Tony Prato

1
Evaluating Land Use Change for Alternative
Futures in Northwest Montana
Tony Prato H.A. Cowden Professor Division of
Applied Social Sciences University of Missouri
2
Global Change

• There are two major components of global change
  climate change and land use change.
• Global change reduces biodiversity, modifies
  hydrological systems, and alters global
  biogeochemical cycles all of which have
  significant impacts on human and natural systems.
  
•  

3
Extent of Land Use Change

• During the last three centuries, nearly
• 1.2 million km2 of forest and woodland and
• 5.6 million km2 of grassland and pasture have
  been converted to developed land uses on a global
  basis.
• Between 1982 and 1997, 121,000 km2 of non-federal
  land in the U.S. were converted to urban uses.

4

• Through its impacts on the quantity and quality
  of fish and wildlife habitat, land use change has
  contributed to the dramatic 1,000-fold increase
  in species extinction that occurred during the
  past 400 years.

5
Research Project
Assessing Ecological Economic Impacts of
Landscape Change in Montanas Flathead County
6
Contributors

• Tony Prato (PI), Kris Dolle, and Yan Barnett,
  Center for Applied Research and Environmental
  Systems, University of Missouri (economics and
  geography)
• Anthony Clark, Associate Professor of Economics,
  Lindenwood University, Missouri (economics)
• Ramanathan Sugumaran, Department of Geography,
  University of Northern Iowa (geography)
• Dan Fagre and Greg Pederson, USGS Northern Rocky
  Mountain Science Center (ecology)

7
Objectives of Study

• Simulate the economic and land use impacts of
  alternative economic growth-land use policy
  futures for Flathead County, Montana.
• Assess the impacts of the simulated future
  changes in land use on wildlife habitat.
• My presentation will focus on the first
  objective.

8
Study AreaFlathead County, Montana
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Stats for Flathead County

• Size of county 13,605 km2
• 78.6 of the land is managed by the federal
  government
• 82.5 of the land is controlled by federal,
  state, and tribal agencies
• 21.4 of the land is privately owned
• 17 of the privately-owned land is zoned
• Current population is 88,473

13

• 810,000 ha are forested
• 405,000 ha are designated wilderness
• Flathead Valleys elevation is 914 m
• The tallest mountain peaks are at about 3,050 m.

14
Natural Resources

• Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Wilderness
  complex, Flathead National Forest, and the west
  side of Glacier National Park.

15

• Glacier National Park is a Biosphere Reserve,
  and part of Waterton-Glacier International Peace
  Park, which is a World Heritage Site and the
  worlds first international peace park.

16

• Despite its temperate climate, the county
  contains a highly diverse flora and fauna with
  300 species of aquatic insects, 22 native and
  introduced species of fish, and nearly all of the
  large mammals of North America.

17
Threatened and Endangered Species

• Threatened species
• grizzly bear
• Canada lynx
• bull trout
• water howellia
• spalding catchfly
• Endangered species
• whooping crane
• gray wolf

18
Importance of Open Space

• A 2002 attitudinal survey of Kalispell residents
  indicated that 42 of the respondents agreed with
  the statement that there is adequate undeveloped
  open space in the community 76 indicated they
  were concerned about the potential loss of
  existing open space.

19

• The North Fork Valley which contains the North
  Fork Flathead River is west of Glacier National
  Park.
• This valley is considered one of the wildest
  valleys with the highest concentration of grizzly
  bears in the contiguous 48 states.

20

• The Flathead River has 97.9 miles designated as
  wild, 40.7 miles as scenic, and 80.4 miles as
  recreational.

21

• Flathead Lake is one of the 300 largest lakes in
  the world and the largest body of freshwater in
  the western United States.

22
Economy

• Historically, the Flathead economy was highly
  dependent on extractive resource industries,
  including lumber and wood products, agriculture,
  and mining.
• Labor earnings in those industries dropped from a
  high of 97 million in 1993 to 75 million in
  2000.

23

• Tourism and outdoor recreation are major sources
  of income and employment in the county.
• 40 of all personal income is the county comes
  from non-labor sources (i.e., transfer payments
  from investments, retirement accounts, and social
  security).
• Overall, the economy has been strong and
  continues to grow due to a steady wave of new
  migrants and seasonal residents that are
  attracted to the area because of its abundant
  environmental amenities and quality of life.

24

• Per capita and median incomes have been steadily
  rising, poverty is falling, and unemployment was
  at a 30-year low before the current recession.

25

• Flathead Valley

26

• Flathead Valley and outlying areas are losing
  open space due to land development.
• Much of the developed land was previously in
  agricultural uses.
• In the last 30 years, 42,998 ha of farmland in
  Flathead Valley have been converted to developed
  uses.

27
Methods Used in Study

• Remote sensing
• Land cover classification
• Geographic information systems
• Land use change analysis
• Alternative futures analysis
• Economic impact analysis
• Surveys

28
Alternative Futures Analysis

• It is difficult for planners and stakeholders to
  foresee the potential ecological and economic
  consequences of their choices, policies, and
  plans because no one knows for sure what the
  future will bring.
• Since no single vision of the future is accurate
  or superior to others, it is useful to model a
  set of alternative futures for a region that
  encompasses a spectrum of possible futures.

29

• Alternative futures analysis allows a community
  to assess the possible ecosystem and economic
  consequences of alternative assumptions about
  future growth and development.

30
Other Applications

• Monroe County, PA
• Region of Camp Pendleton, CA
• Willamette River Basin, Oregon
• Southern Rocky Mountains, AL
• Mojave Desert, CA
• Northern Highlands Lake District of Wisconsin
• Iowa Corn Belt
• Upper San Pedro River Basin, AZ and Sonora
  (Mexico)
• Utahs Wasatch Front

31
Specification of Alternative Futures

• Three economic growth scenarios specify growth
  rates in 11 industries between 2000 and 2014, and
  between 2014 and 2024.
• Three land use policy scenarios impose
  restrictions on residential and
  commercial-industrial development, and natural
  resource conservation.

32
Nine Alternative Futures
Economic growth rate scenario Land use policy scenario Land use policy scenario Land use policy scenario
Economic growth rate scenario Current (2005) Moderately restrictive Highly restrictive
High 1. High growth, current restrictions on land use 2. High growth, moderate restrictions on land use 3. High growth, high restrictions on land use
Moderate 4. Moderate growth, current restrictions on land use 5. Moderate growth, moderate restrictions on land use 6. Moderate growth, high restrictions on land use
Low 7. Low growth, current restrictions on land use 8. Low growth, moderate restrictions on land use 9. Low growth, high restrictions on land use
33
Ecosystem Landscape Modeling System (ELMS)

• ELMS simulates the economic and land use impacts
  of the conversion of land from undeveloped uses
  to developed uses for the nine alternative
  futures.

34
Overview of ELMS
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CI units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
35

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CI units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
36
Scenario Growth Rates 2000-2014
Industry Annual average percentage growth rates Annual average percentage growth rates Annual average percentage growth rates
Industry High Moderate Low
Farming and Ranching 0.25 0.22 0.15
Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishery 0.09 -0.14 -0.32
Mining 16 12 8
Construction 11 8 5
Manufacturing (including forest products) 7 5 3
Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities 4 2 0
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 10 8 6
Services 11 9 7
Government 10 8 5
Wholesale Trade 9 5 3
Retail Trade 9 5 3
37
(No Transcript)
38
Scenario Growth Rates 2014-2024
Industry Annual average percentage growth rates Annual average percentage growth rates Annual average percentage growth rates
Industry High Moderate Low
Farming and Ranching 0.13 0.11 0.08
Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishery -0.05 -0.07 -0.16
Mining 8 6 4
Construction 5.5 4 2.5
Manufacturing (including forest products) 3.5 2.5 1.5
Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities 2 1 0
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) 5 4 3
Services 5.5 4.5 3.5
Government 5 4 2.5
Wholesale Trade 4.5 2.5 1.5
Retail Trade 4.5 2.5 1.5
39
(No Transcript)
40
IMPLAN Model

• The IMPLAN model was used to estimate increases
  in total output and employment for each of the 11
  industries between 2000 and 2014 and between 2014
  to 2024 for the three growth scenarios.

41
Estimated Increases in Total Output (millions of
2000 dollars)
2004-2014 2004-2014 2004-2014 2004-2024 2004-2024 2004-2024
Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
4,708 5,114 5,577 7,388 9,892 13,423
42

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CI units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
43

• Economic growth rates were used in conjunction
  with IMPLAN multipliers to estimate the increase
  in employment for each industry and total
  employment for the three growth scenarios.
• A productivity adjustment was applied to the
  multipliers to account for improvements in
  technology that are likely to occur during the
  two time periods. The adjustment was based on
  forecasts of productivity increases published by
  the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

44
Simulated Increases in Total Employment for
Growth Scenarios
45

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CI units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
46
Increases in Housing Units

• The increase in population for each growth
  scenario was estimated by multiplying the
  increase in jobs by the population-to-jobs ratio
  of 1.5 in Flathead County (2000 U.S. Census)
• Total additional housing units required for each
  growth scenario were estimated by dividing the
  increase in population by the average number of
  persons per household in Flathead County of 2.48
  (2000 U.S. Census)

47
Simulated Increases in Total Housing Units for
Growth Scenarios
48
Increases in CI Area

• The additional area required for new CI units
  was estimated by multiplying the increase in
  total jobs for each growth scenario by the
  average acreage in CI land uses per job in
  Montana of 0.03078 (U.S. Bureau of Economic
  Analysis, 2000).

49

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CI units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
50
Land Use Policy Scenarios

• Percent of total housing units in different
  housing densities
• Area required for each housing density
• Setbacks of new houses and CI units from
  wetlands and water bodies
• Restrictions on new residential and CI units in
  other environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands,
  streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and shallow
  aquifers)
• Types of development allowed on parcels with and
  without access to sewers

51

• Percent of total housing units in each housing
  density for land use policy scenarios
• Housing Baseline Mod. Restr.
  Highly Restr.
• density
• High 11 17 30
• Urban 11 21 28
• Suburban 18 21 18
• Rural 23 16 9
• Exurban 21 13 8
• Agricultural 16 12 7
•   

52

• Housing units per ha for housing densities
• - High 2.8 units per hectare
• - Urban 2.2 units per hectare
• - Suburban .8 units per hectare
• - Rural 1 unit per 2.5 hectare
• - Exurban 1 unit per 3 hectares
• - Agricultural 1 unit per 19 hectares

53

• Setbacks of new housing and CI units from water
  bodies for land use policy scenarios
• Policy scenario Setback distance
• Baseline 6.1 m
• Moderately restrictive 10.7 m
• Highly restrictive 15.2 m
  
•    

54
Treatment of environmentally sensitive areas

• The current land use policy scenario imposes no
  restrictions on the housing densities in
  environmentally sensitive areas.
• The moderately restrictive land use policy
  scenario allows urban, suburban, rural, exurban,
  and agricultural densities in a 1.61 km wide
  buffer area around environmentally sensitive
  areas.
•    

55

• The highly restrictive land-use policy scenario
  allows only suburban, rural, exurban, and
  agricultural densities in a 1.61 km wide buffer
  area around environmentally sensitive areas.
• None of the land use policy scenarios allow the
  construction of new CII units in the buffer
  areas.

56

• Development and sewer access
• A sewer accessible parcel is located within the
  2003 growth boundaries established for the three
  incorporated cities (i.e., Columbia Falls,
  Kalispell, and Whitefish) and the boundaries for
  the four unincorporated cities (i.e., Bigfork,
  Evergreen, Hungry Horse, and Lakeside).
• Only CII, and high, urban, and suburban density
  housing is allowed on developable,
  sewer-accessible parcels.

57

• Rural, exurban, and agricultural densities are
  allowed on any developable parcels.

58

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CII units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
59
Parcel Suitability

• Suitability of parcels for development was
  determined based on development attractiveness
  scores.
• Scores were calculated using a multiple attribute
  evaluation method that incorporates the
  attributes of parcels and the weights assigned to
  those attributes.

60
Attributes of Parcels Considered for CI
Development

• Minimum acceptable distances from utilities,
  major highways, and population centers.

61
Attributes of Parcels Considered for Residential
Development

• Maximum acceptable distance from utilities
• Minimum acceptable distance from a major highway
• Maximum acceptable distance from the edge of town
• Minimum acceptable distances from eight
  amenities mountains, lake, river, preserve, golf
  course, ski resort, park, and forest
• The elevation from the valley floor
• Minimum acceptable distances from seven
  disamenities industrial facility or park, mining
  facility, trailer park, busy highway, commercial
  center, railroad tracks, and airport

62
Order of Parcel Development

• From the highest to lowest development
  attractiveness score in the following order of
  priority
• 1. CI units
• 2. High density housing units
• 3. Urban density housing units
• 4. Suburban density housing units
• 5. Rural density housing units
• 6. Exurban density housing units
• 7. Agricultural density housing units

63

Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Increases in housing and CII units
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
64
Land Shortages and Surpluses

• A land shortage occurs when the area available
  for development is less than the area required
  for development.
• A land surplus occurs when the area available for
  development is greater than the area required for
  development.

65
Area Required for Development (ha)

• 2000-2014 2000-2024

Land use Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
CI units 476 806 1,289 645 1,174 2,032
Housing units 104,092 176,383 282,156 141,070 256,933 444,582
CI Housing units 104,568 177,189 283,445 141,715 258,107 446,614
66
Area DevelopedCurrent Land Use Policy (ha)

• 2000-2014 2000-2024

Land use Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
CI units 476 806 1,289 645 1,174 2,032
Housing units 104,092 176,383 215,641 141,070 215,756 214,898
CI Housing units 104,568 177,189 216,930 141,715 216,930 216,930
Surplus or Shortage 112,363 39,741 -66,515 75,215 -41,177 -229,683
67
Area Developed Mod. Restrictive Land Use Policy
(ha)

• 2000-2014 2000-2024

Land use Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
CI units 463 785 1,264 627 1,198 2,036
Housing units 63,961 108,398 173,600 86,697 157,792 164,309
CI Housing units 64,424 109,182 174,864 87,324 158,989 166,345
Surplus 154,277 109,519 43,837 131,378 59,712 52,357
68
Area Developed Highly Restrictive Land Use
Policy (ha)

• 2000-2014 2000-2024

Land use Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
CI units 464 784 1,257 627 1,155 1,991
Housing units 32,281 64,893 103,526 51,832 94,365 163,077
CI Housing units 38,745 65,676 104,783 52,460 95,519 165,068
Surplus 172,035 145,103 105,996 158,320 115,260 45,711
69
Summary of Land Surpluses and Shortages (ha)
2000-2014
2000-2024
Land use Low Mod. High Low Mod. High
CI units 112,363 39,741 -66,515 75,215 -41,177 -229,683
Housing units 154,277 109,519 43,837 131,378 59,712 52,357
CI Housing units 172,035 145,103 105,996 158,320 115,260 45,711
Surplus or Shortage 112,363 39,741 -66,515 75,215 -41,177 -229,683
70
Interpretation of Results

• Whether land surpluses or land shortages occur
  depends on the alternative future.
• Although land shortages decrease as economic
  growth decreases, it is not politically feasible
  to control growth in Flathead County.

71

• Continuation of current (2005) land-use policy
  can lead to land shortages in the period
  2000-2014 with the high growth scenario, and in
  the period 2014-2024 with the moderate and high
  growth scenarios.
• It appears that potential land shortages can be
  alleviated by implementing a more restrictive
  land use policy.

72
Caveats

• As land requirements for new housing and CI
  units approach the remaining amount of
  developable land, land prices would increase.
• Higher land prices would alleviate land
  shortages.
• Higher land prices would drive up housing costs,
  decrease housing affordability, and adversely
  impact limited-income families.

73
Publications

• Prato, T., A.S. Clark, K. Dolle, and Y. Barnett.
  2007. Evaluating alternative economic growth
  rates and land use policies for Flathead County,
  Montana. Landscape and Urban Planning 83327339.
• Prato, T., A. Clark, and Y. Barnett. 2008.
  Evaluating potential wildlife impacts of future
  land development adjacent to protected areas.
  George Wright Forum 2570-88.
• Prato, T. In press. Evaluating tradeoffs between
  economic and wildlife values associated with
  future economic growth and development in the
  Northern Rocky Mountains. Mountain Research and
  Development.

74
Spatial Decision Support Tool
http//projects.cares.missouri.edu/montana/
75
Questions and Comments
Questions and Comments