Measuring Spatial Characteristics of Urban Sprawl John Hasse Rowan University

Recent Landscape Changes in New Jersey

Mullica Hill NJ 1986 to 1995 growth Mullica Hill NJ 1986 to 1995 growth

What is Urban Sprawl? Your favorite definition here. So What? Problematic qualities of sprawl Sprawl as “dysfunctional” urban growth Spatial characteristics indicating dysfunctional qualities of sprawling urban growth

G eospatial I ndices of U rban S prawl

GIUS Measures 12 spatial measurements empirical indicators focus on dysfunctional characteristics new urban (suburban) growth

GIUS Measures Land Use Patterns (1) Density; (2)Leapfrog; (3)Segregated Land Use; (4)Highway Strip; (5)Regional Planning Inconsistency Transportation Measures (6) Road Infrastructure Inefficiency; (7) Transit Inaccessibility; (8) Community Node Inaccessibility Environmental Impacts (6) Road Infrastructure Inefficiency; (7) Transit Inaccessibility; (8) Community Node Inaccessibility

1) Density Less Sprawling More Sprawling Land consumed per unit of new development. John Hasse 2002

2) Leapfrog Less Sprawling More Sprawling Distance of new development from previous settlement. John Hasse 2002

3) Segregated Land Use Less Sprawling More Sprawling Number of different land uses within walking distance of new development. John Hasse 2002

4) Highway Strip Less Sprawling More Sprawling New development that lines rural highways with “ribbon” growth. John Hasse 2002

5) Regional Planning Inconsistency Less Sprawling More Sprawling The degree to which new development is consistent with a regional plan. John Hasse 2002

6) Road Infrastructure Inefficiency Less Sprawling More Sprawling New lane-miles, cul-de-sacs & intersections created per new unit of development. John Hasse 2002

7) Transit Inaccessibility Less Sprawling More Sprawling Road distance to alternate transportation. John Hasse 2002

8) Community Node Inaccessibility Less Sprawling More Sprawling Average road distance from new development to important community nodes. John Hasse 2002

9) Land Resource Impacts Less Sprawling More Sprawling Acres of lost wetlands, prime farmlands and endangered habitat per unit of new development. John Hasse 2002

10) Sensitive Open Space Encroachment Less Sprawling More Sprawling Distance of new development to farmland preservation and protected habitat. John Hasse 2002

11) Impervious Surface Per Capita Less Sprawling More Sprawling Acres of new impervious surface created by each new unit of development. John Hasse 2002

12) Growth Trajectory Less Sprawling More Sprawling Rate of development relative to: 1)Previous settlement 2)Size of locality 3)Remaining open space John Hasse 2002

Demonstration of GIUS measures for 3 recent residential subdivisions in Hunterdon County, NJ

Califon Tract 11 units 5 acres Municipal services

Readington Tract 25 units 29.8 acres Septic / well

Alexandria Tract 34 units 91.5 acres Septic / well

Results – Land Use Measures acres per unit feet to nearest previous settlement proportion of a tract that is within 300’ of a non-local road. Tracts weighted for each planning area (PA) where: centers, metro & suburban PA’s = 1, fringe PA’s = 3 rural PA’s = 5 rural/environmentally sensitive PA’s = 6 number of different land uses fewer than county maximum (7) within 1,500 of a development 1) Density 2) Leapfrog 3) Segregated Land Use 4) Highway Strip 5) Regional Planning Inconsistency

Results – Transportation Measures New Road Efficiency – length of roads per unit created or fronted by patch. Transport Accessibility – road network distance to nearest bus or transit route. average road network distance to nearest, rescue, fire, police, municipal bldg, hospital, school, grocery, park, and post office. 6) Road Infrastructure Inefficiency 7) Transit Inaccessibility8) Community Node Inaccessibility

Results – Environmental Impacts acres of wetland, prime farmland & heritage area (endangered or threatened habitat) consumed per unit. weighted inverse distance to sensitive open space (farmland preservation & preserved endangered or threatened habitat). number of acres of impervious surface per unit within patch percent urban growth + percent municipal growth + percent available land consumed for locality in which tract is located. 9) Land Resource Impacts 10) Sensitive Open Space Encroachment 11) Impervious Surface Per Capita 12) Growth Trajectory

Findings Efficient development “smart growth”? Efficient development “smart growth”? Average Sprawl Extreme Rural Sprawl

Conclusion 1.Sprawl needs to be well defined 2.GIUS measures provide an objective means of characterizing dysfunctional qualities of urbanization 3.GIUS measures can be utilized for comparative analysis 1.Between tracts 2.Between regions 3.Alternate development scenarios 4.Potential for exploring socioeconomic factors of sprawl