Measuring Rural Sprawl
George Towers
Dept. of Geography
Concord University
Athens, WV
This research is supported by a grant secured by Joseph Manzo
from the National Geographic Society.
The following students contributed to this research and/or
presentation:
Nick Anuszkiewicz, Elizabeth Baldwin, Tim Bowes, Eric Combs,
Kristin Cook, Felicity Ferri, Josh Kirtley, Andrew Lowe, Cori
Pennell, Todd Sink, Crystal Warner, and Stephanie Young.
Outline





2
Study Area: Mercer, Raleigh,
What is rural sprawl?
and Summers Counties,
West Virginia.
How to measure rural sprawl?
What are the effects of rural sprawl?
What are rural sprawl's spatial patterns?
Summary
What is rural sprawl?
“Sprawl is defined as significant
development in a relatively pristine
setting: rural or undeveloped
counties."
- Robert W. Burchell, Anthony Downs, Barbara
McCann, and Sahan Mukherji
In Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked
Development. 2005. Island Press, Washington, DC.
3
Source: Emory University, Atlanta
Source: Emory University
Sprawl (v.): to spread out carelessly or awkwardly
4
Sprawl is: Individual lots along rural roads
(Photo taken on Pine Grove Road)
Pipestem State Park
§
¦¨
S
I-77
U
M
M
E
R
S
Pipestem S.P.
#1
#2
#3
E
R
Camp Creek
State Forest & Park
M
E
R
Blu
Matoaka
on
est
C
r
ive
e R
6
Princeton
8
#4
#
*#* 7
**#
#
9
Montcalm
£
¤
460
#5
Bramwell
Pinnacle Rock S.P.
Bluefield
1
Athens
Oakvale
Tate Lohr
WMA
Photos by Eric Combs and Todd Sink
Sprawl is:
Unincorporated
communities
(Speedway)
§
¦¨
S
I-77
U
M
M
E
R
3
S
Pipestem S.P.
#1
#2
#3
E
R
Camp Creek
State Forest & Park
M
E
R
Blu
Matoaka
est
on
C
r
ive
e R
6
Princeton
8
#
*#*
*
*##
#4
7
9
Montcalm
Pinnacle Rock S.P.
6
£
¤
460
#5
Bramwell
Athens
Oakvale
Tate Lohr
WMA
Bluefield
3
Sprawl is:
Residential
subdivisions
(Pine View Estates,
near Pipestem
State Park)
7
Pipestem State Park
Sprawl is: Mobile home parks
(near Glenwood Park between Princeton and Bluefield)
§
¦¨
S
I-77
U
M
M
Pipestem S.P.
#1
#2
#3
E
R
Camp Creek
State Forest & Park
M
E
R
Blu
Matoaka
on
est
C
r
ive
e R
6
Princeton
8
#4
#
*#* 7
**#
#
9
Montcalm
Pinnacle Rock S.P.
8
£
¤
460
#5
Bramwell
Bluefield
Athens
Oakvale
Tate Lohr
WMA
E
R
S
Wyndale Subdivision Between
Athens and Princeton
9
How to measure rural sprawl?

Using Housing Data
Analyzing secondary area data


Creating primary point data

10
US Census counts of housing units
Mapping housing structures from aerial
photography
Density thresholds derived from
David Theobald's research
Land use category
Rural
0-16
Exurban or Rural Sprawl
16-64
Low Density Suburban
64-380
High Density Suburban
380-640
Urban
11
Housing units per
square mile
640+
Theobald finds
that 29 % of the
developable* land
in non-metro
counties east of
the Mississippi
was developed
by 2000.
Source: Theobald, D.M., 2005.
Landscape Patterns of Exurban
Growth in the USA from 1980 to
2020. Ecology and Society, vol. 10,
no. 1.
* Non-protected private and public
lands .
12
Pct. Developed Land, 2000
67-100%
50-67%
25-50%
10-25%
0-10%
Non-metropolitan
counties
Creating primary point data

We mapped the location of 56,937
housing structures in the rural parts of
Mercer, Raleigh, and Summers counties
using:


13
US Geological Survey maps dating back to
1962
2003 aerial photography from the West
Virginia Statewide Addressing and Mapping
Board.
Sprawl
identified with
primary data
14
Our results are close to Theobald's
Developed land /
developable land *
Theobald's
results
Our results
Mercer County
51 %
49 %
Raleigh County
35 %
34 %
Summers County
28 %
36 %
3 county total
38 %
39 %
* Developable land is private land outside incorporated communities and census designated places.
15
What are the effects of rural
sprawl?
Sprawl encroaches on natural resources
and exacerbates
natural hazards
 Rural sprawl encroaches on wetlands
 Rural sprawl encroaches on public lands
 Rural sprawl heightens flooding hazards
16
17
18
Sprawl's encroachment on
wetlands
Wetlands by
land use
1971
(in sq. mi.)
4.70 (68 %)
2003
(in sq. mi.)
3.56 (51 %)
Sprawl
2.25 (32 %)
3.39 (49 %)
Total
6.95 (100%)
6.95 (100%)
Rural
19
Encroachment on public land
1971
Density*
20
2003
Density
Increase in
density
Pipestem
Resort SP
10
56
46
Tate Lohr
WMA
23
53
30
All public
land
12
31
19
* Density measured by houses per square mile within one mile of public land.
The threshold density for rural sprawl is 16.
21
22
23
Sprawl's worsening of flooding
hazards
Houses in
floodplains
1971
2,951
101 / sq. mi.
2003
4,915
168 / sq. mi.
1,964 (+66%)
67 / sq. mi
(+66 %)
Increase
1971 - 2003
24
Housing
density in
floodplains
What are rural sprawl's
spatial patterns?
1. Prevalence of low density sprawl does not
equal preference for low density sprawl
2. Rural sprawl is a product of the "power
law"
3. Rural sprawl is stealth sprawl
4. Sprawl allows identification of rural
growth regions and rural disinvestment
regions
25
Low density
is prevalent

26
95% of non-rural
land is in exurban
or low density
suburban
categories.
Low density
is prevalent


27
86 % of newly
developed land is at
exurban densities not
suburban densities.
Within previously
exurban areas, 61%
remained at exurban
densities in 2003 and
was not developed to
suburban densities.
1. Spatial prevalence does not
equal spatial preference

28
69 % of houses built between 1971 and
2003 were built in already developed
areas (39 % in exurban areas and 30 % in
suburban areas).
2. Rural Sprawl is a product of
the "Power Law"
Leapfrog development involves relatively few
houses but consumes a relatively large amount
of land.
 649 new houses in leapfrog patches consumed
2,695 hectares of rural land (10.4 ha / house)
 9,403 new houses in expansion zones
consumed 48,100 ha of rural land (5.1 ha /
house)
 22,945 new houses in developed areas
29 consumed no new rural land.

Power Law demonstrated by
measuring density change



M stands for Magnitude of change
H stands for Historic density (as of 1971)
N stands for New density (added between
1971 and 2003)
M = log4N – log4H

30
M values > 1 indicate a categorical change
in the level of development. E.g., from
rural to exurban.


31
The graph shows
the incremental
impact in
magnitude made by
each new house.
Notice that most
new houses made
very little impact
while a few made a
great impact.
Formula:
log4(density) log4(density - 5)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
3. Rural sprawl is "stealth
sprawl"


32
M > 1 for 20,652 ha of previously rural
land, only 37% of the 54,764 ha of
previously rural land that was developed.
Similarly, M > 1 for only 15% of previously
exurban land that was developed to
suburban densities.
Map of
M statistic
33
4. Sprawl allows
identification of
meaningful rural
micro-regions
58 regions were
identified based
on housing
density
34
M<-1
M<|1|
M>1
11
Lerona
(Clustered
Rural Sprawl)
Crumps
Bottom
M<-1
M<|1|
M>1
49
40
5 1
Crumps Bottom
(Entropic
Rural Sprawl)
94
Lerona
Matoaka
Princeton
5
Princeton
(Suburban Infill)
28
67
2
39
69
35
Matoaka
(Disinvestment)
Summary: Contributions to the
sprawl discussion



36
Confirming that sprawl is extensive in
slow-growing rural areas.
Implementing a simple, yet unutilized
methodology that goes beyond presence /
absence measures and better assesses the
consequences and character of rural
sprawl.
This methodology may be increasingly
accessible to other researchers.
THE END
Thank you for your attention.
37
Summary:
What is the prognosis for sprawl in our area?
or,
What is local leadership's perspective on sprawl?



38
Pro-growth. The landscape is a resource for
economic growth.
Concerned with incompatible adjacent land uses
that limit growth. Considering zoning and
annexation to regulate land use.
Not concerned with the amount or rate of sprawl
that is occurring.
Summary Points




39
Rural sprawl in slow-growing regions is significant.
Rural sprawl is best measured with housing density.
Rural sprawl is encroaching on sensitive environments
including wetlands, public lands, and floodplains.
Rural sprawl is likely to continue to rapidly consume
rural land and needs to be addressed at the local
level.
Sprawl vs. Smart Growth
or,
leapfrog development vs. infill development
40
41
42
43
Infill development
Location
44
Pct. of
houses
built from
1972-2003
Within 1971 Sprawl
54.5
Within 1 mile outside 1971 Sprawl
38.5
Within 1971 Sprawl or 1 mile of 1971 Sprawl
93.0
Within 1 mile of an incorporated community
or Census Designated Place
41.4
Leapfrog development
Location
More than 1 mile from an incorporated
community, CDP, or USGS rural place
More than 2 miles from an incorporated
community, CDP, or USGS rural place
More than 1 mile from 1971 Sprawl
More than 1 mile from 1971 Sprawl AND an
incorporated community, CDP, or USGS rural
place
45
Pct. of
houses
built from
1972-2003
22.5
4.2
7.0
5.0
Comparison of Land Uses by
Housing Density Threshold
Theobald Theobald Galster et
2001
2003
al.
Rural
Rural
Sprawl
Suburban
Sprawl
Urban
Sprawl
46
(0-16)
61 %
(0-32)
72 %
(16-64)
22 %
(32-376)
26 %
(64-640) (376-2590)
16 %
2%
(640 +)
1%
(2590 +)
0%
Wolman
et. al.
(0-100)
89 %
(0-60)
80 %
(100-400)
9%
(60-400)
18 %
(400 +)
2%
(400 +)
2%
Comparison of Search Radii
Theobald
2001
Rural
¼ mile
½ mile
Rural Sprawl
¼ mile
½ mile
Suburban Sprawl
¼ mile
½ mile
Urban Sprawl
¼ mile
½ mile
47
Theobald 2003
(0-16)
61 %
49 %
(0-32)
72 %
67 %
(16-64)
22 %
33 %
(32-376)
26 %
32 %
(64-640)
16 %
18 %
(376-2590)
2%
1%
(640 +)
1%
0%
(2590 +)
0%
0%
Galster et al.
Wolman et. al.
(0-100)
89 %
90 %
(0-60)
80 %
82 %
(100-400)
9%
9%
(60-400)
18 %
17 %
(400 +)
2%
1%
(400 +)
2%
1%
Residential subdivision
pattern analysis


48
Suitable for the large residential
subdivisions that contribute to sprawl
outside cities.
Not broadly applicable to the smaller scale
development that comprises sprawl within
rural areas.
Land use pattern analysis
Which pattern is sprawl?
(Each dot = 1,000 houses;
Each small square represents 160 acres or 0.25 sq. mi.)
Source: Galster, George, et al. 2001. Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and
49 Measuring an Elusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 681-717.
Methodological mismatch


50
The previous diagram shows 102,000
houses in 25 square miles (4,080 houses
per square mile).
Our study area has 56,937 houses in
1,220 square miles (47 per square mile or
1/87th the density of the diagram).
Remote Sensing Land Cover Analysis
for Private Rural Land, 1992-1995
Sq. Miles
Rural
% of Total
1187.11
97.44
5.12
0.42
16.32
1.34
Moderate Intensity Urban
0.54
0.04
Intensive Urban
9.26
0.76
31.24
2.56
1218.35
100.00
Populated Areas
Light Intensity Urban
Populated / Urban Total
Total
51
Source: Strager, Jacquelyn M., and Yuill, Charles B. 2002. The West Virginia Gap
Analysis Project Final Report. Washington: US Dept. of the Interior.
Remote Sensing


52
Corroborates imagery collected from
satellites with other data sources to
determine land use / land cover
categories.
Pixel scale and classification methods,
however, fail to capture rural sprawl.
Remote Sensing Analysis
Source: Strager, Jacquelyn M., and
Yuill, Charles B. 2002. The West
Virginia GAP Analysis Project Final
Report. Washington: US Dept. of
53
the Interior.
Sprawl
Identified by
Remote
Sensing
54
Houses in
the Study
Area
55
56
WV non-metropolitan
counties averaged
27% developed land
in 2000
Pct. Developed Land, 2000
50-58%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
8-20%
57
Source: Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape
Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from
1980 to 2020.
WV rural
counties averaged
23% developed land
in 2000
Pct. Developed Land, 2000
50-58%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
8-20%
58
Source: Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape
Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from
1980 to 2020.