Michael J. Gilbrook, PhD, GISP, AICPGeospatial Technical Director

APA Florida 2015 Conference

9 September 2015

Quantitative Methods for Measuring

and Monitoring Sprawl in Florida

Classic Urban Sprawl Archetypes

o Low Density Development

o Strip Development

o Leapfrog Development

o Poor Accessibility

o Lack of Functional Open Space

Spatial Pattern Characteristics

o Density

o Continuity

o Concentration

o Clustering

o Centrality

o Nuclearity

o Mixed Uses

o Proximity

What Is Urban Sprawl?

Ewing (2008), Theobald (2005), Galster et al (2001)

Habitat loss and degradation the largest threat to biodiversity in N.A. (Wilcove et al., 1998)

Upland habitat loss particularly severe, 98% loss of long leaf pine (Noss et al., 1995)

Low-density suburban sprawl has reduced large contiguous forest patches (Radeloff et al., 2004)

Habitat fragmentation and edge effects compound direct loss (Harper et al., 2005; Chace and Walsh, 2006; Wheeler et al., 2005).

Why Worry About Urban Sprawl?

FRAGSTATS –Used to quantify forest habitat fragmentation

o Works on GIS land cover data

o Computes forest fragmentation metrics (Patch Size, Patch Density, etc.)

Using FRAGSTATS to characterize urban growth patterns

o Treat urban areas as “patches”

o Compute appropriate FRAGSTATS metrics

o Compare change in metrics in one area over time, or

o Compare metrics between one jurisdiction and another

http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

How to Quantify Urban Sprawl?

PLAND – Percent Landscape Area

CONTAG – Contagion Index

PD = Patch Density

ED = Edge Density

AWMPFD = Area Weighted Mean Patch Fractal Dimension

Patch Density

Mean Patch Size

Mean Perimeter-to-Area Ratio

Contrasting Edge Ratio

Contrasting Edge Proportion

Mean Dispersion

Prior Use of Landscape Metrics to Quantify Urban Sprawl

Degree of Urban Dispersion

Degree of Urban Permeation

Total Sprawling

Sprawl Per Capita

PD = Patch Density

LPI = Largest Patch Index

AI = Aggregation Index

ED = Edge Density

AWMPFD = Area Weighted Mean Patch Fractal Dimension

MPS = Mean Urban Patch Size

Harold et al (2005) – Santa Barbara, CA

Seto and Fragkias (2005) - China

Ji et al (2006) – Kansas City, KS

Jaeger et al (2010)

Irwin and Bockstael (2007) - MD

Where & When To Study Urban Sprawl?

1985 - Growth Management Act Passed

1987 - First Local Government Comprehensive Plans Developed

2011 – Florida Department of Community Affairs Abolished

2005 – Senate Bill 360 Revisions Including New Anti-Sprawl Provisions

~1987 – FWC Prepares Statewide Land Cover Map From Landsat Imagery

2003 – FWC Prepares New Statewide Land Cover Map From Landsat Imagery

Land Cover 198722 Classes

Land Cover 200343 Classes

“Crosswalk”18 Classes

FRAGSTATS Analysis7 Classes

LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2

Land Cover Data Classification Schemes

Level 2 Land Cover – Orange County

Florida’s Urban Growth, 1987 – 2003

FRAGSTATS Urban Sprawl Metrics

Landscape Metric High Value Description

CA Sprawl Class Area

NP Sprawl Number of Patches

LPI Sprawl Largest Patch Index

EDPCT Sprawl Edge Density

AREA_MN Compact Mean Patch Area, (Excluding Background)

GYRAM Sprawl Area Weighted Radius of Gyration

SHAPE_AM Sprawl Area Weighted Mean Patch Shape Index

CONTIG_AM Compact Area Weighted Mean Contiguity Index

DCAD Sprawl Disjunct Core Area Density

PROX_MN Compact Mean Proximity Index

CLUMPY Compact Clumpiness Index

CONNECT Compact Connectance Index

MESH Compact Effective Mesh Size (Including Background)

SPLIT Sprawl Splitting Index

NLSI Sprawl Normalized Landscape Shape Index

Hillsborough County Urbanization

Suwannee County Urbanization

Landscape Metric Hillsborough County, 2003 Suwannee County, 2003

NP 3,050 3,862

LPI 33.62 15.43

ED 35.62 47.38

GYRATE_AM 17,547 14,662

SHAPE_AM 74.68 93.40

DCAD 0.9378 2.1505

CLUMPY 0.8833 0.7522

Hillsborough County – FRAGSTATS metrics consistent with fewer, large, more compact urban patches

Suwannee County – FRAGSTATS metrics consistent with many, small and dispersed urban patches

FRAGSTATS Comparison

FRAGSTATS Urban Sprawl Metrics

http://home.centurytel.net/~mjm/pcordwin.htm McCune, Grace and Urban (2002)

Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (PC-ORD 6.08)

Urban Change NMS 2-Axis Solution

Disjunct Core Area Density (DCAD)

CompactSprawl

Spr

awl

Com

pact

Urban Change NMS Correlation Matrix

Florida Regions

FDEO (2014)

Urban Change 2-Axis NMS Solution

Counties Coded ByGeographicRegion

Convex Hulls Around LikeRegions

Urban Change NMS Spatial Distribution

Urban sprawl takes the form of distinctive urban growth patterns that can be detected in land cover data.

FRAGSTATS spatial metrics are useful in quantifying the various landscape patterns that are associated with urban sprawl.

Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) can be used to simplify many FRAGSTATS metrics into one or two measures for easier analysis and interpretation.

Conclusions

References• Barnett, J. (2005). Alternative Futures for the Seven County Orlando Region, 2005 - 2050. University of

Central Florida Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies. Orlando, FL. 110 pp.

• Brody, S. D. (2003). "Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use planning." Population and Environment 24(6): 511-540.

• Chace, J. F. and J. J. Walsh (2006). "Urban effects on native avifauna: a review." Landscape and Urban Planning 74(1): 46-69.

• Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, T. Gilbert (1994). Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Tallahassee, FL, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

• Harper, K. A., S. E. Macdonald et al. (2005). "Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes." Conservation Biology 19(3): 768-782.

• McCune, B., J.B. Grace. (2002). Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon. 300 pp.

• McGarigal, K. and B. J. Marks. (1994). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, version 2.0. Corvallis, Oregon, Forest Science Department, Oregon State University: 134.

References

•Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III et al. (1995). "Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary

assessment of loss and degradation."

•Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer et al. (2005). "Rural and suburban sprawl in the US Midwest from 1940 to

2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation." Conservation Biology 19(3): 793-805.

•Theobald, D. (2005). “Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020.” Ecology and

Society 10(1): 32.

•Wheeler, A. P., P. L. Angermeier et al. (2005). "Impacts of new highways and subsequent landscape

urbanization on stream habitat and biota." Reviews in Fisheries Science 13(3): 141-164.

•Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein et al. (1998). "Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States."

BioScience 48(8): 607-615.

Land Cover Generalization ModelFixes Linear Features, Speckling, Urban “Forests”

FWC LV 4 Inputs

Improved

LV 3 Outputs

Land Cover Correction ModelFixes Issues With Misclassified Land Cover

Improved LV3

Inputs From LCGM

Final Corrected

LV3 Land Cover

Land Cover Correction Process Illustrated

FRAGSTATS Spatial Metrics - Urban Change

Franklin County Urbanization