Maximizing
protection of ecological, agricultural and community values at the rural-urban
fringe
Research at
Updated 13 February 2006
Rapid land use change and loss of
agricultural, wildlife habitat, and open space is causing increased conflict at
the rural-urban fringe. Although we have a general understanding of the extent
and trends of these changes, we have limited understanding of the protected
areas that exist on private land, the resource values that are protected, and
the context provided by adjacent land use and public lands. We are examining
the land use patterns that are emerging at the rural-urban fringe to determine
how these patterns affect the protection of ecological, agricultural, and
community resources in rural areas. Also, we are examining how emerging land
use tools (especially cluster development) could be used to maximize protection
of rural resource values.
A major threat to rural land resources is conversion
of agricultural and open space to development, especially at the rural-urban
fringe. These land use changes are driven by population growth and
socio-economic changes in the American public (baby boom, exurban growth) and
the resulting patterns are affected by state, county, and city planning polices
and economic decisions of rural residents.
Personnel
David Theobald (PI)
Graduate students
Sean Alley
Tawnya Ernst
Clustered
development and open space design resources
Definitions & descriptions
Haines, A.
2002. An
Innovative Tool for Managing Rural Residential Development: A Look at
Conservation Subdivisions. The Land Use Tracker 2(1).
Lacy, J.
1990.
An
examination of market appreciation of clustered housing with permanent open
space.
Levitt, J.N. 2004. Landscape-scale
conservation: Grappling with the green matrix. Land Lines 16(1).
Mega, M., B. Lukermann,
and R. Sykes. 1998. Overview of Key Issues Associated with
Residential Cluster Development.
Nassauer, J., et al. 2004. Exurban
residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public
perception. Urban Ecosystems,
7:267-281.
Examples
American
Planning Association. 2002. Planning for Smart
Growth: A Comprehensive Study of Smart Growth for the US.
Florida Centerville
Wisconsin Sugar Creek Preserve
Build-out analyses
Boring,
J. 2003?. Comparing the Environmental and Public Cost Impacts of Compact and
Scattered Development Patterns in the Upper Etowah Region.
Meenar, M. et al.
2004. Growth
Management Plan for Milford Township, PA: Suitability Analysis and Buildout Scenarios. ESRI User Conference Proceedings.
Theobald,
D.M. and N.T. Hobbs. 2002. A framework for
evaluating land use planning alternatives: Protecting biodiversity on private
land. Ecology and Society 6(1):
Art. 5.
Theobald, D.M. 2002. Description of a
build-out analysis and potential effects on wildlife habitat in the Lower Blue
Planning Basin, Summit County, Colorado
Theobald, D.M. 2006. Overview of build-out analysis for Ouray County. Presentation, 30 January.
Zirkle, M. Build-Out
Analysis in GIS as a Planning Tool With a
Demonstration for Roanoke County, Virginia. Virginia
Polytechnic and
In
the news
Boston Globe. In
Colorado, rural sprawl stokes concern. 1 May.
Christian Science Monitor. The
new pioneers. 29 March 2004.
The Denver Post. Conservation
efforts might lose ground in appraisal flap. 22 February 2004.
The Denver Post. Urban
getaways spur rural sprawl: State ranchette exemption begets boom. 25
November 2003.
Christian Science Monitor. Ranchers
band together to resist sprawl. 29 July 2002.
Denver Post article: Ranchland
stampede
Publications & Reports
Theobald, D.M., T. Spies, J. Kline, B.
Maxwell, N.T. Hobbs, and V.H. Dale. 2005. Ecological support for rural land-use
planning. Ecological Applications 15(6): 1906-1914.
Related
Links
CMI Bulletin: Conservation Easements
and the protection of biodiversity. (PDF)