(PDF) Housing location in a Philadelphia metro watershed: Can profitable be green?

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research

and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Landscape

and

Urban

Planning

125

(2014)

188–206

Contents

lists

available

at

ScienceDirect

Landscape

and

Urban

Planning

j

o

ur

na

l

ho

me

pag

e:

www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research

Paper

Housing

location

in

a

Philadelphia

metro

watershed:

Can

proﬁtable

be

green?

John

A.

Sorrentinoa,∗,

Mahbubur

R.

Meenarb,

Alice

J.

Lambertc,

Donald

T.

Wargod

aDepartment

of

Economics,

Center

for

Sustainable

Communities,

Temple

University,

580

Meetinghouse

Road,

Ambler,

PA

19002,

United

States

bCenter

for

Sustainable

Communities,

Department

of

Community

&

Regional

Planning,

Temple

University,

United

States

cFormerly

at

the

Bucks

County

(PA)

Planning

Commission,

United

States

dDepartment

of

Economics,

Temple

University,

United

States

h

i

g

h

l

i

g

h

t

s

•Housing

is

placed

in

a

Philadelphia-area

watershed

according

to

proﬁtability

and

sustainability

under

two

different

zoning

schemes.

•Proﬁt,

energy

use,

air

pollution,

greenhouse

gases,

water

quality

and

biological

integrity

are

assessed

for

each

scenario-zoning

combination

and

compared.

•Implications

of

the

results

are

used

for

policy

recommendations.

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Article

history:

Received

12

March

2013

Received

in

revised

form

31

January

2014

Accepted

1

February

2014

Keywords:

Housing

Location

Proﬁtability

Sustainability

Watershed

planning

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

The

objective

of

this

paper

was

to

examine

the

proﬁt

levels,

energy

use

and

environmental

impacts

of

two

residential

development

scenarios

in

a

watershed

in

the

Philadelphia

region

under

two

zoning

assumptions.

The

two

scenarios

were

based

on

economic

suitability

and

environmental

suitability.

A

key

question

was

whether

these

occurred

together

in

the

Pennypack

Creek

Watershed.

Suitability

analyses

in

ArcGIS

using

criteria

for

proﬁt

and

for

local

sustainability

parsed

out

two

sets

of

developable

areas.

Buildouts

to

satisfy

2035

population

projections

in

these

areas

using

CommunityViz

software

were

based

on

actual

municipal

zoning

ordinances.

In

a

uniﬁed

zoning

scheme

created

by

the

authors,

a

density-

adjusted

number

of

housing

units

are

placed

watershed-wide

without

municipal

restrictions.

Proﬁt

data

for

buildings

in

each

zip

code

were

used

to

compute

a

Weighted

Proﬁt

per

Square

Meter.

Household

units

were

associated

with

a

particular

type

of

automobile

and

average

Vehicle

Kilometers

Traveled

in

the

relevant

census

tracts.

The

GREET

program

was

used

to

compute

energy

use,

air

pollution

emissions

and

greenhouse

gas

emissions.

A

Weighted

Water

Quality

Index

and

Index

of

Biological

Integrity

were

used

to

assess

water-related

impacts

based

on

recent

monitoring

data

supplied

by

the

Philadelphia

Water

Department.

It

was

no

surprise

that

ECON-UNI

and

ECON-MUNI

generated

higher

proﬁt

than

ENV-MUNI

and

ENV-UNI.

ENV-UNI

had

lower

energy

use

and

environmental

impacts

than

all

others.

That

ECON-

MUNI

had

the

second

lowest

energy

use

and

environmental

impacts,

and

the

highest

water

quality,

was

unexpected.

Some

policy

proposals

and

conclusions

end

the

paper.

©

2014

Elsevier

B.V.

All

rights

reserved.

1.

Introduction

Land

use

change

is

considered

by

some

analysts

to

be

the

most

important

human-induced

environmental

transformation

(Wolman

&

Fournier,

1987).

Suburbanization

in

the

US

has

been

a

predominant

form

of

land

use

change

that

has

become

increasingly

automobile-dependent

and

has

lost

ties

with

central

cities.

New

∗Corresponding

author.

Tel.:

+1

267

468

8370.

E-mail

addresses:

jsorrent@temple.edu

(J.A.

Sorrentino),

meenar@temple.edu

(M.R.

Meenar),

alicejlambert@gmail.com

(A.J.

Lambert),

docwargo@temple.edu

(D.T.

Wargo).

development

has

extended

into

prime

agricultural

and

wooded

lands,

and

other

environmentally

sensitive

areas

(Batty

&

Xie,

2005;

Cervero,

2003;

Cullingworth

&

Caves,

2003;

Galster

et

al.,

2001;

Walker,

2004).

Environmental

degradation

at

the

suburban

fringe

includes

an

increase

in

the

release

of

greenhouse

gases,

degradation

of

lakes

and

streams

and

loss

of

biodiversity

(Walker,

2004).

Such

growth

is

also

thought

to

cause

many

socioeconomic

ills

(Adams,

Bartelt,

Elesh,

&

Goldstein,

2008).

That

some

of

this

can

be

avoided

is

the

thrust

of

the

present

work.

Watershed

planning,

conducted

within

watershed

boundaries,

and

land

use

planning,

usually

focused

on

municipal

boundaries,

are

often

two

different

planning

processes.

A

watershed-based

planning

approach

is

a

“coordinating

framework

for

environmental

0169-2046/$

–

see

front

matter

©

2014

Elsevier

B.V.

All

rights

reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.005

Author's personal copy

J.A.

Sorrentino

et

al.

/

Landscape

and

Urban

Planning

125

(2014)

188–206

189

management

that

focuses

public

and

private

sector

efforts

to

address

the

highest

priority

problems

within

hydrologically-

deﬁned

geographic

areas”

(Browner,

1996).

A

multi-municipal

program,

with

governments

and

watershed

associations

working

together

to

establish

and

apply

regulations,

offers

a

comprehen-

sive

way

to

manage

the

natural

and

built

environment.

This

study

examines

such

an

approach,

despite

the

difﬁculties

that

exist

in

states

such

as

Pennsylvania

where

fundamental

land

use

decisions

are

made

by

municipalities

(Hershberg,

2003;

Kenney,

1997).

Although

the

integration

of

local

planning

processes

is

increas-

ingly

being

seen

as

a

critical

public

policy

challenge

(Carter,

Kreutzwiser,

&

de

Loë,

2005;

Mitchell,

2005;

Plummer,

de

Grosbois,

de

Loe,

&

Velaniskis,

2011),

few

studies

have

analyzed

the

process

of

using

a

watershed-based

planning

approach

to

locate

residen-

tial

development.

Steiner,

McSherry,

and

Cohen

(2000)

performed

a

suitability

analysis

for

four

land

uses,

including

housing

devel-

opment,

within

a

large,

rural

watershed

in

the

western

US.

The

authors

found

areas

suitable

for

housing,

but

did

not

focus

on

the

impacts

of

development

in

the

areas

they

found

suitable.

Tang,

Engel,

Pijanowski,

and

Lim

(2005)

also

studied

a

large

watershed

in

an

already

urbanized

and

industrialized

area

in

the

US

Mid-

west.

They

concentrated

on

the

environmental

impacts

of

but

made

very

general

recommendations

for

future

watershed

decision

making.

Brown

(2000)

proposed

using

housing

density

as

a

water

quality

indicator

in

another

large

US

Midwest

watershed,

but

did

not

estimate

the

impacts

of

new

residential

development.

The

present

study

uses

suitability

analyses

to

locate

areas

for

housing

buildouts

in

a

small

watershed

in

the

eastern

US,

examines

the

energy

use

and

environmental

impacts

of

four

scenario-zoning

combinations

and

makes

some

policy

recommen-

dations

based

on

the

results.

By

comparing

economic

impacts

and

energy/environmental

impacts

of

housing

location

schemes,

the

present

work

aims

to

determine

whether

proﬁtable

and

green

development

can

happen

together.

It

is

thought

that

this

approach

can

add

a

new

dimension

to

planning

at

the

watershed

level.

Using

a

mix

of

regulations

and

incentives,

municipalities

can

implement

watershed-level

plans

within

their

boundaries

by

channeling

development

in

agreed-upon

directions.

As

Daniels

and

Daniels

(2003,

p.

3)

write,

“Land

use

planning

.

needs

to

emphasize

redevelopment

and

inﬁll

within

cities

and

sub-

urbs,

maintaining

quality

built

environments,

preserving

valuable

natural

areas

and

working

landscapes,

and

carefully

designing

greenﬁeld

developments.”

While

the

work

for

this

paper

is

focused

on

the

former

objectives,

there

was

no

attempt

to

implement

design

at

the

subdivision

level.

The

describes

the

study

area

and

discusses

how

the

data

were

used

to

generate

suitable

areas

for

development,

to

locate

buildings

in

those

areas,

and

to

measure

the

impacts

of

such

loca-

tion.

The

third

section

presents

and

discusses

the

empirical

results.

Policy

implications

and

conclusions

follow.

2.

Data

and

methods

The

logical

sequence

by

which

the

analysis

proceeds

is

as

follows:

After

setting

the

geo-political

context,

the

elements

of

residential

development

that

comprise

economic

suitability

and

environmental

suitability

are

discussed.

These

elements

were

operationalized

in

Geographic

Information

Systems

(GIS)

software,

ArcGIS

from

the

Environmental

Science

and

Research

Institute

(ESRI),

to

create

suitable

areas

for

the

economically

suitable

and

environmentally

suitable

scenarios.

CommunityViz

was

used

to

perform

buildouts

for

the

two

scenarios

under

actual

and

“uniﬁed”

zoning.

The

means

are

described

by

which

proﬁt,

energy

use,

air

pollution,

greenhouse

gases,

water

quality

and

biological

integrity

resulting

from

the

housing

location

patterns

were

computed.

2.1.

The

study

area

Located

in

the

Delaware

River

Basin

(Kaufman,

Homsey,

Belden,

&

Ritter-Sanchez,

2011),

the

90

km2Pennypack

Creek

Watershed

(PCW)

crosses

through

12

municipalities

within

three

counties

in

southeastern

Pennsylvania

on

its

way

to

the

Delaware

River.

About

328,000

people

live

within

its

boundaries

according

to

the

2010

US

Census.

The

Creek

is

a

public

amenity,

contributing

to

the

public

water

supply

and

used

extensively

for

recreation.

From

1950

to

1980

the

watershed

outside

the

City

of

Philadel-

phia

limits

experienced

signiﬁcant

development.

As

of

2012,

single-family

homes

made

up

38%

and

multi-family

homes

12%

of

the

watershed

(Fromuth,

2012).

Over

the

last

decade,

the

PCW

has

been

estimated

to

be

about

30%

impervious

(PWD,

2003,

2009).

The

PCW

is

serviced

by

public

water

suppliers,

and

it

is

estimated

that

stormwater

collection

systems

are

installed

in

65%

of

it.

Many

of

these

systems

were

designed

only

to

collect

runoff

and

discharge

it

offsite.

This

has

resulted

in

increased

ﬂooding,

destabilized

stream

channels,

severe

erosion

and

sedimentation.

A

municipal

treatment

plant

contributes

a

large

portion

of

the

base

ﬂow

in

the

Creek,

resulting

in

additional

nutrients.

In

the

midst

of

the

urbanization

within

the

PCW,

there

has

been

signiﬁcant

effort

by

conservation

groups

and

government

agencies

to

preserve

land

as

open

space

(Fig.

1)

(DVRPC,

2010),

Figs.

2

and

3

are

intended

to

give

the

reader

spatial

views

of

the

watershed.

Local

political

independence

is

evident

in

Pennsylvania,

and

plays

into

land

use

considerations

signiﬁcantly.

In

the

mid-1970s,

the

state

legislature

adopted

the

Home

Rule

Charter

stating,

“A

municipality

.

may

exercise

any

function

not

denied

by

this

Con-

stitution,

by

its

home

rule

charter

or

by

the

General

Assembly

at

any

time”

(PA

DCED,

2003).

The

Pennsylvania

Municipalities

Planning

Code

Act

of

1968

permits

municipalities

to

make

land

use

decisions.

In

the

PCW,

there

are

12

different

zoning

codes

regulating

land

use

and

(in

most

codes)

dwelling

density.

Though

most

municipal-

ities

have

their

own

protective

measures

to

conserve

ﬂoodplains

and

preserve

open

space,

the

end

result

is

often

a

disconnected

set

of

preserved

parcels

throughout

the

watershed.

The

potential

synergies

of

joint

measures

across

municipalities

are

thereby

not

realized.

Section

303(d)

of

the

US

Clean

Water

Act

describes

the

nature

of

an

impaired

stream.

The

Act

requires

that:

“The

states

identify

all

waters

where

required

pollution

controls

are

not

sufﬁcient

to

attain

or

maintain

applicable

water

quality

standards,

and

estab-

lish

priorities

for

development

of

Total

Maximum

Daily

Loads

based

on

the

severity

of

the

pollution

and

the

sensitivity

of

the

uses

to

be

made

of

the

waters,

among

other

factors”

(US

EPA,

2014).

The

Pennypack

Creek

is

listed

by

the

Pennsylvania

Department

of

Environmental

Protection

(PA

DEP)

as

an

impaired

stream

for

two

designated

uses,

aquatic

life

and

recreation.

Total

Maximum

Daily

Loads

have

been

assigned

by

the

PA

DEP

for

a

number

of

pollutants.

They

include

quantiﬁable

reductions

for

trichoroethylene,

fecal

col-

iform,

dissolved

oxygen-consuming

pollutants,

phosphorous,

and

suspended

solids.

The

responsibility

to

implement

the

reductions

lies

with

either

wastewater

treatment

operators

or

local

municipal-

ities.

Both

must

apply

to

the

US

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(EPA)

for

a

National

Pollution

Discharge

Elimination

System

Permit

for

permission

to

discharge

pollutants.

Wastewater

operators

and

municipalities

have

to

pay

for

and

administer

additional

controls

to

reduce

the

amount

of

pollutants

in

their

wastewater

or

storm

sewer

systems.

These

efforts

are

not

done

in

coordination,

reducing

pollutants

in

a

piecemeal

fashion.

In

1978,

the

Pennsylvania

legislature

recognized

that

ﬂooding

and

water

quality

problems

existed

because

regulations

were

not

standardized

throughout

watersheds.

It

enacted

the

Stormwater

Management

Act

(SMA),

requiring

the

PA

DEP

to

designate

water-

sheds,

and

establish

guidelines

for

the

preparation

of

Stormwater

Author's personal copy

190

J.A.

Sorrentino

et

al.

/

Landscape

and

Urban

Planning

125

(2014)

188–206

Fig.

1.

Land

uses

in

the

PCW.

Management

Plans

(SMP).

These

plans

encourage

comprehensive

planning

and

management

of

stormwater

by

requiring

counties

to

prepare

the

plans

and

to

develop

ordinance

language

for

munici-

palities.

Within

the

SMP

planning

process,

counties

are

responsible

for

establishing

a

Watershed

Planning

Advisory

Committee.

Each

municipality

is

required

to

adopt

stormwater

management

ordi-

nances

that

are

consistent

with

the

standards

and

criteria

of

the

plan.

Although

these

stormwater

runoff

performance

standards

are

required

to

be

consistent

throughout

the

watershed,

municipalities

still

have

the

freedom

to

structure

and

enforce

ordinances

as

they

see

ﬁt.

The

only

legislation

which

requires

multi-municipal

plan-

ning

for

watersheds

is

the

SMA.

Municipal

ofﬁcials

have

limited

resources.

They

are

generally

not

eager

to

commit

to

voluntary

activities.

Often

municipal

ofﬁcials

want

to

know

how

combined

planning

efforts

will

beneﬁt

their

jurisdictions

directly

before

they

commit.

Multi-municipal

planning

for

watersheds

tends

to

be

most

successful

when

incentives

are

offered,

or

local

government

needs

besides

watershed

conservation

are

met

(Barletta,

Dahme,

&

Maimone,

2007).

The

present

study

developed

a

uniﬁed

zoning

scheme

for

the

PCW

to

investigate

whether

consistent

classiﬁcation

would

result

in

more

proﬁt

and/or

less

environmental

degradation.

To

arrive

at

the

uniﬁed

residential

zoning

scheme,

the

residential

zoning

cate-

gories

and

codes

of

the

suburban

municipalities

with

portions

that

lie

in

the

PCW,

and

those

of

the

City

of

Philadelphia,

were

gathered

and

recorded.

Using

key

words

from

the

actual

categories,

the

eight

generic

Housing location in a Philadelphia metro watershed: Can profitable be green?

Abstract and Figures