Grantee Research Project Results
2008 Progress Report: Reality Check Plus: Envisioning a Sustainable Maryland
EPA Grant Number: R833346Title: Reality Check Plus: Envisioning a Sustainable Maryland
Investigators: Knaap, Gerrit , Moglen, Glenn E. , Ruth, Matthias
Institution: University of Maryland - National Center for Smart Growth
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: March 1, 2007 through April 30, 2010 (Extended to February 28, 2012)
Project Period Covered by this Report: April 1, 2007 through April 30,2010
Project Amount: $274,060
RFA: Collaborative Science And Technology Network For Sustainability (2006) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
The objective of this project is to explore alternative development scenarios for the State of Maryland and provides estimates of how land development can affect energy consumption and surface water quality. The project builds on a large, recently completed public participation exercise in which Maryland residents placed lego blocks on a map as a means of expressing a preferred future development scenario. This development scenario will be compared with existing conditions, an extension of current development trends, and two additional scenarios to identify impacts on a variety of development indicators. Work under this grant focuses on two specific areas: energy consumption and surface water quality. Water quality impacts of alternative development scenarios will be estimated using a GIS-based model that yields estimates of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings into stream segments throughout the state. Impacts on energy consumption will be estimated using statistical models that capture interactions among urban development patterns, local climate change and energy consumption.
Progress Summary:
With funding from NCER and several other sources, the Center launched a more technical and rigorous effort than Reality Check Plus, with focused input from a small but representative group of stakeholders serving as an advisory group. In spring 2007, the Center convened the advisory group of nearly 40 technical land use and planning experts from across Maryland to assist in identifying the future driving forces of Maryland’s growth. The group met three more times that year to create alternative scenarios for future growth in Maryland, based on the interactions of those driving forces of growth with potential local and state policies.
Ultimately, the group identified two scenarios:
- Business as Usual. With the Business as Usual scenario, there was an assumption that existing state and local land use policies and trends would remain intact. Under such a scenario, the advisory group envisioned continued dispersion of development throughout the state’s rural areas.
- Urban Concentration. The Urban Concentration scenario included those driving forces that encouraged more compact development within and adjacent to the state’s existing urban areas.
The Center moved forward with two additional scenarios based on its previous efforts:
- Realtiy Check. The scenario created by combining the results of the statewide Realty Check public participation events.
- Buildout. The Buildout scenario envisions a Maryland that is developed to capacity across the state based on existing local zoning and land use regulations. While this is an unrealistic scenario, it can provide a context for scenario and policy impact comparisons.
In 2008, the NCSG began the process of elaborating several loosely coupled models to evaluate alternative development strategies for the state development plan. Several of these models were funded from other sources and some were not even under consideration when the CNS grant was awarded. These models, designed both to help create spatially explicit development scenarios and provide quantitative measures of their consequences, include land use, transportation, fiscal impact, water quality and energy consumption models. The modeling system includes a national econometric model, a land use model, a transportation model and several impact models. A model exercise begins with a national economic forecast of employment, output, and prices of 95 sectors of the U.S. economy. The output of this model is disaggregated to the state level where it is fed into the land use model. The land use model then allocates jobs by industrial sector and household by income level into State Modeling Zones (SMZs). Jobs and households at the SMZ level are fed into the state transportation model which then forecasts traffic volumes on each link in the model. The outputs of the transportation and land use models are fed into impact models that identify the impacts of each scenario on public expenditures, stream quality, and residential energy use, and more.
Preliminary results reveal that the models produce sensible results and can be loosely coupled. What’s more, the output from a series of models tells a coherent story. Higher gas prices lead to declines in economic activity, a more compact urban development pattern, less need for highway expansion, less impervious surface, and lower energy consumption. The nutrient loading and energy consumption models must be interpreted carefully, however. More compact development leads to less energy consumption. But sprawl development, if it results in the development of poorly managed farms (defined as farming without the use of best management practices), can lead to lower levels of nutrient loading.
Future Activities:
Now that preliminary versions of all the models are operating, the next steps are to calibrate and refine the models, apply them to all the scenarios, and present the results to a public audience.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 33 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Urban development, residential energy consumption, nutrient loading;, RFA, Air, Atmosphere, Air Pollution Effects, climate changeRelevant Websites:
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.