Southeast could become an overdeveloped megalopolis in the next - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Southeast could become an

• verdeveloped ‘megalopolis’ in

the next half century

, 2014

Giant urban sprawl could pave over thousands of acres of forest and agriculture, connecting Raleigh to Atlanta by 2060 –U.S. Geological Survey

The Factors in Sprawl

• 1. Growth in Per Capita

Land Consumption

• 2. Population Growth

Piedmont sprawl as a case study on the validity of 1996 findings of the Population and Consumption Task Force of Pres. Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development: The United States can't meet its environmental goals without stabilizing its population.

Change in 128 Piedmont Counties 1982-1992

1,818,144

GROWTH in POPULATION

1,146,700

ACRES of LOST OPEN SPACE

1990 Urban Development

Change in 128 Piedmont Counties 1992-2010

4,839,447

GROWTH in POPULATION

2,485,500

ACRES of LOST OPEN SPACE

2010 Urban Development

2060 Projected Urban Development

2010 & 2060 Comparison

2010 2060

2010 NE Megalopolis

The green shading is the size and shape

• f the Piedmont

study area.

2060 Piedmont 2010 NE Megalopolis

“A wide range of species and ecosystems will suffer reduced habitat area and many imperiled species of plants and animals will experience increased difficulty in migration and dispersal.”

– U.S. Geological Survey & North Carolina State University

Endangered Habitats

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Longleaf Pine Ecosystem, a Type of Pine Savanna

“…significant and lasting effects

• n the region’s ecosystems…

increasingly fragmented natural landscape…compromise available habitat…truncate or eliminate existing wildlife corridors…”

– U.S. Geological Survey & North Carolina State University

“Not only would habitats and corridors for wildlife be lost, but the continuous urban corridor would have a warmer climate than surrounding rural areas.”

– U.S. Geological Survey & North Carolina State University

“The future health of ecosystems is arguably as dependent on urban sprawl as it is on human- caused climatic warming.”

– U.S. Geological Survey & North Carolina State University

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS?

2010 2016

Data Source for Developed Land in Region

The National Resources Inventory (NRI) Since 1982, conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

• Massive on-ground sampling
• Satellite remote sensing
• High-resolution imagery

The Per Capita Consumption Factor

Per Capita Land Consumption

Average acreage to provide each resident with:

• Housing, schools, health care,

government buildings

• Places of work, shopping, arts,

recreation, worship

• Streets, roads, parking, waste

treatment systems

Change in Per Capita Land Consumption in Each State of the Piedmont Study Area 1982–2010

County Fraction of Acre per Resident - 1982 Fraction of Acre per Resident - 2010 % Change in per Capita Land Consumption, 1982-2010

42 North Carolina Counties

0.381 0.450 18%

23 South Carolina Counties

0.428 0.573 34%

63 Georgia Counties

0.358 0.404 13%

All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

0.382 0.454 18%

Causes of Changes In Per Capita Land Consumption

• A. DEVELOPMENT
• Consumer preferences for size and type
• f housing and yards
• Developer preferences for constructing

housing, offices and retail facilities

• Governmental subsidies that encourage

land consumption, and fees and taxes that discourage consumption

• Quality of urban planning and zoning
• Level of affluence

Causes of Changes in Per Capita Land Consumption

• B. TRANSPORTATION
• Governmental subsidies and programs

for highways, streets and mass transit

• Consumer preferences favoring the

mobility and flexibility offered by using private vehicles rather than public transit

• Price of gasoline (cheap gas encourages

sprawl)

Causes of Changes in Per Capita Land Consumption

• C. QUALITY OF EXISTING COMMUNITIES

(ability to hold onto residents)

• Quality of schools
• Reality and perceptions concerning crime and safety
• Ethnic and cultural tensions or harmony
• Quality of government leadership
• Job opportunities
• Levels of pollution
• Quality of parks, other public facilities and infrastructure

Causes of Changes in Per Capita Land Consumption

• D. NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD
• Marriage rate and average age for

marriage

• Divorce rate
• Recent fertility rate
• Level of independence of young adults
• Level of affluence enabling single people

to live separately

Change in Per Capita Land Consumption in Each State of the Piedmont Study Area 1982–2010

County Fraction of Acre per Resident - 1982 Fraction of Acre per Resident - 2010 % Change in per Capita Land Consumption, 1982-2010

42 North Carolina Counties

0.381 0.450 18%

23 South Carolina Counties

0.428 0.573 34%

63 Georgia Counties

0.358 0.404 13%

All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

0.382 0.454 18%

County Fraction of Acre per Resident – 2002 Fraction of Acre per Resident - 2010 % Change in Per Capita Land Consumption, 2002-2010 Baldwin

0.608 0.726 19%

Banks

1.020 1.168 14%

Barrow

0.518 0.433 (-16%)

Bartow

0.501 0.454 (-9%)

Bibb

0.420 0.432 3%

Butts

0.605 0.579 (-4%)

Carroll

0.631 0.619 (-2%)

Cherokee

0.613 0.549 (-10%)

Clarke

0.356 0.341 (-4%)

Clayton

0.244 0.252 3%

Cobb

0.269 0.258 (-4%)

Columbia

0.502 0.429 (-14%)

Coweta

0.732 0.660 (-10%)

Crawford

0.868 0.921 6%

Dawson

0.605 0.501 (-17%)

DeKalb

0.200 0.203 1%

Recent Trend in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area’s Counties – 2002 and 2010

Recent Trend in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area’s States – 2002 and 2010

County Fraction of Acre per Resident – 2002 Fraction of Acre per Resident– 2010 % Change in Per Capita Land Consumption, 2002-2010

42 North Carolina Counties

0.486 0.450 (-7%)

23 South Carolina Counties

0.595 0.573 (-4%)

63 Georgia Counties

0.424 0.404 (-5)

All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

0.478 0.451 (-6%)

The Population Factor

Population Growth in Piedmont Study Area Counties – 1982 to 2010

State Population Growth % Growth

North Carolina

2,473,283 69%

South Carolina

862,694 46%

Georgia

3,321,614 94%

All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

6,657,591 74%

Comparing Factors

Growth in Population vs. Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area, 1982-2010

69% 46% 94% 18% 34% 13%

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

% Population Growth, 1982-2010 % Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption

Total for All 3 States' Growth in Population vs. Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area, 1982-2010

74% 18%

All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area % Population Growth, 1982-2010 % Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption

Population Per Capita Land Use

A MORE MATHEMATICALLY SOPHISTICATED ANALYSIS:

THE HOLDREN METHOD

by Prof. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy

Apportioning overall resource consumption between population growth and per capita consumption growth.

Percentages of Sprawl Related to Population Growth and Per Capita Sprawl in Piedmont Study Area’s 128 Counties, 1982–2010

68% 32%

POPULATION GROWTH (68% of 1982-2010 Piedmont sprawl related to increase in residents) PER CAPITA SPRAWL (32%

• f 1982-2010 Piedmont

sprawl related to increasing per capita land consumption)

Percentages of Sprawl Related to Population Growth and Per Capita Sprawl in Piedmont Study Area’s 128 Counties, 2002-2010

86% 14%

POPULATION GROWTH (86% of new Piedmont sprawl related to increase in residents) PER CAPITA SPRAWL (14% of new Piedmont sprawl related to increasing per capita land consumption)

Sprawl in 48 states, ranked by area of rural land lost

Ranking (by area) 2002-2010 Total Sprawl (square miles), 2002-2010 Recent State Total Sprawl (square miles), 1982-2010 Overall Total Sprawl Ranking by Area, 1982-2010

1 1,572 TEXAS 5,591 1 2 853 FLORIDA 4,168 2 3 656 CALIFORNIA 3,323 5 4 646 GEORGIA 3,735 4 5 581 NORTH CAROLINA 3,771 3 6 490 ARIZONA 1,763 13 7 434 TENNESSEE 2,274 7 8 413 VIRGINIA 2,027 10 9 386 ALABAMA 1,964 12 10 381 OHIO 2,033 9 11 354 SOUTH CAROLINA 2,020 11

The Past Shows Factors to Tackle to Keep Raleigh from Bumping into Atlanta

• 1. Continue shrinking per capita land

consumption

• 2. Slow and then stop region's

population growth

Piedmont experience displays near-impossibility of stopping loss of habitat…

…without dealing with rapid population growth.

Our findings… …reinforce findings of the Population and Consumption Task Force

• f Pres. Clinton's Council on

Sustainable Development.

“The size of our population and the scale of our consumption are essential determinants of whether the U.S. will be able to achieve sustainability.”

–1996 Interim Report of Pres. Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force

“Goal #1 of the U.S. should be the stabilization of our population as early as possible in the next century.”

–1996 Interim Report of Pres. Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force

Rapid population growth was the major driver… Rapid population growth has continued until now…

…of Piedmont sprawl by time of Task Force.

Rapid population growth has continued until now…

…and is on pace to produce this.

Regional Population Growth Caused By:

• New immigrants and births to immigrants
• Births to native-born
• Migration from other U.S. regions

National Population Growth Components

• NATIVE FERTILITY has been below

replacement level since 1971 and is not a source of long-term population growth.

• IMMIGRATION is the sole cause of long-

term population growth in the U.S.

Immigration Contribution to U.S. Population Growth (2000-2010)

27.9 million – Total Population Growth 13.5 million – New Immigrants + 9.0 million – New Births to Immigrants = 22.5 million – Due to Immigration = 80% of the Total Population Growth

Population & Consumption Task Force Anticipated This in 1996:

“This is a sensitive issue, but reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive toward sustainability.”

Would Piedmont Residents Support Changing Factors Behind Open-Space Loss?

Substantially YES, said 2,500 adults in Piedmont counties surveyed July 19-23, 2015

Pulse Opinion Research commissioned by this study Margin of error: +/- 2 percentage points with 95% level of confidence

Preferred Cuts: Per Capita Consumption

• r Population Growth?

Q: Which would you prefer as a way to protect farmland and natural habitats in the Piedmont?

39% Slow down population growth 12% Push people to live in higher density 27% Both slower population growth and higher density 18% Neither 9% Not sure

Receptive To Higher Density

Q: Should governments protect farmland and natural habitats with regulations that push a growing population to live in higher-density houses and apartment and condo buildings which take up less space? 42% Yes 34% No 25% Not sure

Strongly Support Population Slowdown

Q: A study of government data found that most reduction in Piedmont open spaces over the last decade was related to rapid population growth. What do you prefer? 13% Piedmont population continue to grow at recent rapid rate 48% Grow much more slowly 25% Population stay about the same size as it is now (no growth)

Support Cutting Immigration to Slow Growth

Q: Census data show that about 40% of population growth in the Piedmont—and 80% nationally—is from new immigrants and births to

• immigrants. What should government do?

60% Reduce new immigration to slow down Piedmont population growth 26% Keep new immigration and population growth at current rate 5% Increase immigration and population growth 9% Not sure

Cool to Barriers to Out-of-State Moves

Q: Another large source of Piedmont population growth is Americans moving in from other

• states. Should local and state governments in

the Piedmont make it more difficult for people to move to the region by restricting development?

30% Yes 52% No 18% Not sure

Save Nature

Q: How important is it to save the natural areas and

• pen spaces that are

currently between the cities

• f your Piedmont region?

61% Very important 27% Somewhat important 6% Not very important 1% Not at all important

Save Farmland

Q: Is it unethical to pave over and build on good farmland or is the demand for more housing for a growing population a legitimate reason to pave over and build on farmland? 64% Unethical to build on good farmland 19% The demand for more housing is a legitimate reason to build on farmland

Keep Towns & Cities Separate

Q: Do you prefer that the Piedmont's towns and small cities remain separated from each other and keep their own identity or does it not matter too much if they are absorbed by larger cities? 76% Prefer towns & small cities remain separate and with own identity 17% It doesn't much matter if they are absorbed by larger cities

2060 Projected Urban Development