Evaluating Land Use Change
for Alternative Futures in
Northwest Montana
Tony Prato
H.A. Cowden Professor
Division of Applied Social Sciences
University of Missouri
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.
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 nonfederal land in the U.S. were converted to urban
uses.
• 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.
Research Project
Assessing Ecological Economic
Impacts of Landscape Change in
Montana’s Flathead County
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)
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.
Study Area
Flathead County, Montana
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
• 810,000 ha are
forested
• 405,000 ha are
designated
wilderness
• Flathead Valley’s
elevation is 914 m
• The tallest mountain
peaks are at about
3,050 m.
Natural Resources
Bob Marshall-Great
Bear-Scapegoat
Wilderness
complex, Flathead
National Forest, and
the west side of
Glacier National
Park.
Glacier National Park
is a Biosphere
Reserve, and part of
Waterton-Glacier
International Peace
Park, which is a
World Heritage Site
and the world’s first
international peace
park.
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.
Threatened and
Endangered Species
• Threatened species
–
–
–
–
–
grizzly bear
Canada lynx
bull trout
water howellia
spalding catchfly
• Endangered species
– whooping crane
– gray wolf
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.
• 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.
The Flathead River has
97.9 miles designated
as wild, 40.7 miles as
scenic, and 80.4 miles
as recreational.
Flathead Lake is one
of the 300 largest
lakes in the world and
the largest body of
freshwater in the
western United
States.
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.
• 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.
• Per capita and median incomes have been
steadily rising, poverty is falling, and
unemployment was at a 30-year low before the
current recession.
Flathead
Valley
• 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.
Methods Used in Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Remote sensing
Land cover classification
Geographic information systems
Land use change analysis
Alternative futures analysis
Economic impact analysis
Surveys
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.
• Alternative futures analysis allows a community
to assess the possible ecosystem and economic
consequences of alternative assumptions about
future growth and development.
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)
• Utah’s Wasatch Front
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 commercialindustrial development, and natural resource
conservation.
Nine Alternative Futures
Economic
growth
rate
scenario
Land use policy 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
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.
Overview of ELMS
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
C&I units
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
C&I units
Scenario Growth Rates: 2000-2014
Industry
Annual average percentage growth rates
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
Scenario Growth Rates: 2014-2024
Industry
Annual average percentage growth rates
High
Moderate
Low
Farming and Ranching
0.13
0.11
0.08
Agricultural, Forestry, and
Fishery
-0.05
-0.07
-0.16
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
5.5
4.5
3.5
5
4
2.5
Wholesale Trade
4.5
2.5
1.5
Retail Trade
4.5
2.5
1.5
Mining
Services
Government
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.
Estimated Increases in Total Output
(millions of 2000 dollars)
2004-2014
2004-2024
Low
Mod.
High
Low
4,708
5,114
5,577
7,388
Mod.
High
9,892 13,423
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
C&I units
• 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.
Simulated Increases in Total
Employment for Growth Scenarios
200,000
150,000
Low
Moderate
High
100,000
50,000
0
2000-2014
2000-2024
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
C&I units
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)
Simulated Increases in Total Housing
Units for Growth Scenarios
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Low
Moderate
High
2000-2014
2000-2024
Increases in C&I Area
• The additional area required for new C&I units
was estimated by multiplying the increase in
total jobs for each growth scenario by the
average acreage in C&I land uses per job in
Montana of 0.03078 (U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 2000).
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
C&I units
Land Use Policy Scenarios
• Percent of total housing units in different housing
densities
• Area required for each housing density
• Setbacks of new houses and C&I units from wetlands
and water bodies
• Restrictions on new residential and C&I 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
• Percent of total housing units in each housing
density for land use policy scenarios:
Housing
density
High
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Exurban
Agricultural
Baseline
Mod. Restr.
11
11
18
23
21
16
17
21
21
16
13
12
Highly Restr.
30
28
18
9
8
7
• 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
• Setbacks of new housing and C&I units from
water bodies for land use policy scenarios:
Policy scenario
Baseline
Setback distance
6.1 m
Moderately restrictive
10.7 m
Highly restrictive
15.2 m
• 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.
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 CI&I units in the buffer
areas.
• 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 CI&I, and high, urban, and suburban
density housing is allowed on developable,
sewer-accessible parcels.
Rural, exurban, and agricultural densities are
allowed on any developable parcels.
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
CI&I units
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.
Attributes of Parcels Considered for
C&I Development
• Minimum acceptable distances from utilities,
major highways, and population centers.
Attributes of Parcels Considered for
Residential Development
1. Maximum acceptable distance from utilities
2. Minimum acceptable distance from a major highway
3. Maximum acceptable distance from the edge of
town
4. Minimum acceptable distances from eight amenities:
mountains, lake, river, preserve, golf course, ski resort, park,
and forest
5. The elevation from the valley floor
6. Minimum acceptable distances from seven
disamenities: industrial facility or park, mining facility, trailer
park, busy highway, commercial center, railroad tracks, and
airport
Order of Parcel Development
From the highest to lowest development
attractiveness score in the following order of
priority:
1. C&I 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
Economic growth scenarios
Increases in employment
Alternative futures
Land use policy scenarios
Parcel suitability and development
Land use and total output
Increases in housing and
CI&I units
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.
Area Required for Development (ha)
2000-2014
Land use
Mod.
High
476
806
1,289
Housing
units
104,092
176,383
C&I +
Housing units
104,568
177,189
C&I
units
Low
2000-2024
Low
Mod.
High
645
1,174
2,032
282,156
141,070
256,933
444,582
283,445
141,715
258,107
446,614
Area Developed
Current Land Use Policy (ha)
2000-2014
Land use
C&I
units
Low
Mod.
2000-2024
High
Low
Mod.
High
476
806
1,289
645
1,174
2,032
Housing
units
104,092
176,383
215,641
141,070
215,756
214,898
C&I +
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
Area Developed
Mod. Restrictive Land Use Policy (ha)
2000-2014
Land use
C&I
units
Low
Mod.
2000-2024
High
Low
Mod.
High
463
785
1,264
627
1,198
2,036
Housing
units
63,961
108,398
173,600
86,697
157,792
164,309
C&I +
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
Area Developed
Highly Restrictive Land Use Policy (ha)
2000-2014
2000-2024
Land use
Low
Mod.
High
Low
Mod.
High
C&I
units
464
784
1,257
627
1,155
1,991
Housing
units
32,281
64,893
103,526
51,832
94,365
163,077
C&I +
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
Summary of Land Surpluses and
Shortages (ha)
2000-2014
Land use
2000-2024
Low
Mod.
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
C&I +
Housing units
172,035
145,103
105,996
158,320
115,260
45,711
112,363
39,741
-66,515
75,215
-41,177
-229,683
C&I
units
Surplus or
Shortage
High
Low
Mod.
High
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.
• Continuation of current (2005) land-use policy
can lead to land shortages in the period 20002014 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.
Caveats
• As land requirements for new housing and C&I
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.
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 83:327–339.
Prato, T., A. Clark, and Y. Barnett. 2008. Evaluating potential wildlife
impacts of future land development adjacent to protected areas.
George Wright Forum 25:70-88.
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.
Spatial Decision Support Tool
http://projects.cares.missouri.edu/montana/
Questions and
Comments
Questions and Comments