2nd edition Geog 588 (Works Cited validity: As a beginning researcher unfamiliar with the complete Html process, exclusions in the Bibliography were unintentionally done by left out paragraph breaks. This inaccuracy resulted only because of our rush to meet the Geog 588 deadline. For this reason the edited research project has been resubmitted for further validity consideration. It is requested that the first edition be replaced with this edition in the Dean's file for these reasons.
By Dallin Smith and Onalena Kgathi
The objective of this study is to preserve existing agricultural and habitat rich open space land. This land is threatened by encroachment of urbanization that should be clustered for higher density acre units per acre (Gordon Younker and John Nicholson, 1996) as subdivision growth appears to be inevitable. Private land ownership and government and private negotiated buffers can control undesirable sprawl.
Our initial project was to study density criteria for residential development in Cache Valley. As the population growth increases in Cache Valley, the land development had reached the highest development stage. Urbanization is growing at a fast rate that it is undermining agirculture because residential development had been pushed into preserved agriculture prime land. This urban sprawling is a concern to the people and the authority because they want to protect agriculture, open space, and wildlife habitat. As we started our project we decided to narrow it down to a particular area which is experiencing this problem. Providence is focused on as our study area. The first thing done was to orient ourselves to the area by using Arc View software. The 1992 digital Ortho photo image of the area was used (Doug Ramsey). Then, an active strategy for work was initiated. The coverages needed in the project follow: roads, zoning, land use (gained from orthophotos and field experience), fault line, soil, important habitat, and slope coverages. The slope and soil coverages were to help in determining geographic limits to expansion and the agricultural value of the land threatened (Onalena Kgathi, 1996, GIS/Remote Sensing partner).
This picture shows our area of study.
Mark S. Teuscher (County Wide Planning office) briefed us on the general agricultural background of Cache Valley. He said agriculture protection is a crucial problem that needs to be solved in conjunction with an updated comprehensive plan to create zoning ordinances to control urban sprawl. Some of the developments in the city are in [accordance with] the master plan of the area (Onalena Kgathi, 1996, partner). An example of ignorance to proposed and existing commercial zoning in Providence is at Miller Lane where a man built a nice ranch despite the warnings of the City of Providence. Current commercial expansion includes the new Edwards Furniture building on U.S. Highway 165 and Miller Lane.
May 1996
Our strategy was to pinpoint areas that were most suitable for agriculture by using a series of applicable GIS coverages. We justify the need for our project because it is projected that in the next 10 to 20 years subdivisions will continue to fill up the content of Cache Valley from north to south. We do not want to see Cache Valley look the same as the Wasatch Front where it it becoming a conurbanization (no separations between cities). Is agriculture or green open space needed in Providence? Who would be better to consult than the citizens that live in Providence? A citizen survey was created and distributed by Dallin Smith. Onalena Kgathi helped tally and analyze the results.
Property has already been claimed for settlement; in fact, a majority of Providence city is privately owned (Mark Teucher, 1996). Our extended hypothesis is that the soils on the properties to a large extent dictates its use for owners.
Timpanogos, Parleys, and Ricks soils are most prevalent along the east bench from Avon to the southern Idaho border which includes Providence city. These soils approach both a level slope (before the bench grade) and steep soils with gravelly loam, gravelly sand loam, loam, and clay loam subsoil (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1974). Our wish was to compare the areas of most suitable soils to the areas of prime farm lands where land is still undeveloped. Our wish was to also find their general proximity to irrigation water supply. Our pursuit entailed the high intensity pursuit of creating a map base defined by roads to overlay subsequent coverages. However, it did not work, so our alternative approach involved manual comparisons of county map coverages (Mark Teucher, 1996).
The soil areas favored both agriculture and building, but clay could damage foundations of houses by shrink or expansion (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1974). Also, a decrease in the water availabilty (over use) calls for another supply source. The installation of a water storage reservoir at Providence Canyon (Providence City Planning and Zoning Commission, 1996, p. 10-11) is planned above 5000 feet.
Inversely, gravel and sand content from Lake Bonneville created a good base for strong roots to support orchard growth, but weaker carrott roots meander in the ground and are disarranged when harvested (Providence citizen, 1996). Another strong feeling gained from the citizens of Providence is that frost is always a threat with the high elevation. This affects the short growing season (Johnson, C., Providence Community, Craig, C., Spring 1996).
Housing seem to fill in at a higher rate than planners can evaluate studies done by soil scientists to determine whether certain soils can better be used for prime agriculture land. These lands could then be legisilatively protected. My hypothesis is that the people would want to save their lands from subdivisions. The test questionnaire involving 14 people confirmed that there was no rejection to this theory. My alternative hypothesis became which area (agriculture or open green space) is more important to protect and why? The reader is invited to review the results of a randomly administered resident survey done using a questionnaire. The independent variable is the difference in responses from the regions of East to West, then North to South. The dependent variable is the question, does the perspectives of an area a person selects to live in effect their stand for land protection?
Our decision to rectify the roads coverage involved generating tics for control points on the coverage. Next, our coverages were to be tranformed to real world coordinate control points using rubber sheeting. These tics were to be copied to other coverages for further rectification, but it did not work.
Also, the adjust command did not prove useful. Similarly, the edit feature, select, and transform commands used stretched the rubber sheet slightly to match the common features, but a large amount of error remained. Because it did not work as expected, we persisted to investigate the select, move commands. However, by this time our time was too limited, so we abandoned this technique.
Our progress in terms of precision on matching the GIS coverages with the digital ortho photo did not justify further investigation. Consequently, our other approach was to manually compared the developmental difference between the 1992 photo of a subdivision and commercial devlopment with reality in 1996. New or proposed roads are a precursor for new services (Doug Ramsey, 1996).
Our desire was to visually analyze slope, fault lines, soils, agriculture, and habitat protection areas. We have included a map of Providence coverages obtained from files on Arc View (Doug Ramsey, 1996). The general plan for Providence contains coverages used to imagine a slope model for habitat areas by generating and discussing contour lines to find limits to building expansion. Our wish is to optimize decision making by gaining quality criteria for land use distribution priority.
In summary, our intention for results was to build control points on the roads coverages so that when it was transformed it should closely match the digital orthophoto quad. By using the control points, we could have rectified other coverages expected to be used in the project. Alternatively, we chose to compare the sites visually from plots prepared by the City of Providence and the County-wide Planner.
The following information (John Nicholson, 1996) helped to formulate the questionnaire.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an organization that seeks to preserve existing non-developed areas. Oftentimes, the [third party] organization purchases lands the government wants, because the government is not allowed in land auctions. An option negotiates a deal for a price for land and a time frame for meeting funding for the land. (Endicott, 1996?, p. 17-20). They have a high reputation for obtaining valuable land that goes on the market, and private land owners can get tax or other incentives for agreeing to sell their land. . . . "Deed restrictions" [of land trusts] narrow the way a tract of land is utilized for open space or wildlife refuges. It also indicates the reason the application is to be done (Endicott, 1996?, p. 38)."
Oftentimes, the private landowner cares to whom they sell because sometimes [they still live in the neighborhood]. The purpose for the private land owner to get involved with the TNC is to "rule out a gift of the . . . conservation easement" for government funds with ownership [rights](Endicott, 1996?, p.39-40). The private landowner can hold rights on the land and eliminate access to them by the government. Therefore, the land owner would not lose all the benefits of owning land. This is a possibility for Providence citizens because most of the city is privately owned.
Professional researchers at western Oregon confronted farely wealthy households at the urban to forest fringe. The residents were briefly educated on the expense and health worries for the U. S. Forest Service by using prescribed burning and herbicide spraying. . . . Residential funding concerns were postulated as safety threats affect their health and decrease their property values. The results of the survey confirmed that residents disliked and did not select two-story harvests because of a fear for [housing] wind damage (Johnson, 1994, p. 191).
An implementation negotiation was sought that was satisfying for all including a standard for developmental prospectors to structure building [design] based on the [vegetative] desires of people (Johnson, 1994, pp. 184-185. Because the forest service must make money, trees must be harvested. Otherwise, the U. S. Forest Service is open to compensation for limited tree density * protection control. Alternative funding would be required to come from the residents directly effected. Residents were presented with computer simulated photographs of their homes against their backyards, and the consequent changes in these relationships for the owner's immediate views. Next, the head of the household was asked if they would pay the Forest service for the loss suffered for less lumber supply from harvesting. This compensation study was done using "image capture" technology (Johnson, 1994, pp. 183, 188) A smart protection idea is to lease the development rights while keeping ownership -- "a scenic easement." It gives the owner an assurance that the land will not intentionally be damaged becuause the users are subject to accountability (Johnson, 1994, * p. 187).
It costs the Forest Service more to selectively cut trees than clean out them all. More intensive and costly equipment is needed for selective cuts. The scenic easement employs other less destructive cuts. The results indicated that most every resident wanted a thinned cut--the least dense destruction. Hardly anyone was satisfied with a clear cut. Reasons for disapproval of payment was that tree protection was not worth the money, or the resident did not like to see change for their current resource enjoyment (Johnson, 1994, p. 189). An interesting fact is that few people felt that the proceedure was unfair (Johnson, 1994, p. 190-191). Conclusively, two-thirds of the residents were willing to pay enough money to compensate the Forest Service for their backyard view impacts. Impacts from leap frog cuts would be tough to implement because people are so variable. It is better to satisfy everyone along a buffer next to owners home properties. For a satisfactory result for all owners, a tax collection or condemnation must be done. The authors wonder if this is an acceptible answer for the meighborhood (Johnson, 1994, pp. 192-193). Already residents at western Oregon have expressed less concern for areas of settings besides their backyards and property. The next proceedure would be to computer simulate the density buffer of the entire backyard areas for resident's reactions (Johnson, 1994, pp. 191, 194).
My reason for the above citation is that Providence, Utah is also a wealthy community (Providence Planning and Zoning Commission, Master Plan, 1994) The next step that will be employed for the area of Providence, Utah, is to determine whether the protection of agriculture or open green spaces is preferred.
An agricultural or green open space protection questionaire was prepared for the residents of Providence community. The coauthor, D. Smith distributed it to the northern and southern regions of Providence city. Upon further consultation from Mark Teucher, County-wide Planner, and Richard Cutler, Statistics Consultant at Utah State University, I adjusted my stratified random sample pilot test to the most accurate survey method; namely, random sampling from a community address list (Providence Planning and Zoning Commission, 1996) and a series of random numbers between 0 and 1. This method would allow for more accuracy; hence, I intended to use it. However, I was faced with a holiday weekend when I would want to find certain residents home at their addresses.
Consequently, I consulted with Dr. Cliff Craig. He told me that a consistent regional balance in my research techniques is more important than the accuracy of those techniques. Therefore, rather than initiating another questionnaire distribution, I am continuing the same distribution process for two more regions, West and East, so that the entire community will be represented. Consequently, the audience will benefit by knowing that the distribution represented a random amount of people in different neighborhoods.
The test sample provided three important initial pieces of information for me: 1)the one-sided answers to questions told me that the people already knew that agricultural and open space protection is a problem. Also, it informed me that the benefits of seeing deer outweigh any problems. Therefore, I eliminated these questions.
The questions were changed to read, is there a need to protect agriculture or open space in Providence? 2)Onalena Kgathi assisted me in tallying the results of the first 14 test samples. 3)The feedback from the citizens who did the test sample is analyzed. No questionnaire is practical unless it is distributed as a tool for the specific decision makers that can make a difference. Consequently, an accurate survey can be completed in the near future to share with the city and state businesses for my statistics or quantitative methods classes.
We went on a field trip to the area to make observations. Our hypothesis from our field observations revealed that new developments are spreading in the northeast and south of the city. Lots that were empty in 1992 are now developed or have started development. Rapid growth is evident [because] roads networks [are] zoned in areas [that] anticipate more growth. Large, wealthy, new neighborhoods were evident. Some residents at providence are concerned about threatening high to moderate density urban sprawl growth.
It is important to recognize that the precision of the technique used to do this questionnaire is highly limitted. Therefore, the audience is advised to use this study to get a general idea of the attitudes and opinions of the residents in Providence. But also, the audience must keep in mind that the study can be verified with more research with the accurately administered questionnaire. I opted not to do a clustered sample of the street blocks because I did not think that about a fifty percent accuracy confidence level was worth my time. Using a clustered sampling method would not allow me to represent a region because doing a block for a random street only shows the perceptions of one set of neighbors. I also sampled using a stratified random sample method. Therein I selected staggered areas of the region with a variation in housing types.
Once the questionnaire was done. The results were analyzed by selecting the most chosen response (somewhat like tallying election results). If I noticed answers that had nearly even, devided results. I included a range of location representation. By visiting each region of Providence, I can now compare the relationships between the east and west portions, and the north and south parts. The conclusions of the analysis are as follows:
Employed at service type occupations
Occupations outside Providence
Residence more than 15 years
Want River Height to Providence open green space
Would pay USFS for tree protection
Most residents do not mind extra houses if their services do not suffer. Some would like to protect both agriculture and open spaces, but they're not willing to support actions to protect them. Many believe that filled in housing is inevitable. If people do want to stay it is because they are 1)happy, or 2)lands hold historic value. I got a general idea that the people feel that the city is out to make money with houses, and it does no good to complain to them. One argument against a general plan is that lobbyists overreact with ordinance actions.
A general plan for protection would affect their decision to remain (Farely even distribution).
The majority of the residents make less than 40 thousand household income.
Would not move, but farely equal
Elbow room is valued for privacy and scenery. There is no need to fill space. The owner has control over use. A carpenter's wife suggested putting housing in cities. She said the area is all filling in with houses. She likes Providence for less congestion and crime, but she also thinks it is more friendly. For these residents rural animals sound best and separate cities are more acceptible. A couple is moving already that has lived there under five years because rediculus space encroachment demands by the City of Providence. In a more open area, there is less chance that accidents would involve kids.
Employed at service type occupations (Farely equal representation)
Occupations outside Providence
Completely for open space and agriculture protection
Want River Height to Providence open green space
Would pay USFS for tree protection
Current choices completely affect quality of life in Providence
Completely in agreement that deer grazing is not a problem
General Plan protection will not affect choice to remain (farely equal)
Would pay USFS to protect trees
Household income is 20 to 40 thousand
It is interesting that a construction worker wants to protect open space for the beauty, but land owners have ultimate choice for land control. Once person stated that there is not enough water for more homes. Most residents moved to Providence for the laid back life style that would speed up with filled in housing. Agriculture or open space is an immediate, hot debate. Grazing is only a seasonal problem. "Unless very unusual decisions are made, we can control development of land we own" (Providence citizen). A green space buffer from River Heights to Providence must be done fairly by considering land investors or interested developers. Another resident hates subdivisions and their expense. He says he would like a general plan for protection, but it depends on how expensive land becomes.
General Plan protection will affect choice to remain (farely equal)
Would not pay USFS to protect trees
Income is approximately over 20, 40, and 60 thousand
Residents perspectives follow: the rural area is enjoyed, but protection is too late. Residents would not move because they already are established. Who pays for the open space? There is no need for a River Heights to Providence buffer. The USFS is already paid to protect trees. A choice to move would be for another reason besides space. Privately owned land is used as a [sprawl] control. Make a park or equestrian area between Providence and River Heights. Another despises big cities and a protection plan might convince them to stay.
An exceptional former EA Miller citizen shared an intriguing perspective:
People need money from land speculation, but better water rights are not needed for a furniture shop. [The people of Providence] will wish they had farm land for future food needs. There are better areas to grow in the nation. The intention of farmers is to get (profits) kick backs for steers. This was done for the last 70 years from a co-op agreement.
The problem is the wise son's of farmers do not want to operate the farm because the sons are not willing to commit to pay off the debt of the farm from their dad. It is much more profitable for a son to work somewhere else. There is almost no contest in terms of the victory in the competition because it would cost the son 40 to 50 years to pay off his dad or a loan to his dad. The investment would be about $250,000.
Taxes would go up for subdivision residents because large land owners like farmers pay more property tax that goes to help educate the farmer's and his land renter's kids. Someone on a large farm would pay $10,000 in taxes compared to $600 in taxes at a residence.
Because of the high operating prices, EA Miller sold off land to Agcore. The over-supply of beef must be transported, and it is given less tarriff expenses if it is all transported on land owned by large companies like Agcore.
Questionaire Conclusions
(Citizens of Providence, 1996, Questionnaire: Appendix)
The objective of this study is to protect existing agricultural and habitat rich open space land. This land is threatened by encroachment of urbanization.
We are not suggesting that the City of Providence relocate existing settlement with takings compensation for existing residents on highly suitable agricultural and/or open space lands. To avoid controversies with citizens, I asked what Providence city needs to protect from building expansion: 1)suitable agriculture, or 2)habitat rich green open space lands.
We experienced the common research results of frustration. We handled it professionally because we had learned this quarter that most scientific research is not entirely successful. We learned to adapt our strategy when presented with tough problems in spite of our time limitations. Edit, feature, tick was to give us this ability, but we ran into too large of an error ratio for the rubber sheet overlay to be useful.
Clustered high density (over about 20 developed units per acre) provides for large populations on a minimal amount of land that would provide capital for the city, please current residents by protecting most agricultural land and/or open space, and could utilize current services at run down areas that need to be revitalized (David Winn). The zoning of roads by the city [in Providence] predict the construction of more houses.
In conclusion, the second test questionnaire distribution for the East region confirmed that 50 percent prefer green open space protection. The west region confirmed that agriculture protection is preferred.
My intentions and/or recommendations for the future are to survey the randomly selected addresses of citizens, the most accurate approach. This concise questionnaire may be edited further, then distributed between 5 and 9 in the evening, Tuesday through Thursday evenings at the random generated addresses. I formulated the houses to visit by multiplying a random number between 0 and 1. This number was applied to the marked, counted row on the list.
Johnson, C., Utah State University Landscape Architecture Department. Personal interview. Site explanation, suggestion and permission to determine whether the current residents would approve his 1982 River Heights Master Plan, Spring 1996.
Johnson, C., Utah State University Landscape Architecture Department, River Heights Master Plan. Austin, D. D., and Hash, A. B. Minimizing Browsing Damage By Deer: Landscape Planning for Wildlife. Providence community citizens. Questionaire, End of May, 1996. Agriculture or open green space protection by Dallin Smith.
Ramsey, R. D., Utah State University Geography and Earth Resources Department. Digital Orthophoto Quad, land use coverages for GIS roads. Providence, Utah. Arc Info, CD ROM import. 1992.
Ramsey, R. D., Utah State University Geography and Earth Resources Department. Site specific historic comparison relationship suggestions for methods at Providence city.
Teuscher, M. S., County-wide planner. Personal interviews, Agricultural protection idea, presentation useful land use coverage printouts for Cache County, Spring 1996.
USDA Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service; Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Cache Valley Area, Utah. November 1974. (Agricultural Suitability maps and information), p. 10, 11, 14, 15, sheet 34, map 11,.(Provided by Nicholson, J.K., Spring 1996.
Providence City Planning and Zoning Commission: Holden, P., Coover, M., Wright, B., Bell, M., Thompson, C., and Heers, T., Ramsey, R. D. (Maps). Master Plan City of Providence, 1994, pp. 10-11.
Haring, L. L. Haring, Lounsbury, J. F., Frazier, J. W., De Blij, H. Introduction to Scientific Geographic Research, William C. Brown, Dubuque, 1992.
Lilieholm, R., Utah State University Department of Forest Resources, Undergraduate coordinator for Managing Natural Resources at the Urban Interface: The Challenge of a Changing West. Personal interview and source of contacts. Spring, 1996.
Nicholson, J. K. LAEP Department (Planning Implementation class information, discussions, and resources), Spring 1996.
Winn, D., Utah State University Geography and Earth Resources Personal interview. Economics of urbanization and research strategies, Spring, 1996.
Tilton, Thad. TA geography graduate student. Software guidance. GIS/Remote Sensing Teaching Lab. Spring, 1996.
Special thanks to the following Spring 1996 contacts whose indirect influence is greatly appreciated:
Evan L. Olsen--Cache County Legislature Representative, Personal interview.
Glen Stringham, Mayor of Millville, Personal interview
David Spann, Resource Conservation & Development Director, Natural Resources Urban Interface Symposium. Personal interview
Gordon L. Younker, Utah Association of Conservation Districts. Natural Resource Urban Interface Sysmposium. Personal interview.
Rebecca L. Johnson, Ph.D., Oregon State University Department of Forest Resources. Natural Resource Urban Interface Symposium. Personal interview.
Doug Ramsey, Ph.D., Professor Utah State University Department of Geography and Earth Resources (GIS/RS Classes)Personal interviews.
Dr. Cliff Craig--Professor for Geography Methods class, Personal interviews.
Chan Eng: Intern at Country-wide Planning Office Flood Plain Data and former project partner.
Endicott, E., [Given by Nicholson, J. K., Utah State University, (. . .) Plan Implementation course, Spring 1996. Preserving Natural Areas: The Nature Conservancy and Its Partners. Three National Nonprofit Partners and How they work: The Nature Conservancy, p. 17-42.
Johnson, R. L., Brunson, M. W., and Kimura, T. (1994). Using Image-capture Technology to Assess Scenic Value at the urban interface: a Case Study. Journal of Environmental Management, p. 183-195.
N_S_E_W_
Let me thank you ahead of time for completing this simple questionnaire. The results from this survey could help to shape your community. Sincerely, Dallin Smith (USU Geography student). ______________________________________________________________________________What is your occupation? ______________________ Location? ____________
How long have you lived in Providence city?
___ 0 to 5 years
___ 6 to 10 years
___11 to 15 years
___more than 15 years
Is there a need in Providence city to protect open green space or agriculture?Open Space ___
Agriculture ___
Why?_________________________________________________________________________As Providence city grows will you or your family consider moving because of a lack of open space? Yes ___ No ___
Why? ______________________________________________________
Would passing a general plan for protecting agriculture and open spaces affect your decision to remain in Providence city? ____Yes ____No
Why?___________________________________________________________
Do you oppose a green space buffer between River Heights and Providence to help maintain existing open space? Yes ___ No ___
Why?__________________________________________
Do you approve or oppose paying the Forest Service to selectively protect trees on their eastern bench land that is rich with wildlife? Yes ___ No ___
What is your income level?
___ Less than $20,000
___ Less than $40,000
___ Less than $60,000
___ More than $60,000