Cities and Satellites: Spatial Effects and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Modeling Urban Growth
Abstract
The confluence of factors driving urban growth is highly complex, resulting from a combination of ecological and social determinants that co-evolved over time and space. Identifying these factors and quantifying their impact requires models that capture both why urbanization happens and where and when it happens. A database that links five satellite images spanning 1976 to 2001 to a suite of socioeconomic, ecological, and geographic information system–created explanatory variables was used to develop a spatial–temporal model of the determinants of built-up area across a 25,900-km2 swath across central North Carolina. Extensive conversion of forest and agricultural land in the past decades is modeled by using the complementary log-log derivation of the proportional hazards model and thereby affords a means for modeling continuous–time landscape change by using discrete–time satellite data. To control for unobserved heterogeneity, the model specification includes an error component that is gamma distributed. Results confirm the hypothesis that the landscape pattern surrounding a pixel has a major influence on the likelihood of its conversion and, moreover, that the omission of external spatial effects can lead to biased inferences about the influence of other covariates, such as proximity to road. Cartographic and nonparametric validation exercises illustrate the utility of the model for policy simulation.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Lubowski R. N. Vesterby M. Bucholtz S. Baez A. and Roberts M. J. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bulletin 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006.
2. Duranton G. and Puga D. Microfoundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies. CEPR Discussion Papers 4062. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, 2003. ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/4062.html.
3. Hartgen D. T. Highways and Sprawl in North Carolina. John Locke Foundation, Raleigh, N.C., 2003. www.johnlocke.org.
4. Hardie I. W. Parks P. Gottlieb P. and Wear D. Responsiveness of Rural and Urban Land Uses to Land Rent Determinants in the U.S. South. Land Economics, Vol. 76, 2000, pp. 659–673.
5. Stavins R. Plantinga A. and Lubowski R. Determinants of Land-Use Change in the United States 1982–1997. Resources for the Future Washington D.C., 2003. ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-47.html.
6. Turner M. G. Wear D. N. and Flamm R. O. Land Ownership and Land-Cover Change in the Southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, 1996, pp. 1150–1172.
7. Geoghegan J. Wainger L. A. and Bockstael N. E. Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS. Ecological Economics, Vol. 23, 1997, pp. 251–264.
8. Kline J. D. Moses A. and Alig R. J. Integrating Urbanization into Landscape-Level Ecological Assessments. Ecosystems, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 3–18.
9. Irwin E. G. and Bockstael N. E. Interacting Agents, Spatial Externalities, and the Endogenous Evolution of Residential Land Use Pattern. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 2, 2002, pp. 31–54.
10. 1998 Sierra Club Sprawl Report: 30 Most Sprawl-Threatened Cities. Sierra Club, San Francisco, Calif., 1998. www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/raleigh.asp. Accessed Jan. 2003.
11. Boscolo M. Kerr S. Pfaff A. and Sanchez A. What Role for Tropical Forests in Climate Change Mitigation? The Case of Costa Rica. Latin American Center for Competitiveness and Sustainable Development. 1998. www.incae.ac.cr/EN/clacds/nuestras-investigaciones/articulos/cen710.php.
12. Cox D. R. Regression Models and Life Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. B34, 1972, pp. 187–220.
13. Allison P. D. Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., 1995.
14. Jenkins S. P. Survival Analysis. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom, July 2005. www.iser.essex.ac.uk/teaching/degree/stephenj/ec968/pdfs/ec9681notesv6.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2007.
15. Lancaster T. The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1990.
16. U.S. National Atlas Federal and Indian Land Areas. Environmental Science Research Institute, Redlands, Calif., 2000.
17. U.S. GDT Park Landmarks. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Calif., 2000.
18. Resource Management Program. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. 2003. www.ncsparks.net. Accessed June 2006.
19. Cropper M. Puri J. and Griffiths C. Predicting the Location of Deforestation. Land Economics, Vol. 77, 2001, pp. 172–186.
20. Powell D. S. Taulkner J. L. Darr D. R. Zhu Z. and MacCleery D. Forest Resources of the United States. Technical Report RM-234. USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992.
21. Alig R. and Healy R. Urban and Built-Up Area Changes in the United States: An Empirical Investigation of Determinants. Land Economics, Vol. 63, 1987, pp. 215–226.
22. Prestemon J. Pye J. Butry D. and Stratton D. Locations of Southern Wood Chip Mills for 2000. USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/mills/chip2000.htm. Accessed April 2003.
23. Schaberg R. H. Aruna P. B. Cubbage F. W. Hess G. R. Abt R. C. Richter D. D. Warren S. T. Gregory J. D. Snider A. G. Sherling S. and Flournoy W. Economic and Ecological Impacts of Wood Chip Production in North Carolina: An Integrated Assessment and Subsequent Applications. Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 7, 2005, pp. 157–174.
24. North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database Data Layers. cgia.cgia.state.nc.us/cgdb/catalog.html. Accessed June 2006.
25. National Land Cover Data. EROS Data Center. U.S. Geological Service. 1992. edc.usgs.gov/products/landcover/nlcd.html. Accessed Jan. 2003.
26. Local Area Personal Income Tables. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. www.bea.gov/regional/reis/. Accessed Nov. 2006.
27. Fielding A. Scaling for Residual Variance Components of Ordered Category Responses in Generalised Linear Mixed Multilevel Models. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 38, 2004, pp. 425–433.
28. Alonso W. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964.
29. Childs C. Interpolating Surfaces in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. ArcUser, July–Sept. 2004, pp. 32–35.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2008
Issue published: January 2008
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 6
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 2
- SimiVal, a multi-criteria map comparison tool for land-change model pr...
- On the comparative performance of urban delivery vehicle classes
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
