Farmland, Factories and Solar Panels in a Coastal Town
Yamada is a town of 18,400 people on the northern edge of Mie Prefecture, facing Ise Bay. Its population was 22,000 in 1990. The town's land-use records for 1990 and 2020, in hectares:
| Use | 1990 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Rice paddy | 420 | 300 |
| Other farmland | 180 | 120 |
| Factory and warehouse | 60 | 150 |
| Housing | 90 | 160 |
| Solar power sites | 0 | 45 |
The industrial park was completed in 1978, and no new factory lot has been sold since 2004. A bypass opened in 2013. Feed-in tariffs after 2012 made small solar plants profitable, and 11 former paddy fields now hold panels. At a town assembly meeting on a proposed industrial expansion, a residents' group says: 'Our farmland is vanishing because factories keep expanding, so the town must stop all industrial development.' The assembly asks a local high school class to check the claim before the next session.
1. Using only the table and the dates given, test the claim that 'factories keep expanding' explains the loss of farmland.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - size the loss. Farmland went from 600 ha to 420 ha, a loss of 180 ha (−30%).
Step 2 - size the factory gain. Factory/warehouse went from 60 ha to 150 ha, a gain of 90 ha. Even if every new industrial hectare had been taken from farmland, factories explain at most half the loss.
Step 3 - check the other gains. Housing +70 ha, solar +45 ha. Gains total 205 ha, which is more than the 180 ha of farmland lost. So some new use must have come from a category the table does not show (forest, or already-unused land). The table alone cannot close the balance.
Step 4 - use the dates. Solar sites only exist after 2012, so roughly 45 ha of the loss is recent and non-industrial. The park was finished in 1978 and no lot has sold since 2004, so much of the factory growth probably happened before 2004 rather than continuing today.
Conclusion: the claim is not supported as stated. Factories are one of at least three causes (housing, solar, and probably abandonment, which is not recorded). A defensible version would be: 'Farmland fell by 180 ha in 30 years; industry accounts for no more than half of that and has not grown since 2004.'
2. The town proposes a 40 ha solar plant on paddy land. What data would you request before judging it, and whose interest is likely to be under-represented in the assembly debate?
Read the worked answer
Data to request
- Legal status of the land: is the 40 ha inside an agricultural promotion area (農用地区域)? Conversion needs permission; if the fields are already abandoned, the legal path and the damage are different.
- Ownership and age of owners: who receives the rent, and whether the land has a successor. If owners are elderly with no heir, refusing the plant may simply produce more abandonment.
- Physical function: paddy fields store water. Does this land sit above housing that floods? Losing 40 ha of storage can raise downstream flood risk, a cost that appears on no budget line.
- Whether it is already farmed: the table shows 180 ha of farmland lost but never says how much is still cultivated; 'farmland' in the statistics includes abandoned fields.
Under-represented interests
- Downstream households who benefit from flood storage but are not landowners.
- Tenant farmers who work land they do not own and cannot sign a rent contract.
- Future residents, who bear the loss of open land long after the current assembly has left office.
A judgement that only compares rent income with farm income is therefore incomplete.
3. A classmate writes: 'The table proves the town is losing green space.' Which part of that sentence does the table support, and which part does it not?
Read the worked answer
What is supported: about 180 ha of farmland became non-farmland between 1990 and 2020. Since factory and housing together gained 160 ha, most of that is plausibly built over, i.e. sealed land. That is a real change and can be stated with numbers.
What is not supported:
- The table has no forest row and no abandoned-land row, so total vegetated area is unknown. Forest may have been cleared, or may have regrown on abandoned fields.
- 'Green space' is undefined. A solar site is open and unshaded but not farmland; housing with gardens is partly vegetated; factory land is not. Different definitions give different answers.
- The table gives two snapshot years, so it says nothing about the rate of change or whether the loss has stopped.
Better sentence: 'Between 1990 and 2020 the town lost 180 ha of farmland, at least 160 ha of which was probably converted to housing and industry; the records do not show what happened to forest or abandoned fields.' That sentence can be checked and defended in the assembly.