Advertisement

Pattern-Based Evaluation of Peri-Urban Development in Delaware County, Ohio, USA: Roads, Zoning and Spatial Externalities

  • Darla K. MunroeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

As urban areas continue to disperse and decentralize, new urban growth is increasingly occurring in peri-urban or rural areas beyond the suburban fringe, but within commuting distance of metropolitan areas. This trend is referred to in a variety of ways, including urban expansion, urban dispersion, or peri-urbanization. Many communities are concerned with seemingly uncontrolled urban sprawl and expansion into peri-urban areas for a variety of reasons, including the fiscal, environmental and social impacts associated with urban land-use change. Urbanization can alter major biogeochemical cycles, add or remove species, and have drastic effects on habitat (Vitousek et al. 1997), particularly when such development is low-density and scattered (Theobald 2004). Urban decentralization can also decimate the inner-city tax base (Downs 1999). Growth at the urban fringe, or in the rural portions of metropolitan counties, has greatly increased, and is of significantly lower density than the surrounding urbanized areas and clusters (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). In Ohio, low-density development outside urbanized areas has increased from 58 to 72% of total land area between 1970 and 2000 (Partridge and Clark 2008).

Keywords

Land Conversion Develop Land Urban Fringe Development Risk Landscape Shape Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott RD (1985) Logistic regression in survival analysis. Am J Epidemiol 121:465–471Google Scholar
  2. Allison PD (1982) Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. In: Leinhardt S (ed) Sociological methods and research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 61–98Google Scholar
  3. Anas A, Arnott, R Small KA (1998) Urban spatial structure. J Econ Lit 36:1426–1464Google Scholar
  4. An L, Brown DG (2008) Survival analysis in land change science: integrating with GIScience to address temporal complexities. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 98:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byun P, Esparza AX (2005) A revisionist model of suburbanization and sprawl: the role of political fragmentation, growth control, and spillovers. J Plann Educ Res 24:252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell Jr, HS, Munroe DK (2007) Greenways and greenbacks: the impact of the Catawba regional trail on property values in Charlotte, North Carolina. SE Geogr 47:118–137Google Scholar
  7. Capozza DR, Helsley RW (1989) The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth. J of Urban Econ 26(3):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers J, Ulfarsson, G (2002) Fragmentation and sprawl: evidence from interregional analysis. Growth Change 33:312–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavailhès J, Brossard T, Foltête J-C, Hilal M, Joly D, Torneux F-P, Tritz C, Wavresky P (2006) Seeing and being seen: a GIS-based hedonic price valuation of landscape. Presented at the 1ère Recontre du Longement, Marseille, Octobre 2006Google Scholar
  10. Clark JK, McChesney R, Munroe DK, Irwin EG (2005) Spatial characteristics of exurban settlement pattern in the US. Paper prepared for the 52nd Annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association Las Vegas, NV, November 2005Google Scholar
  11. Cox D (1972) Regression models and life tables. J Roy Stat Soc B 34:187–220Google Scholar
  12. Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. Downs A (1999) Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy Debate 10:955–974Google Scholar
  14. Esparza AX, Carruthers JI (2000) Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain West. J Plann Educ Res 20:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleming M (2000) Spatial statistics and econometrics for models in fisheries economics: discussion. Am J Agr Econ 82:1207–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heimlich R, Anderson WD (2001) Development at the urban fringe and beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural land. Agricultural Economic Report No 803, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Hite D, Sohngen B, Templeton J (2003) Zoning, development timing, and agricultural land use at the suburban fringe: a competing risks approach. Agr Res Econ Rev 32:145–157Google Scholar
  18. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2002) Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns. J Econ Geogr 2:31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2004) Endogenous spatial externalities: empirical evidence and implications for the evolution of exurban residential land use patterns. In: Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools and applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 359–380Google Scholar
  21. Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: development spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Irwin EG, Bell KP, Geoghegan J (2003) Modeling and managing urban growth at the rural-urban fringe: a parcel-level model of residential land use change. Agr Res Econ Rev 32:83–102Google Scholar
  23. Lake IR, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ, Day B (2000) Using GIS and large-scale digital data to implement hedonic pricing studies. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 14:521–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullagh P (1980) Regression models for ordinal data. J Roy Stat Soc B 42:109–142Google Scholar
  26. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  27. Mieskowski P, Mills E (1993) The causes of metropolitan suburbanization. J Econ Perspect 7:135–147Google Scholar
  28. Munroe DK (2007) Exploring the determinants of spatial pattern in residential land markets: amenities and disamenities in Charlotte, NC, USA. Environ Plann B 34:336–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Munroe DK, Müller D (2007) Issues in spatially explicit statistical land-use/cover change (LUCC) models: examples from western Honduras and the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Land Use Pol 24:521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Munroe DK, York AM (2003) Jobs, houses, and trees: changing regional structure, local land-use patterns, and forest cover in southern Indiana. Growth and Change 34:299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker DC, Meretsky V (2004) Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agr Ecosyst Environ 101:233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Partridge MD, Clark JK (2008) Our joint future: rural-urban interdependence in 21st Century Ohio. White Paper Prepared for the Brookings Institution, Greater OhioGoogle Scholar
  33. Partridge MD, Sharp JS, Clark JK (2007) Growth and change: population change in Ohio and its rural-urban interface. The Exurban Change Project and Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy, Summary Report May 2007Google Scholar
  34. Pontius Jr. RG (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location during comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 68:1041–1049Google Scholar
  35. Steel S (1992) Farm markets mix entertainment, produce to lure customers. Columbus Dispatch, pp 2DGoogle Scholar
  36. Theobald DV (2004) Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Front Ecol Environ 2:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vance C, Geoghegan J (2002) Temporal and spatial modeling of tropical deforestation: a survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data. Agr Econ 27:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Predicting land-use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verburg PH, van Eck JRR, de Nijs TCM, Dijst MJ, Schot P (2004) Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environ Plann B 31:125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang T (2001) Community features and urban sprawl: the case of the Chicago metropolitan region. Land Use Pol 18:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations