Abstract
While land use and cover change (LUCC) modeling and simulation technologies have been widely disseminated in urban planning and other public decision-making domains, their application to site redevelopment is still limited. This chapter presents a case study in which land use change simulation and impact assessment models are employed to facilitate public dialogue for reuse of a decommissioned air force base site (known as the Orange County Great Park) in Southern California. Emphasis is on the uniqueness of site renewal in an urban context that requires special attention in modeling, impact assessment and decision support. It is also suggested that both relevance and coherence are crucial to the success of LUCC applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Our study site, although annexed into the City of Irvine in 2003, is surrounded by multiple jurisdictions, such as Lake Forest and Laguna Hills.
- 2.
Given the data availability, the first three variables are analyzed at the zipcode area level, while our analysis of the remaining two are carried out at the census tract level. Census tracts have certain advantages over zipcode areas in that they are smaller and typically considered more representative of “neighborhoods”, even though tracts do not always work perfectly in delineating neighborhoods (Chaskin 1998; Hipp 2007). However, loan amounts may not be an ideal measure of home prices in a neighborhood, and therefore we use data aggregated to zipcode areas that captures sales price information obtained from the RAND Corporation’s statistics service as well as the tract-level average home loan values. Analyzing these two variables—i.e., zipcode area-level sales price and tract-level loan amounts—enables us to check the possible scale sensitivity of the analysis outcomes.
- 3.
For the job projection models we also include the change in jobs in the previous year in the models as this adds significantly to the model fit. This measure is not included in the other models.
- 4.
For all of these spatial buffers, we compute the measures with an inverse distance decay function. This essentially means that neighborhoods closer to the neighborhood of interest have a stronger effect than neighborhoods further away.
- 5.
For the unemployment models in zip code areas, the correlations in the earlier years are above 0.98 from 1992–2001, and from 0.87 to 0.99 from 2002–2006. For the models for average loan values using data aggregated to tracts, the earlier year correlations range from 0.57 to 0.92 from 1991–2001 and about 0.91 to 0.92 during 2002–2006. For the average income level of new residents the earlier year correlations range from 0.34 to 0.91 from 1991–2001, and about 0.86 to 0.89 during 2002–2006.
References
Becu N, Neef A, Schreinemachers P, Angkapitux C (2008) Participatory computer simulation to support collective decision-making: potential and limits of stakeholder involvement. Land Use Policy 25(4):498–509
Burchell RW, Downs A, McCann B, Mukherji S (2005) Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. Island Press, Washington, DC
Chaskin RJ (1998) Neighborhood as a unit of planning and action: a heuristic approach. J Plan Lit 13(1):11–30
Cheshire P, Sheppard S (2005) The introduction of price signals into land use planning decision-making: a proposal. Urban Stud 42(4):647–663
City of Irvine (2012) Heritage Fields Project 2012 GPA/ZC Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Retried from https://legacy.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cd/planningactivities/pda/heritage_fields_revision/great_park_neighborhoods_eir/
Ewing RH (1996) Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: a literature review. Environ Urban Stud. 21:1–15
Farris JT (2001) The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Hous Policy Debate 12(1):1–30
Fragkias M, Geoghegan J (2010) Commercial and industrial land use change, job decentralization and growth controls: a spatially explicit analysis. J Land Use Sci 5(1):45–66
Hipp JR (2007) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. Am Sociol Rev 72(5):659–680
Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: A survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plan A 33(4):717–735
Kaiser EJ, Godschalk DR, Chapin FS (1995) Urban land use planning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Kim JH (2011) Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: a literature review. J Plan Lit 26(1):35–47
Kim JH (2013) Spatiotemporal scale dependency and other sensitivities in dynamic land-use change simulations. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27(9):1782–1803
Kim JH, Hipp JR, Basolo V, Dillon HS (2017) Land use change dynamics in Southern California: does geographic elasticity matter? J Planning Educ Res. doi:10.1177/0739456X166882
Koomen E, Rietveld P, de Nijs T (2008) Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support. Ann Reg Sci 42(1):1–10
Koomen E, Borsboom-van Beurden J (eds) (2011) Land-use modelling in planning practice. Springer, Heidelberg
Kranser L (2005) The grounding of El Toro. The orange county business Journal. Retried from http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/grounding.html
Lamb J (2009) Guide to the collection on the development of the El Toro airport. MS-R141. Special collections and archives, The UC Irvine libraries, Irvine, California. Retrieved from http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/uci/spcoll/r141.pdf
Lee DB Jr (1981) Land use planning as a response to market failure. In: de Neufville JI (ed) The land use policy debate in the United States. Plenum Press, New York, pp 149–164
McCall MK, Dunn CE (2012) Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum 43(1):81–94
Orange county business council (2015) Orange county workforce housing Scorecard. Retrieved from http://www.ocbc.org/research/workforce-housing-scorecard/
Orange County Great Park (nd) History of the Land. Retrieved from http://www.ocgp.org/learn/history/
Pennington M (1999) Free market environmentalism and the limits of land use planning. J Environ Plan Policy Manag 1(1):43–59
Pettit CJ, Raymond CM, Bryan BA, Lewis H (2011) Identifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communication of future alternatives. Landsc Urban Plan 100(3):231–241
Plotkin S (1987) Property, policy and politics: towards a theory of urban land-use conflict. Int J Urban Reg Res 11(3):382–404
Stockstill M (2014) Too big to fail? Planning 2014(April):20–24
Taleai M, Sharifi A, Sliuzas R, Mesgari M (2007) Evaluating the compatibility of multi-functional and intensive urban land uses. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 9(4):375–391
Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281
Voinov A, Kolagani N et al (2016) Modelling with stakeholders–next generation. Environ Model Softw 77:196–220
Zheng HW, Shen GQ, Wang H, Hong J (2015) Simulating land use change in urban renewal areas: A case study in Hong Kong. Habitat Int 46:23–34
Zhou B, Kockelman KM (2008) Neighborhood impacts on land use change: a multinomial logit model of spatial relationships. Ann Reg Sci 42(2):321–340
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the Metropolitan Futures Initiative in the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine. The authors thank Harya S. Dillon, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Asiya Natekal, and Amrita Singh for their excellent research assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, J.H., Hipp, J.R., Basolo, V. (2018). Navigating the Future: Land Redevelopment Scenarios and Broader Impact Assessment in Southern California. In: Camacho Olmedo, M., Paegelow, M., Mas, JF., Escobar, F. (eds) Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60801-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60801-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60800-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60801-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)