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

Southeast could become an overdeveloped ‘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 of 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 dif fi culty in migration and dispersal.” – U.S. Geological Survey & North Carolina State University

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

“…signi fi cant and lasting effects on 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 % Change in per Fraction of Acre per Fraction of Acre per Capita Land County Resident - Resident - Consumption, 1982 2010 1982-2010 42 North Carolina 0.381 0.450 18% Counties 23 South Carolina 0.428 0.573 34% Counties 63 Georgia 0.358 0.404 13% Counties All 128 Counties 0.382 0.454 18% in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

Causes of Changes In Per Capita Land Consumption A. DEVELOPMENT • Consumer preferences for size and type of housing and yards • Developer preferences for constructing housing, of fi ces and retail facilities • Governmental subsidies that encourage land consumption, and fees and taxes that discourage consumption • Quality of urban planning and zoning • Level of af fl uence

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 fl exibility 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 af fl uence enabling single people to live separately

Change in Per Capita Land Consumption in Each State of the Piedmont Study Area 1982–2010 % Change in per Fraction of Acre per Fraction of Acre per Capita Land County Resident - Resident - Consumption, 1982 2010 1982-2010 42 North Carolina 0.381 0.450 18% Counties 23 South Carolina 0.428 0.573 34% Counties 63 Georgia 0.358 0.404 13% Counties All 128 Counties 0.382 0.454 18% in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

Recent Trend in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area’s Counties – 2002 and 2010 Fraction of Acre % Change in Per Capita Fraction of Acre per County per Resident – Land Consumption, Resident - 2010 2002 2002-2010 0.608 0.726 19% Baldwin Banks 1.020 1.168 14% 0.518 0.433 (-16%) Barrow Bartow 0.501 0.454 (-9%) 0.420 0.432 3% Bibb Butts 0.605 0.579 (-4%) 0.631 0.619 (-2%) Carroll Cherokee 0.613 0.549 (-10%) 0.356 0.341 (-4%) Clarke 0.244 0.252 3% Clayton 0.269 0.258 (-4%) Cobb 0.502 0.429 (-14%) Columbia Coweta 0.732 0.660 (-10%) 0.868 0.921 6% Crawford Dawson 0.605 0.501 (-17%) 0.200 0.203 1% DeKalb

Recent Trend in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area’s States – 2002 and 2010 Fraction of Acre Fraction of Acre % Change in Per Capita per Resident – per Resident– Land Consumption, County 2002 2010 2002-2010 42 North Carolina 0.486 0.450 (-7%) Counties 23 South Carolina 0.595 0.573 (-4%) Counties 63 Georgia 0.424 0.404 (-5) Counties All 128 Counties in 0.478 0.451 (-6%) 3-State Piedmont Study Area

The Population Factor

Population Growth in Piedmont Study Area Counties – 1982 to 2010 Population State % Growth Growth 2,473,283 69% North Carolina 862,694 46% South Carolina 3,321,614 94% Georgia All 128 Counties 6,657,591 74% in 3-State Piedmont Study Area

Comparing Factors

Growth in Population vs. Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area, 1982-2010 94% % Population Growth, 1982-2010 % Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption 69% 46% 34% 18% 13% North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Total for All 3 States' Growth in Population vs. Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption in Piedmont Study Area, 1982-2010 74% 18% Per Capita Population Land Use All 128 Counties in 3-State Piedmont Study Area % Population Growth, 1982-2010 % Growth in Per Capita Land Consumption

A MORE MATHEMATICALLY SOPHISTICATED ANALYSIS: THE HOLDREN METHOD by Prof. John Holdren, Director of the White House Of fi ce 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 POPULATION GROWTH (68% of 1982-2010 Piedmont sprawl related to 32% increase in residents) 68% PER CAPITA SPRAWL (32% of 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 14% POPULATION GROWTH (86% of new Piedmont sprawl related to increase in residents) PER CAPITA SPRAWL (14% of new Piedmont sprawl related to 86% increasing per capita land consumption)

Sprawl in 48 states, ranked by area of rural land lost Ranking (by Total Sprawl (square Total Sprawl (square Total Sprawl Ranking area) miles), 2002-2010 miles), 1982-2010 by Area, State 2002-2010 Recent Overall 1982-2010 5,591 1 1,572 TEXAS 1 4,168 2 853 FLORIDA 2 3,323 3 656 CALIFORNIA 5 3,735 4 646 GEORGIA 4 3,771 5 581 NORTH CAROLINA 3 1,763 6 490 ARIZONA 13 2,274 7 434 TENNESSEE 7 2,027 8 413 VIRGINIA 10 1,964 9 386 ALABAMA 12 2,033 10 381 OHIO 9 2,020 11 354 SOUTH CAROLINA 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 growt h

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 of 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