1. Modeling Infill and Urban Growth to Evaluate Agricultural Conversion in Lake County, FL By Blake Harvey October 21, 2011 Committee Chair: Dr. Paul Zwick Associate Member: Dr. Andres Blanco

2. Presentation Summary 1.Research Question 2.Literature Review 3.Methodology a.Infill Analysis b.LUCIS Scenarios c.Agricultural Analysis 4.Results 5.Discussion

3. Research Question To what extent can agricultural conversion be prevented in Lake County, Florida, if intensive urban infill is used to accommodate future urban growth? 1. Research Question

4. Agricultural Conversion …is a problem - By 1997, one million acres of farmland per year were being lost to “suburban sprawl”, with 150,000 acres/year in Florida, the fastest rate in the nation (Daniels and Bowers, p.1-2, 1997) - One third of all agricultural land in Lake County was lost between 2002 and 2007 (USDA, 2007) …occurs because - as development encroaches, the “fair market” value increases (Herndon, et al., p.34-35, 1982) - soils suitable for agriculture are often excellent for development as well - conflict with new neighbors and competition over water resources (Daniels and Bowers, 1997) 2. Literature Review

5. Urban Infill (Image from http://www.ptank.com/blog/2008/12/wordless-wednesday-sf-vacant-lot/)http://www.ptank.com/blog/2008/12/wordless-wednesday-sf-vacant-lot/ The development of vacant, underutilized, or abandoned land within urbanized areas. (Real Estate Research Corporation, 1982)

6. How can Infill mitigate Agricultural Conversion? A greater proportion of new growth occurring within cities reduces pressure to expand on the urban fringe (Scott, 2010) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs can preserve agriculture by offering incentives to developers to develop within cities instead of on the fringe (Scott, 2010) Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) can restrict fringe growth beyond a certain point, encouraging development of vacant land (Daniels and Bowers, 1997) 2. Literature Review

7. Methodology – Infill Modeling 1.“Infill areas” were created, using principles from Peter Calthorpe’s Next American Metropolis (1993) -Core Commercial Areas (CCAs) were chosen, based on retail viability and proximity to downtown areas (as opposed to strip malls) -Two levels of infill areas were created: more intensive Transit Oriented Developments and more suburban Secondary Areas 2.Property parcel data was used to allocate new residential and commercial uses to vacant parcels, based on suitability data, parcel size, and location 3.Estimates of new population and new employment were calculated 3. Methodology

8. Methodology – Urban Growth Scenarios Five scenarios for new urban growth in Lake County for the year 2040 were created, using medium-level population projections which show an increase of 223,648 persons over the next thirty years (Smith and Rayer, 2011). Growth allocation was completed using LUCIS methodology as described in Smart Land Use Analysis (Carr and Zwick, 2007). Urban growth was modeled in cells with less land use conflict first. Name of Modeling Scenario "Trend" ScenarioFirst InfillSecond InfillThird InfillInfill Only Infill Areas…are ignored use modeling results are built out, with no growth elsewhere New Population in New Growth Areas223,648188,475 0 New Growth Density 1.87 persons/acre (same as gross urban density) 1.87 persons/acre (same as GUD) 2.81 persons/acre (1.5x GUD) 3.75 persons/acre (2x GUD) no growth outside of infill areas 3. Methodology

9. Methodology – Agricultural Analysis Agricultural losses were calculated for: 1.Acres of farm properties 2.Yields for crops that would likely be grown on these farms (i.e. oranges and grapefruit for citrus cropland) 3.Dollar value of each yield lost Results for the urban growth scenarios were spatially compared to farms; where growth occurred, the farm was considered to be lost Where yields overlapped, they were divided (equally for field crops and 9:1 for citrus) to produce an estimation of total losses 3. Methodology

10. Infill Results Leesburg, Lake County, Florida 4. Results 1,347 acres of urban infill 950 acres residential 372 acres commercial 25 acres mixed use 35,173 new residents 23,455 new jobs

11. Urban Growth and Agricultural Results 4. Results

12. “Trend” Scenario 119,498 acres of new urban growth (75% increase) 0 acres of urban infill 133,189 acres of lost farmland (69% loss) $189,654,997 of lost crops (76% loss) (new growth density same as GUD, infill areas ignored) 4. Results

13. First Infill Scenario 100,800 acres of new urban growth (64% increase) 1,347 acres of urban infill 115,485 acres of lost farmland (60% loss) $165,463,388 of lost crops (67% loss) (new growth density same as GUD, infill results included) 4. Results

14. Second Infill Scenario 67,224 acres of new urban growth (42% increase) 1,347 acres of urban infill 81,828 acres of lost farmland (42% loss) $119,304,716 of lost crops (48% loss) (new growth density 1.5 times GUD, infill results included) 4. Results

15. Third Infill Scenario 50,280 acres of new urban growth (32% increase) 1,347 acres of urban infill 59,432 acres of lost farmland (31% loss) $89,796,050 of lost crop yield (36% loss) (new growth density two times GUD, infill results included) 4. Results

16. Infill Only Scenario 0 acres of new urban growth (0% increase) 3,333 acres of urban infill 522 acres of lost farmland (0.27% loss) $1,021,655 of lost crop yield (0.41% loss) (infill areas built out; no other growth) 4. Results

17. Discussion of Results 1.If urban growth in Lake County continues at the present gross urban density (GUD), significant agricultural conversion will result. 2.Intensive urban infill will reduce these losses to some degree, but a majority of the county’s agriculture still faces conversion 3.The Second and Third infill scenarios suggest that at least for this study area, higher new growth densities are more effective at curbing sprawl than infill is. 5. Discussion

18. Recommendations for Further Research 1.Repeat similar modeling exercises for new study areas with different conditions 2.Simulate the effect of policies such as Urban Growth Boundaries and Transfer of Development Rights in reducing agricultural conversion 5. Discussion

19. References Daniels, T. L., & Bowers, D. (1997). Holding our ground: Protecting America's farms and farmland. Washington, D.C: Island Press. Scott, Jean. (2010). Florida planning toolbox, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Retrieved from http://www.cues.FAU.edu/toolbox/about_us.asp http://www.cues.FAU.edu/toolbox/about_us.asp United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2007). The census of agriculture Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/About_the_Census/index.asp http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/About_the_Census/index.asp Carr, M, & Zwick, P. (2007). Smart land use analysis: the lucis model. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. Smith, S. & Rayer, S. (2011). Projections of florida population by county, 2010– 2040.Florida Population Studies, 44(159), 1-8. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.