Analysis of the Florida future land use map

Analysis of the Florida future land use map

Material Information

Analysis of the Florida future land use map
Robert Brinkmann, Mark Lindberg
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Florida -- Planning ( lcsh )
Land use -- Florida -- Planning ( lcsh )
Map reading -- Florida ( lcsh )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00413 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.413 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00413
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00413] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856


Analysis of the Florida Future Land Use Map Robert Brinkmann Mark Lindberg Geography Department University of South Florida


ANALYSIS OF THE FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE MAP Robert Brinkmann Mark Lindberg Geography Department University of South Florida C U T R 1995 Center for Urban Transportation R esearch February 1995 STATB TIIANSPORTATIDM Pm.ltY 111111ATIYB


u "Analysis of the Florida Future Land Usa Map" Project Directors: R o btrt Bri nkmann Ph D M ark Lindb erg, Ph. D Pro j e ct Staff: P hyllis Lewi s University o f South Florida Geognphy Dopartmmt 4202 E Fowl er Avenue, SOC 107 T a m pa, FL 3362().5350 (813) 97 4 -2386 CUTR Center lor Urban Transportation Research Co llege of Eng ineerin g Univ ersity of South F l o r id a 4 2 0 2 E Fowler Avenu e ENB 1 1 8 T a m p a F L 33620-53 5 0 (813) 974312 0 fax ( 8 1 3 ) 9 7 4-51 68 G ary 1 Brost!J. Dlrtttnr ============= ==== == ADal)'1lis at tho Florida'""'"' aa4 U Hop


Preface STAT1! TIIAl

'STATE POLICY OOTlAnVE The ssist nce of th e following i s gratefully cknowledged for their guidance and expertise: on th is pro ject: iv STP I Sttering Committee Chester "Ed" Colby Mrtrt;Oddt Ti'ansit Agmo Donald R Cr:mc, Jr. P/Qridimttfor Bttttr Trantpt>rltt t ion The Honorable Mari o Diaz..Babn FhJ,i.Ja Stat e Smtttt The Honouhlc Jamc:s T. Hargreu, Jr. Ploridtt StAte Smrllt Wallace Hawkes Ul GrriJ:tr, /n(. The Honorable: Edwud). Hea ley !Wnila HonJt of Rtpt($(nfativts Atthur W Kennedy Florida TrtfmJIQIMfiQII CommittifJN David C. G Kerr Plorida Transportatim; C&mmiMitm Midtae l G. Kovac IRtmm J>rqr.'()ll. UnH.}trS.i!Y If StM!t The Honorable Vernon P ee p les Flo1ida f/o;m 1.!{ Lindo Loomis Shelley Sruetary. Fl&rida Departmmt #.![Ommumif) AJ!ttin Ben Watts Florida Drpttrlmmt q[Trall.S/'()Tldfi()r. Virginia Bass Wetherell Stt'ftuuy, l>rpttrtmem if Enviromtt t lftal Jack Wilson nK WihOn Com 7 STP I Technical Advisory Committee John R Johnston FloridA flo w of Rtpmt,llatit.'ntllio tt Richard McE lveen Dtpartmuu if Environ mental frqtrttit m John Out land Florida DtpPrtmml qf m;inmmmtal Prottdion Dorothy Johnson Fl&ridn Srnte Trnmpurlnti&R Commi ll Pat r icia S McKay 1000 Friends of Beo Starre tt Flodia f)fpart11Unt of ()mmumi!J Ajfoirs CharJcs Pattison FlorUia IJtfWimmt Qj' (.Ommtmil) Ajfoiu We.s Watson fToridtt Tram lt AJJodtlli&n Lucy Ayer MPOAth;isory Cfnmcil Specia l thanks ro Kris tine Williams, AICP. of CUTR for her manuscript review and comments to t he other i ndiv i duals -and agency staff members who particip:ned ill th i s rscarch. Analym oltllo Plonda FutuN Land Usa Map


Contents STATE TRAlfSfORTAnaH POLICY INlTIAT!VE INTRODUCTION.. ................. ......................... ........................ .......... -....... -............... 1 BACKGROUND ......................... ........................................... -.............. t LIMITATIONS TO MAP INTERPRETATION ......... ........... ......... ,_ .. ........ ........ ................... ..... .... ,. 2 MAP INTERPRE'r ATIDN ................ ......... ._ ....................................................... ........ . ._.............. 2 Regiona l Descriptions --------3 Estimated Papulation ..... ....................... ............ ............ __ ........ ..................... ........ ......... ...... ,,,, 4 Future Land Use .......... ........ ......... .......................... ._ ............ .......... -..................... -........ -....... _,... 6 Envtranmentallmplicatians ... -............ ........... ...................... ... ........................................... .. .. 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECDMMENDA TIDNS .......... ........... -............... ....... ......... -........ -........ -...... _...... 9 AM.I,.U.. of the FloriO. Fufun Land Use Map v


Analysis of the Florida Future Land Use Map Introduction Florida' growth management legilation requirt> local governments to dc:vclop comprlan are mops of planne d future land use within eoch jurisdiction. Using a Geographical In formation System (GIS), the Southwest Florid R was a significant challenge. Many different source maps th at used diff erent AIWym ot the Plarid.a Fulluw Land u .. Mop scales, diffc:rcnt classification schemes (pr obably with varying degre.. of O<:ewacy), and different formats were aggregated by different regional planning councils, and the:n into one sr.atewide map. This map presentS a highly generalized view of the different local land use maps. B.ccause there was a grfnt reduction in sca l e from the local maps to che statewide map, smaUcr drop out and regional trends are emphasized. TABLE I MajJping Categarioo and O.a!lleatlan Critma Uood In lho Florida Paturo Land U.e Hap Housin g dansUy ol 1 unit per 5 acre' and les:s Housing density of 1 unit per 4.9 acres to I unit par 0 9 ac"s Hou.slng derudty of 1 unit per-acra txl 5 9 units pu acn Housing d.enGty of 6 units ptr acre and ltf'Nter Industrial bnd u Conunm:ioVinclulllrlalland use Mining land Ull Preserve/contervaUan area b.nd usc Military land uoo The land use classification system used in the construction of the map consists of nine substantive land use categories These are presented in Table I. The first four categories (ruill, esl2tt, singl.,.family, and multi-hmily) are ...:Sidential categories and differ by dwelling unit densities. Major inland water bodies arc denoted with a water category, and major highways are shown. The lnd use classificati on syste m was d eveloped b y d' c SWFRPC in c o nsu lta-1


2 Sf AT 11\AHSPORTAnoM POIJCY JIII11ATIVE rion wirh other r egional planning councils. It shoul d b e noted that the '(rura l category appears as ''agr iculture" on the origin;.il SWFRPC map The task of creating the data base for the map was d i fficu l t beca use the 457 loca l plans vary considerab l)' both i n their land use classific-ation schemes and in the ir approach to land use p lan n ing. Some plans allow extensive res identia l commercial and industr ial development in wide tracts of currently undeveloped londs Others were fOrmul ated w i th growth management i n mind and accommodate a mix of future land use need s while establishing careful l imits t o urbanization Limitations to Map lnterp1'81atian T h e gre<.lte st l im i tation in preparing and interpreting the sta t ewi d e map relates to the widespr ead vari01ti on in local land use dassification schemes T h e land use classificat ion scheme used on the statewide map is o highly general ized representation of the schemes use d by the 457 loco! p l ans Ind ivi dually th e local plans h a ve far more categories and dassification schemes chan disployed on t he sta tewide map For examp le, the future lond use mop for one locale uses 33 different categories that w e re condensed into n ine c.ate.gories for prepara tion of the statewide map. I n some instances. collapsing the categories was straightforward Categories of eomme r cialland use-S were generally easily com bined into the singl e CommerciaVOffice c ategory on the sta tew ide map. In other cases, th e collapsing of categori e s was more prob le motic as loco) pions d id not follow o consistent scheme for c ategorizing land uses or planned density For example, most locale s use mul ti ple resident ia l land use categori es. and some are defined by dwell ing unit densitie s that do not match those used in the statewide classification scheme. The loca l p l ans also vary in the ir planning hori zons. Many, but not all, use 20 10 as o target date. Variation in planning dates c'tlnoot be accounted for in the interpreta tion of the s t atewide map. Moreover, the tc.t of th e p l ans might detail dates for of implementation, and these temporal d iffcrcnce ; s cannot be shown or addressed on a single map. Therefore, it wo uld be imprudent co infer too much about timing of planned development without refer ence to the t e xt of l ocj l comprehensive pbn. I t shou ld be noted that each loco! compre hensive plan repre sents each loc a l govcrn mems concept for future land us e at a particular point in t ime. T hus, the plans reflect the l ong range intention of loca l governments and may or may not reflect the marketpl ace wil l produce. Unfo reseen circumstances can and do arise that require c h anges o r amendmen t s to t he future la n d use p l an. In ddition, local go ve rn ments frequently change their desired future land use scenario as lle'o'' informat ion becomes available 01:' as the}' increase thei r capacity co plan. The state requ ires each l oc a l government to monitor the progress of their planning program through the Evaluation and Appraisal R eport (EAR) process. T his is a l so the principal process for updating plans ro reflect c hanges i n state policy on plonning ond growth monagcment. Thus, the local p l an n i ng e ffort is an ongoing process a nd th e future land use maps do not represent 3 st01tic cnd-st

Florida Future Land Use Compiled from Local Government Comprehensive Plans 0 Rural (less than 1 unit per 5 acres) r .... '" ...


Multi-Family (greater than 6 units per acre) Commercial / Off i ce Industrial Mining lll Military Preserve M water N Majo r Highways i-CUT 1994 Center for Urban Transportation Research Source: Southwest Florida Regional PLlnnlng Council


TABJ.E 2 al, l'vlining, and Mil ita!)' [and use categories totaJ less t h a n 700,000 acres each. The rura l category i s a "catch-aU"' category because it was used for very row hous ing densities (one dwelling unit per five acres or less), plus anyth ing that did not fit within the no_nresidentia1 categories. T herefore, thi s catego!)' c onsists of land uses as d ivet se as rural resid ential wetlands, ,-..oodlands, and various forms of agricultur e including c r oplands groves, Total Acreage fn Each Land Usa Category on the Florida Pulure Land Use c ent r a l a n d eastern portio n s of the dle. Industria l develop mcnt in t h e r egi o n i s along ot near primary roadways. Commercial devel opment is scattered througho ut the region and i s particu l ar l y prominent along primary roadways, ncar m i litary and beach communities Land Use Catsgory Acrea:p Rural 1710211159 Presorve 71322123 4 Family 4 1 00 5 1 561 Rate 3 1 469 1 89 1 NuldFamily 1,097,87 8 Hili1ary 678 ,584 Commer;cial/Oftic e 8 4 7,200 lodWlll'lal and p asture l ands The total actual acreage in agricultural usc was 11 million 1987, whereas land uses in the rural category compr ise 1 7 million ac.res. RogiDnal Descrlpl1ons The land use categories are n ot un i form l y distributed across the state. The fo ll owing regional descriptions of the future land uses of the state highlight some of the variations that exist. T h e regi ons that were delineated for descri pt i on are the Panhan dle, North Flo r i d a West Centra l F l orida, East Central F l o rida, and South Florida. Pmtha!Ulle The Panhandle of F l o rida is p rimaril y rural, although singl e -famil y l and usc is scattered throughout the region near cities and towns. The heaviest concentrat i on of residential land uses i s cen tered near the city ofTallahassec. Mul t i -family land use is roost d ense near urban areas or ncar beach commun ities. I n the western portion of the Panhandle, military l and usc is common a t Eglin and Tyndall Air Force Bases. The Black R iver State Forest d o m inates the preserve category in t h e western portio n o f the Panhandle. The Appal a chicola Nat i onal Forest, St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge, and the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife R efuge are the named preserve$ in the Analyois ol tile Florida Future Land Use 4 5 3,572 265,583 North Floritla The North Florida region consist s mainly of single-family. estate, and r u r a l l and uses. The region is dominated by the Jacksonville m e tropoli tan region, which, a long with St Augustine and Gainesville, i s the most signi ficant a rea for commercial and i ndustri a l developme nt. Commercial developmen t also is common along the beach communities and i n s c a ttered Jocarions in rural communities. Some jndustrial devel o p ment o ccurs a l ong major Florida's Regions STAt'S TRANSPORTATION POIJCY OOTIA TIVE 3



The ftgutes were derived by using the endpoints and midpoints of the residential category density ranges. The low density scenario assumes complete build-out and u s e s dwelling density figures at the low end for estate, single-family, and multi -family cat egories. The rural category has no lower bound and an e$t imate o f one d"elling unit jm 20 acres was used. For the medium scenario, the dwelling density for the rural category was set at one dwelling per 10 acres and the density hig h (20m). The low estimate obtained ,STATB TRAHSPOl\TA'J10N POLICY IHit1A TIVE for rnulti -f.tmil y was set at 9 dwellings per acre. The high density scenario uses 1 2 dwellings per acre for the mu lti -family category. The number of from th e land use plan (26 million) is 6 million higher than the current ''high" popu l ation pro ject ion for 2010. It is 3 million higher than the current "high" population pro j ection for the year 2020. The population estimates from the state wide future land use map were based on the assumption of comp lete build-out, which is highly unlikely, especially for the rural TABL Estimated Number of Ros!denl!a1 Unils in Florida Using Law, Medium, and lligh Density Bulltl-llut Scenarios SU!gls-Rruo/ &ststs FamJly Total Area 17,021,158 3,468,89 1 4,085,561 Lim I/ensi1y Build DDt Units pet' Acre 0 .05 0.20 1 0 Total Units 851,05 8 693,778 4,085,.561 Mold l'aml!y 1,097,87 6 6.0 6,587,255 dwelling units for the three scenarios is presented in T able 3. Build out at low density yields a total of 12,216,000 dwelling units medium density yields 25,225,000 Medium !Jonsity IIWld Out UnJts peJ> Acre TotalUnlt> 1/igh !Jonsity IIWld Out Unite per Acre Total Units units, and high density yields 40,473,000 dwelling units Population estimates were derived froin the dwelling unit figures using the 1990 pop u la tion (12,937,926) and the 1990 number of dwelling units (6,100,262). Assumi ng that the ratio of popula tion to tota l dwelling units will remain approxi mate l y the same, estimates of the pop u la tion th at could be accommodated by the dwelling units are obtained by multip l ying the numbers of dwelling units by 2.12 (1990 population divided by 1990 total dwelling units). The population estimates fo r the three scenarios are shown in Table 4. These estimates are considerably larger than the cur r ent popu lat ion projections for Florida for 2010 -low (16m), medium (18m), and 0.1 0.4 3.0 1,702,11 6 1,387,556 12,256,683 0.2 1.0 5.0 3,404,232 3,468,891 20,427,805 category It should be noted that the rural category accounts for about 7 p e rcent of the population in the three scenarios and therefore docs not significandy inflat e the estimates. By using the middle densities, which we deem likely, but selecting build out ratios of .2 for rura l and 5 for the other three residential categories, a tion estimate of 26 mill ion is obtained This is the TABLE4 9.0 9 800,883 12.0 13 ,174,510 same as that for the low scenario provided by SWFRPC. Estimated Projec:l24 l'loritla Population (20 I 0 ) Clearly, a var i ety of tradc-offs Scenario Low Density Bulld-Dut Density Build-llut IIJgb Denslty Bu!Jd-Dut Proje


difftrrnt from this map, except for two types of siruati0 11S. First. arc a noma lies, such as thos e described above, which simp l y arc unlikely to occur. Second, Lht: broad tracts of land are un l ikely l<> develop uniform l y in t e rms of time and degree. Rother, these blocks will be developed o n a piecemeal basis. The map appears to display an invitation for urban sprawl. This might be ameliorat ed by the text of the individual local plans, but it clearly ppcars on the maps. lncn!a .. ing the r esidentia l density of a large block of l and ope ns the door to scattered and haphaz.ard developme n t patterns These areas c annot b e completely o u t because the number of dwelling u nits w o uld exceed market demand and the ability to prov i de such a pop ulation with watc, r or publi c infrastructure and services. In addition, various r egulatory issues will prcv

8 STATE 'I'RAHSI'ORTATIQM POUCY INITIAtiVE Ground w ater and surface water cont amina t ion also have strained florid a's w a t e r s u p pl}' in rece nt years The sources of mosr of t he conraminants are landfil llcachatet i ndustri:al runoff. m i ning runoff, g aso l in e l eaking frorn u n derg rou nd scoragc t ankst and septic S}'Stem runotT. Groun d wat er contam i n a t ion i.s exacerbated by the karst landsca pe i n Florida. Kust l andscapes fo rm on limeston e bedrock when wat ers dissolve : nvay port ions of the l imesto n e to c reatc underground voids or c averns Mos t o f Flor i da' s ground water reserves are stored i n these u nderg round voi ds When they collapse, si nkholes form. The sinkholes d i vert surface water-and any contami nants th.:ygen in the w a t er. Ano t her press i n g env i ronm enta l conc-ern r ela ting to the fut u re l and use map o f Flo rid a is t he lo s s o f w i ldl ife habiraL. Lately, n u merous extinc t io n s have occurred t hro u ghou t Nort h A merica Many of t hese extinctions were caused by the recent encroachment of u rban spraw l onto l ands th a t have b een more or le-Ss p r ist in e or in .1.gric ul t ur al land usc for centu r i es. A cont r ibuti ng factor to the loss o f speci e s d iversity i s that. as developmen t oc c u r s wildlif e habitat i s often preserv e d in a check erboar d pa tte rn. S mall p ar c els of l and are preserved within a broader u rban or su b urban environment. These small parcel s, whil e serving as a f unct iona l habitat for many s p e cie s, are cut off from the gene pool of the entire ecosystem. This effective l y reduces th e biodiv e rs ityof th e r egion T he fut ure land use ma p of F l o r i d a shows w i despr ead urban development in the form of an H-shaped megalopol is without a significant cmmection between prc:served lands The lar ger preserves, such as Ever glades Na1ional Park and the Ocala Nat i o n al For e s t are not conne c t e d co ocher preserves I n fact many of the pre ser v e l and s (especially in central Flo rid a ) are surrounded by u r ban develop men t Al though th is may be the appm p r iatc t)'p e of p r eserve fo r non-m ig ratory animals and for some plants. he alt hy func t ioning preserv e s shoul d be interconnected O therwise organisms w i t h a l arg e ran ge, suc h {IS th e =====================;;; Amllym oJ the Florida Futtue Laml Un Hsp


Florida Panther, are cut off from usc of th e preserves by urban develoPment. Conduslons and Recommendations Maps are powerfu l tools; as graphics they attract a tte n tio n a n d as spati a l graphics they convey d istributional informatio n tar better than text. This map is part icularly useful for evaluating regiona l develop ment patterns and land use coordina tion issues that would not be apparent on loca l plans. T h e map clearly shows, for example, th at land use often changes dras t ically across counties and l and use classifications are strikingly line ar along some county bound aries. This suggests a low level of coordina tion between nei ghboring communities in some regions on futur e land u s e issues. The m ap a l so shows regiona l development trends that are not consistent wit h state policies aimed at discouraging urban sprawl. For example, the areas in the Esttte category surrounding Orlando cut across severallO<:al future land use p lans. This would allow vast areas of l and in the Orlando region to be developed on a piecemeal basis, leading to isolated develop ments separated by fallow or agricultura l londs The net effect of this typ e of devel opment across many municipali ties is a haphazard checkerboard pattern of devel opment, rather than compact growth patterns. The f ormation o f an urban n1egalopo l is is the most s ignificant geographical phenomenon iden tifie d on the map. The large, H-shaped urba nized zone stretches along both peninsular coast.< and through Orlan do. The megalopolis may or may not actually occur, a lthough it is ce r tain l y in the process of forming. Unless loca l plans are altered to work w i thin a r egional the plans as they stand could be a pr escrip t ion for urban sprawl and overall environmental degrada tion. In the map shows potential future deve lopment that would accommo d a t e far more people than the populat ion Analysis of tile FloriJ!a Fnture Land UN Map pro j ections pr e dict. Although some flel(ibili ty is appropriate 3t the local l evel, map us ers may b e l ef t with an impre ssion o f irrespon sible p lan ning at a statewide and regiona l scale. Based on these ob s ervations this study make-s the following recommendations i n relation to future land use planning i n Florida: Greater emphdsit must be placed on the regional/and use implications local comprehensive pl.a11J. The state w ide future land use map reveal s a lac k of coordinati o n among loca l governments o n land use planning, illustrated most readily by the general l and use conflicts at county borders. Therefore, i t (s recommended that greater emphasis be placed on developing a framework for a cooperative regional approach to lan d use planning. The Intergovernmenta l Coordination Elements (ICE), required under the recent ElMS III legislation, provide a framework for this co occur. The effectiveness of the I CE process should be closely mon itored However, joint city--county land use planning mapping, and vis ioning progroms also are needed. Regiona l p l anning councils could help with this effort. Countywide planning councils or growth management commissions a re a nother effective forum for fostering greater coordination of land use planning and transportation on a countywide b3sjs. Pursue strategies If! prevent Jeve/()pmenl of a sprawli11g megalopolis ;,. Florid11. The development of a megal opolis on both coasts and in the Orlando area will hav e social and environmental effects that must he addressed. Future land use plans from this megalopolis rq;ion should be r"""'aluated w it h a goal of discouraging large expanses of low density develop ment in rural areas and ameliorating the formation of a spraw ling megalopolis. 9


10 Local governments i n these areas sh ou ld address this issue i n the EAR process and in their intergov ernmental coordination e l ements Strategies should b e included in the that wou l d prevent spraw l ing megalopo lis developmen t, protect w ildljfc migration corridors, increase coord i nation on natural resource management. An urban growth boundary approach to land use management should b e strong l y considered in the rapid ly developing areas of Flor i da co check sprawling megal opolis formation. Require the use of a uniform land ust classification system in local comprehensive planni1zg. A h i e rarchical cl


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.