 30

Land suitability 31

Proportion of improved land 34

Density of cows and poultry 34

Proportion of total area in woodland ... 35

Density of population 35

Industrial employment 36

Land values 37

Types of communities and the problems
arising from their patterns of land

utilization 42

Summary and conclusions 48



INTRODUCTION



Until very recently, studies in land utilization with their conclusions and rec-
ommendations were often of only remote or academic significance as far as bring-
ing about any changes was concerned. The most eflfective legislative measures
were undertaken in the field of conservation where, through public purchase or
governmental regulation, it was possible to provide for better care of certain rural
land areas. As for the bulk of agricultural land resources, the matter was left
primarily to various educational measures where action was very slow and in
most cases rather uncertain.

This condition has been radically changed with legislative recognition of various
action agencies dealing with the most important phases of agricultural activities
in rural areas. The range of situations affected by the newly created or existing
agencies, considerably reinforced, extends from the conservation and improve-
ment of soil to the whole range of human relationships involving ownership,
tenancy, land settlement, and other similar factors affecting the life of individuals
and the character of the community. Moreover, with the organization of agri-
cultural land-use planning committees on a town, couuty and state basis, the
whole matter of land-use relationships has been put on a realistic basis with the
possibility of effecting needed readjustments in cooperation with governmental
action agencies. Under these conditions a greater opportunity is offered to the
research worker to make immediate and direct application of the results of his
study.

In the light of existing opportunities in the field of land utilization, it seems that
two lines of research are of special significance. One is concerned with the clear
presentation of the important factors entering into the picture of land uiilization^



*The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution made by Ruth E. Sherburne and Gilbert
Simpson of the Massachusetts State College in the work of classifying land areas as presented in
this study.



LAND USES 3

dealing largely with topography, climate, the classification and preponderance of
different types of soil, the character of land use, and the type of settlement in
rural areas. The other concerns the fundamental relationships between agri-
cultural and other uses of land, which are of special importance in the rural areas
of an industrialized state like Massachusetts.

The physical conditions of land resources, with diversity of soils, topography,
and climate, and the proximity to densely populated areas have combined to
form a complicated pattern of land utilization in rural areas of Massachusetts.
Agricultural land uses, moreover, are determined in many cases by the type and
character of other kinds of land utilization which have come into prominence
over a period of time. To determine the present condition of agricultural land
use in the State it is important, therefore, not only to indicate various factors
directly related to farming, but to analyze the elements of interdependence
existing among a number of land uses.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In preparation of this bulletin, field studies were made in conjunction with
an analysis of existing basic data pertaining to land utilization. Beginning with
the Census of 1925 statistics on important agricultural matters became available
by minor civil divisions. This gave an opportunity to gain a clearer insight into
the agricultural situation by the analysis of individual rural commimities. For
an exhaustive study of land utilization in a locality it is, however, essential to
have more than these general data. The basic problem is to know how different
land uses are distributed in the community and where they are located. This
involves detailed mapping of agricultural and other important land uses in rural
areas. Such mapping was accomplished through the organization of and partici-
pation in a land-use survey sponsored by the State Planning Board and carried
out by WPA workers throughout the entire area of the Commonwealth.^ (Boston
area and the Islands excluded.) The most important contribution of this survey
lies in the fact that for individual communities and the State as a whole the use
of land areas, mapped out on the scale of two inches to the mile, became definite
as to the location of crop land, plowable and unimproved pasture, woodland, and
settled and water areas. On a separate map of the same scale is indicated the
location of farms as well as of other buildings in rural areas, including schools,
churches, hospitals, stores, and other public and private structures.

Another important source of information was the soil survey made by the
United States Soil Service over a period of years. In view of the diversity of
soil types with their exceedingly scattered distribution in various areas it has been
difficult to form a clear picture of their relative significance as presented by the
extensive classification cf the United States Soil Survey. In the present study
all the soil types were divided into seven major groups largely on the basis of
their texture and topography. By way of further simplification these groups
were subdivided into areas of good, medium, or poor suitability for agricultural
purposes. (Table 1) While for the purposes of agronomy and farm management
such simplification may not be recognized as of sufficient accuracy or detail,
from the standpoint of determining broad land-use relationships it appears to be
of definite value and of sufficient scientific accuracy. On this basis the major
types of land were mapped out for each town in the State.



-By sponsoring and carrying out this survey, the Massachusetts State Planning Board, under the
chairmanship of Miss Elisabeth M. Herlihy, provided a real working basis for effective planning in
rural areas of the State.



4 MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387

Table 1. — Percentage of Land in Three Major
Groups Classified on the Basis of Soil and
Topography, by Counties

; Suitability for Agriculture

County

Good Medium Poor

Barnstable 1.8 29.2 62.8

Berkshire 23.0 27.0 46.0

Bristol 34.0 12.0 44.0

Essex 26.7 22.4 37.1

Franklin 21.3 33.7 40.8

Hampden 24.2 24.2 42.2

Hampshire 27.6 23.1 43.8

Middlesex. 21.6 33.3 28.7

Norfolk 29.1 14.0 42.5

Plymouth 20.8 11.0 57.7

Worcester 30.0 32.7 28.7

As a part of the classification essential for the background of land utilization
analysis, two other maps were worked out: one indicating topography by means
of contours adapted from the United States Topographical Survey, and the other
showing in detail the location of roads and waterways in the individual towns.
With all this detailed information available in a series of five maps for each com-
munity, and with all factors presented on the same scale, it has become possible
to study the fundamental land-use relationships in a most comprehensive and
definite form. These basic data have been further tested and analyzed in local
land-use planning committees and field studies in individual communities.




Chart I. Land Utilization in Massachusetts
Based on Land Use Survey of 1936-38 and U. S. Census, 1940



LAND USES 5

TREND OF LAND UTILIZATION IN MASSACHUSETTS

The first factor that comes to the attention in a land utilization study in Massa-
chusetts is the general trend in the amount of land used for agricultural purposes.

Land in Farms

In 1880, when agricultural land utilization was still high, about two-thirds of
the total area of the State was included in farming, as compared with the present
farming area of only 38 percent. This means that more than 1,400,000 acres of
land, representing almost 26 percent of the total area of the Commonwealth,
went out of agricultural use. In 1880 the highest proportion of land included in
farms was found in Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire counties, each having
about 80 percent of its total area in farming. (Table 2) At the present time
Hampshire and Franklin counties maintain their lead, but the proportion of land
in this classification amounts to about 50 percent only. The smallest proportion
of land in farming in 1880 was in Barnstable County, which retains the same
position at the present time, but the percentage now is only 13.9 as compared
with 29.5 in 1880.

Improved Land

The changes in total land area included in farms present only a partial picture
of the situation. Of much more significance is the trend in improved land which
is actually being utilized for agricultural purposes. In this direction the decline
has been much more pronounced. From 2,128,311 acres or 41.4 per cent of the
total area of the Commonwealth, it has declined to 787,815 acres or 15.5 percent.




Chart II. Land Classification in Relation to Suitability for Agricultural Utilization



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387




SETTLED -^

BARNSTABLE



B ERK5HIRE





BRISTOL



ESSEX




FRANKLIN



HAMPDEN



Chart III. Land Utilization in Massacliuseits by Counties
Based on Land Use Survey of 1936-38 and U. S. Census, 1940



LAND USES




SWAMPS

AMD WASTE

©.3 "7.




HAMPSHIRE



MlDOLELSEl X




A.Z'f,



Z-ff^




NORFOLK



PLYMOUTH




I Swamps

AND WASTE



WORCESTER



Chart III. Land Utilization in Massachusetts by Counties
Based on Land Use Survey of 1936-38 and U. S. Census, 1940



8 MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387

Table 2. — Percentage of Total Area Suitable for Agriculture, in
Farms, and in Improved Land

Percent of Percent of Total Percent of Total

Land Suit- Area in Farms Area Improved

able for



County Agriculture 1880 1940 18S0 1940

Barnstable 31.0 29.5 13.9 12.7 5.0

Berkshire 50.0 79.2 38.2 51.9 16.2

Bristol 46.0 50.6 41.5 26.4 19.0

Essex 49.1 56.9 35.6 39.9 17.2

Franklin 55.0 79.2 49.2 52.0 16.5

Hampden 48.4 74.1 43.7 45.4 14.6

Hampshire 50.7 80.5 51.4 54.8 22.3

Middlesex . 54.9 72.3 34.2 49.1 16.1

Norfolk 43.1 45.6 20.8 27.0 8.6

Plymouth 31.8 44.1 38.0 19.4 12.0

Worcester 62.7 70.9 42.1 47.1 17.7

The greatest decline in the proportion of improved land occurred in Berkshire

County, the percentages for 1880 and 1940 being 51.9 percent and 16.2 percent
respectively. At present the highest percentage of improved land, 22.3, is found
in Hampshire County; the lowest, 5.0, in Barnstable County.



Land Suitability

The decline in the amount of total and improved land in farming raised the
question whether the land withdrawn from agriculture was of a type that was
not suitable for cultivation, because of the nature of the soil or topography. ^By
analyzing the tj'pes of soil and the character of the topography from the general
data presented in the United States Soil and Topographical Surveys, it was pos-
sible to work out a general classification of suitability of land for agricultural
purposes for every community of the State and map these areas in considerable
detail. In this way the percentages of land areas suitable for agriculture were
obtained for each county. By examining Table 2 it will be observed that these
percentages are in most cases in close correspondence with the amount of land
actually used for agricultural purposes in 1880. This confirmation may serve as
substantial evidence that the method of land classification employed is fairly
accurate and may be used as a starting point for the analysis with a fair degree
of reliability.

Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, and Middlesex counties had reached
the point of utilizing practically all the land suitable for agricultural development.
As a matter of fact, in Berkshire and Hampshire counties the percentage of
improved land was slightly higher than that indicated as suitable for agriculture.
This may be partly accounted for by the fact that some of the good land areas
have been utilized for residential or industrial purposes since that time. In
contrast with other counties, a rather low degree of land utilization for agricul-
tural purposes existed in 1880 in Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable
counties. Evidently residential and recreational influences due to their location
and proximity to the Boston settled areas were already exerting their power. It
must be stated also that land classification in these counties does not come up to
the same level of reliability as in the other counties. These were the first areas
where the United States Soil Survey was made in Massachusetts and the types of
soils were not always correctly designated.



LAND USES 9

Considering the State as a whole, about 50 percent of the total land area,
according to the adopted classification, is designated as suitable for agriculture.
The actual use of land for this purpose does not amount at the present time to
more than 15 percent. For the purposes of detailed study in individual com-
munities the major tjpes of land have been mapped by towns. The percentages
of land suitability by individual towns are presented in Table 3.



Table 3. — Percentage of Land Suitability by Towns



Town or
Citv



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good



Me-
dium



Set-
tled Water
Poor Areas



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good



Me-
dium



Set-
tled Water
Poor Areas



Barnstable.. 1.4

Bourne 0.0

Brewster 0.0

Chatham. . . 1.4

Dennis 6.2

Eastham ... 1.5

Falmouth... 0.0

Harwich. ... 7.9

Mashpee ... 1 .3

Orleans 5.1

Provincetown 1 . 4

Sandwich ... 2.8

Truro 0.0

Wellfleet.... 0.0

Yarmouth. . 2.0



Barnstable County



40.2

14.8

31.4

2.0

48.1

44.5
49.5
2.6
18.5
10.1

0.0

43.3
1.4
4.4

53.6



52.0
80.9
57.4
90.7
37.7

51.3
46.1
77.2
71.6
81.9

90.8
49.8
93.6
92.8

35.8



Berkshire County

Adams 11.8 27.7 57.5

Alford 33.3 30.9 35.8

Becket 14.2 15.7 67.1

Cheshire... . 21.4 32.3 43.4

Clarksburg .11.5 28.7 56.2

Dalton 17.6 28.7 50.3

Egremont . . 43.0 22.4 32.1

Florida 7.4 32.1 59.7

Great Bar-

rington... 19.0 27.5 46.5

Hancock ... 15.7 13.8 70.3

Hinsdale ... 21.9 40.8 33.4

borough. .37.1 22.0 37.6

Lee 28.8 11.0 53.4



42.0
28.1



Lenox. . .
Monterey
Mount
Washington 0.0
New Ashford 7 . 6



New Marl-
borough. . 27.6
North Adams 16.5

Otis 7.8

Peru 4.0



Pittsfield . . .
Richmond .
Sandisfield . .

Savoy

Sheffield

Stockbridge .



47.5
50.0
11.8
8.2
48.1
32.9



22.6
26.8



17.8
18.4



36.7
16.9
37.9
47.5

16.2
25.8
30.3
39.6
23.8
29.2



31.1
41.9



81.7
74.0



35.1
51.7
48.5
48.3

14.0

22.5
56.2
51.9
24.2
27.8



2.3
3.0

.8

3.2
2.3

.3
1.8
5.7

.5
1.2

3.2
1.8



2.9
0.0
.7
1.0
3.0

3.2

1.7

.1



.1
1.6



1.3
4.6



3.8

.7



0.0
0.0



.2

14.4

.2

0.0

18.2
1.1
.8
0.0
2.1
6.5



4.1

1.3

10.4

2.7
5.7

2.4
2.6
6.6
8.1
1.7

4.6
2.3
4.2
1.7
5.5



The County 1.8 29.2 62.8 2.1 4.1



.1
0.0
2.3
1.9

.6



.1

2.3



2.0

2.2



.5
2.5



.5
CO



.4

.5

5.6

.2

4.1

.6

.9

.3

1.8

3.6



Berkshire County — Cent.

Tyringham . 8.7 29.5 58.4 2.3 1.1

Washington. 14.2 23.8 60.5 0.0 1.5

West Stock-
bridge 33.7 16.5 44.3 4.0 1.5

Williams-
town 39.2 22.8 36.2 1.5 .3

Windsor 14.7 44.8 40.1 0.0 .4

The County 23.0 27.0 46.0 2.6 1.4



Bristol County



Acushnet. . . 42.8

Attleborough 27.6

Berkley 19.3

Dartmouth . 40.9

Dighton. ... 6.0

Easton 47.6

Fairhaven . . 43.5

Fall River. . 27.2

Freetown ... 46 . 1

Mansfield... 35.0

New Bedford 21.7
North Attle-
borough . . 43 . 7

Norton 38.3

Raynham ... 43 . 7



8.1
6.9

36.1
6.4

39.9

2.4
0.0
0.0
7.7
12.0



40.2
53.3
39.2
47.0
49.9

46.5
32.7
35.0
39.4
48.4



4.6

11.3

.3

4.2
1.8

2.1

21.8

24.2

2.3

3.5



5.9 43.7
8.0 46.5
4.9 47.5



4.6
2.1
1.8



Rehoboth..
Seekonk . . .
Somerset . .
Swansea . . .
Taunton. . .
Westport. .



8.0
31.6
24.4
15.8
26.9
62.2



27.8
5.6
28.4
19.9
27.3
2.3



63.3
58.3
23.1
58.7
31.5
30.7



Essex County



Amesbury . . 38.6

Andover 27.2

Beverly 32.8

Boxford .... 25.8

Danvers. ... 43.6

Essex 16.9

Georgetown. 18.8

Gloucester. . .5

Groveland . . 35 . 1

Hamilton. . . 34.6

Haverhill ... 58 . 1

Ipswich 17.6

Lawrence. . . 14.8

Lynn 3.0

Lynnfield ... 19.1



35.0
39.7
7.0
53.6
13.7

6.4

47.8

.8

28.2

24.2

11.2

26.5

7.9

1,2

39.3



8.6
22.7
44.6
16.2

23.2

72.0
28.9
89.5
28.2
35.9

8.1
49.3

2.2
38.2
29.6



9.4
7.6

14.2
2.0

18.1

3.3
3.2
8.2
3.5
3.1

15.0

6.2

68.2

51.0

9.5



4.3

.9

5.1

1.5

2.4

1.4
2.0
13.6
4.5
1.1



1.5 42.1 30.5 4.2



2.1
5.1
2.1

.4
.3
16.3
3.0
2.7
4.0



The County 34.0 12.0 44.0 6.5 3.5



8.4
2.8
1.4
2.4
1.4

1.4
1.3
1.0
5.0

2.2

7.6
.4
6.9
6.6
2.5



10



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 387



Table 3. — Percentage of Land Suitability by Towns— continued



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good Me-
dium



Set-
tled



Poor Areas



Water



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture Set-

tled Water



Good Me-
dium



Poor Areas



Essex County — Cont.



Manchester. 6.3
Marblehead. 10.6
Merrimac. .
Methuen . .
Middleton.



68.5
47.5
15.2



Nahant 5.0

Newbury. . . 12.0

Newburyport 5 . 2
North

Andover. . 42.1

Peabody 28.2

Rockport... 4.2

Rowley 10.2

Salem 3.2

Salisbury ... 6.3

Saugus 12 .3

Swampscott 5.5

Topsfield. . . 37.2

Wenham ... 39.9
West

Newbury 61.2



8.2

3.8

13.2

29.7

38.8

0.0

5.8

31.7



63.5
34.0
8.8
12.8
37,5

21.9
79.3
38.8



22.0

51.1

5.5

7.2
7.2

71.5

1.4

17.5



28.8 21.0 3.8



26.8
2.7

31.6
1.7

37.8

1.9

.3

31.8

13.5



34.3
82.4
57.8
60.0
47.4

44.9
17.5
28.7
37.0



8.6

9.9

.3

32.8

6.1

32.2

76.1

1.9

4.1



Franklin County



Ashfield 35.9

Bernardston 21.5

Buckland... 10.7

Charlemont. 20.7

Colrain 15.3

Conway. ... 15 .9

Deerfield... 47.7

Erving 8.2

Gill 50.4

Greenfield .. 58.9

Hawley 24.4

Heath 44.4

Leverett 11.2

Leyden 34.4

Monroe 10.2



Montague . .
New Salem ,
Northfield ,

Orange

Rowe



Shelburne . . .
Shutesbury ,
Sunderland .

Warwick

Wendell...,
Whately



17.5
7.8

15.5
4.9

32.2

20.8
3.5

28.6
5.9
5.6

46.5



28.2
59.3
43.6
29.4
47.0

43.9
22.9
13.5
34.5
15.5

16.6
29.5

48.5
36.7
38.3

36.2
11.2
16.7
38.9
11.9

36.4
66.1
35.2
42.2
53.4
36.5



35.4
18.2
44.3
47.7
37.0

39.4
23.4
76.2
8.9
11.8

58.7
25.9
39.9

27.8
50.8

38.6
60.3
63.3
49.2
54.7

40.9
29.1
33.1
50.3
40.1
15.2



.6

3.0

.7

.2

12.1

.2
.1
.3
.4
.3

4.5

.1

1.5

4.8

.1



Hampden County



Agawam 59.3

Blandford .. 19.4
Brirnfield. . . 18.0

Chester 16.2

Chicopee ... 16.7
East Long-
meadow . . 65 . 7



17.1
24.0
41.5
19.7
44.7



13.0
52.6
39.7
62.6
8.7



6.6

.5

.4

.6

25.2



0.0

.5
4.0
2.8
1.3

1.6
1.5
6.8

4.3

2.1

.8

.1

2.3

2.4

8.7
.6
.4

5.5



9.7 22.1 1.8 5.2



The County 26 . 7 22.4 37.1 10.8 3.0



.4 .1

.8 .2

.4 1.0

.4 1.8

.2 .5



.2
3.0
1.4
6.0
1.7

.1
.1
.1

.7
.4

3.2
20.6
3.0
2.2
1.1

1.1
1.0

2.8

1.2

.8

1.7



The County 21.3 33.7 40.8 1.3 2.9



4.1

3.5

.4

.9

4.7



4.5 18.8 10.9



Hampden County — Cont.

Granville... 13.9 17.3 66.6 .5

Hampden... 24.6 17.5 57.1 .6

Holland 16.4 48.3 30.1 .7

Holyoke 16.1 6.8 51.5 18.2

Longmeadow 21.5 36.1 19.9 16.3

Ludlow 28.9 14.9 47.6 3.9

Monson.... 16.5 23.5 57.6 2.1

Montgomery 8.1 20.3 70.1 .1

Palmer 17.1 23.3 52.8 4.6

Russell 6.2 18.9 71.3 1.0

Southwick.. 48.8 12.9 35.2 1.1

Springfield.. 10.5 38.2 6.8 40.3

Tolland 9.0 20.1 68.1 .1

Wales 14.9 48.4 33.2 2.2

Westfield. . . 48.0 25.0 13.1 12.5

West Spring-
field 39.2 18.0 17.8 20.5

Wilbraham . 34.2 28.5 34.0 2.0



1.7

.2
4.5
7.4
6.2

4.7

.3

1.4

2.2
2.6

2.0

4.2
2.7
1.3
1.4



4.5
1.3



The County 24.2 24.2 42.2 6.9 2.5



Hampshire County

Amherst 38.7 29.8 24.4

Belchertown 32.1 20.8 42.6

Chesterfield. 21.7 27.1 50.1

Cummington 27.2 31.0 41.1

Easthampton45.5 21.2 20.5

Goshen 20.3 43.5 33.4

Granby 23.5 21.9 53.6

Hadley 57.7 9.2 24.7

Hatfield 39.4 21.1 33.9

Huntington. 17.3 19.7 60.0

Middlefield .26.6 0.0 72.8

North-
ampton... 32.5 30.4 26.1

Pelham 16.2 0.0 76.3

Plainfield... 31.1 21.9 46.5

South

Hadley... 28.1 27.6 36.5

Southampton 26 . 27.7 44.1

Ware 13.5 33.8 28.9

West-

hampton . 12.3 15.4 70.9

Williamsburg 15.8 42.3 39.5

Worthington 37.6 17.7 44.4



The County 27.6 23.1 43.8 2.2 3.S



Middlesex County

Acton 19.8 49.0 24.8

Arlington... 5.1 18.0 7.7

Ashby 24.9 26.8 46.2

Ashland 14.0 42.7 38.1

Ayer 8.0 42.9 37.0

Bedford 36.6 18.7 39.7

Belmont 8.2 14.4 7.9

Billerica 28.2 40.6 21.5

Boxborough. 27.9 39.7 32.3

Burlington.. 11.3 47.2 35.5

Cambridge.. 7.2 0.0 9.5

Carlisle 11.3 49.5 37.8



6.8
.9
.1

0.0
10.1


.3
3.6
1.0

.7
2.7


.5
.2
1.8
.9
.9


2.3
.8
6.6
4.7
2.1


.1


.5


8.2
0.0
0.0


2.8

7.5

.5


4.2


3.6


.8
6.2


1.4
17.6


.3
2.2
0.0


1.1
.2
.3



5.1


1.3


62.0


7.2


.9


1.2


1.0


4.2


6.5


5.6


4.1


.9


68.0


1.5


7.8


1.9


0.0


.1


5.7


.3


70.9


12.4


1.0


.4



LAND USES



11



Table 3. — Percentage of Land Suitability by Towns — continued



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good Me-
dium



Set-
tled
Poor Areas



Water



Town or
City



Suitability for
Agriculture



Good Me-
dium



Set-
tled
Poor Areas



Water



Middlesex County — Cent.

Chelmsford. 14.8 46.2 26.8 10.4

Concord 25.1 38.3 27.9 5.6

Dracut 27.9 36.3 23.5 10.2

Dunstable.. 14.3 56.9 27.8 .1

Everett 6.2 0.0 4.1 79.4

Framingham 32.4 22.0 18.2 21.0

Groton 38.0 29.0 28.9 2.1

Holliston... 32.2 33.1 29.4 4.2

Hopkinton.. 7.9 36.7 45.9 4.1

Hudson 11.2 65.5 13.8 8.2

Lexington.. 9.5 36.8 40.8 12.0

Lincoln 18.1 39.9 38.3 1.3

Littleton.... 28.2 43.7 19.9 3.1

Lowell 5.2 4.3 4.6 79.7

Maiden 10.0 0.0 15.1 73.9