PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



CamYearty LAND6920 Midterm Assignment Suitability Study .pdf



Original filename: CamYearty_LAND6920_Midterm_Assignment_Suitability_Study.pdf
Title: Assignment 6 Document.ai
Author: cyearty

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 / Acrobat Distiller 10.0.0 (Windows), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 18/04/2013 at 22:37, from IP address 128.192.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 968 times.
File size: 2.3 MB (13 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


Suitability Analysis

Yearty Park
Cochran, Georgia

Project Overview
Project Information:
The purpose of this project is to show proficiency in creating GIS models to automate
site suitability process. I choose to show this by developing a test case wherein I determine the suitability of parcels in my hometown of Cochran, Georgia for the location of a
new city park, to be named in my honor.
Case Overview:
The City of Cochran wishes to create a new park. You have been tasked with determining a list of parcels which might make a suitable location for the park, based on the
criteria listed below:

Objectives:
1. Must be within City Limits or serviceable by City Sewer or Water
2. Protect ecologically sensitive areas
3. Locate in or near diverse communities
4. Minimum financial cost
5. Proximity to creeks positive
6. Parcel or parcel groups should be appropriately sized (1 to 5 acres)

Data Needed and Procured:
In order to properly analyze the parcels to meet the objectives listed above, I procured
data from the Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission office in Eastman.
Thanks and appreciation go out to Mr. Scott Jackson, a resident of Cochran, who
helped me procure this data. The specific layers that I use in the analysis are:
City Boundaries
Parcel Data
City Water and Sewage Data
Creek and Wetland Outlines
Census Tract Data with Demographic and Income Attributes

Raw Data Included:
Analysis:
Cochran Zoning
NWI Wetland Data
Tax Parcels with property values
Census Blocks w/ Diversity Index
Jordan Creek

Created Rasters of:
Zoning
Wetlands
Tax Parcels
Census Blocks
Jordan Creek

Value Fields:
Zone Labels
Wetland Class1
Parcel Value
Diversity Index
Euclidean Distance

Reclassified into 5 Classes (1 being least desirable 5 being most desirable)
Data Reclassification

Explanation

Zoning:
5: A-1
4: R-1
3: Industrial
2: R-2
1: C-1; C-2

The inclusion of zoning data in the suitability analysis is important because it
allows for an understanding of existing use. Agricultural land should be more
readily available, R-1 residential land will be abundant and possibly less
expensive, industrial land is underutilized in Cochran but will be expensive to
repurpose, R-2 (multifamily) will have existing structures that need to be
worked around, and the commercial districts will be the most difficult to
acquire and repurpose for a park.

Wetlands:
5: N/A
4: N/A
3: FO
2: SS
1: UB; US; EM; AB

National Wetland Inventory data was used for the wetland portion of the
suitability analysis. Since none of the areas that are listed as wetlands are
ideal, the highest ranking was 3 for the FO (Forested) Class. The SS (ScrubShrub) Class was listed as a 2 due to its level of sensitivity to development. The
other classes (Unconsolidated Bottom, Unconsolidated Shore, Emergent, and
Aquatic Bed) are either underwater or too sensitive for development. Therefore, they were all reclassed as 1.

Jordan Creek Distance (Jenks):
5: 0.0 - 318.0944
4: 318.0944 - 682.967389
3: 682.967389 - 1113.330401
2: 113.330401 - 1637.25059
1: 1637.25059 - 2395.063721

The Euclidean Distance of Jordan Creek was more simple to reclass. It was
created as continuous raster data, so all that was needed was to break the
existing data into five classes. The Natural Breaks (Jenks) Method was used to
do this, and the data was reclassified appropriately.

Parcel Value (Jenks):
5: $5,000 - $23,533
4: $23,533 - $43,759
3: $43,759 - $62,867
2: $62,867 - $79,976
1: $79,976 - $99,965

The Parcel Value was also reclassified using the
Jenks Method. However, unlike the other data, this
was not existing data. Because of the nature of the
assignment, it would have been impractical to get
accurate data, so I added a field to the parcel data
labeled value, and randomly calculated values from
$5,000 to $100,000 using this python script:

Diversity Index (Jenks):
5: 0.0 - 0.079861
4: 0.079861 - 0.244947
3: 0.244947 - 0.408163
2: 0.408163 - 0.5
1: 0.5 - 0.666667

The Diversity Index was calculated with the formula below [where
per_white (etc) is “percent white”], and reclassed by the Jenks Method:

Master Model from ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Master Model from ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Creation of Study Area
In order to select only areas which are located in the desirable area, I created a study area to act as a mask for
all of my operations. The objectives stated that the most desirable site should be within the Cochran City
Limits and serviceable by city water and sewage. In order to define the areas which fulfilled at least one of
these parameters, I merged the three areas into one shapefile. All of my processes were run with the border
of this shapefile acting as a mask.
Cochran City Limits

Cochran Sewage Service Area

Cochran Water Service Area

Final Study Area

Original Shapefiles
Zoning

A-1

C-1

C-2

Wetlands and Creeks

I

R-1

R-1

Wetland

Parcel Value

$5000$24,704

$24,704$43,771

$43,772$62,525

Jordan Creek

Diversity Index

$62,576$81,190

$81,191$99,998

.00-.06

.07-.21

.22-.35

.36-.47

.48-.67

Rasters
Reclassified

Original
Colors vary, but correlate to original shapefiles

1
Creek Distance

Diversity Index

2

3

4

5

Rasters
Reclassified

Original
Colors vary, but correlate to original shapefiles

1
Parcel Value

Wetlands

2

3

4

5

Rasters
Reclassified

Original
Colors vary, but correlate to original shapefiles

1

2

3

4

Zoning

Weighted Overlays
Weighted 1 (Environmentally Focused):

Weighted 2 (Economically Focused):

Zoning
Wetlands
Parcel Value
Diversity Index
Creek Distance

Zoning
Wetlands
Parcel Value
Diversity Index
Creek Distance

20%
30%
10%
10%
30%

24%
12%
40%
12%
12%

Weighted 3 (Diversity Focused):

Weighted 4 (Balanced):

Zoning
Wetlands
Parcel Value
Diversity Index
Creek Distance

Zoning
Wetlands
Parcel Value
Diversity Index
Creek Distance

12%
12%
14%
50%
12%

20%
20%
20%
20%
20%

5

Weighted Overlay Results
2

3

4

Environmental Overlay

Economic Overlay

Diversity Overlay

Balanced Overlay

Most Appropriate Parcels
Appropriate
Parcels
Environmental Parcels

Economic Parcels

Diversity Parcels

Balanced Parcels

List of Most Appropriate Parcels
Results from
two Overlays

Results from
three Overlays

Parcel ID
B38D 011
A02 002
B38D 011
B38B 036
B37A 219
B37A 218
B37A 226
A02 002
B38B 037
A20 103
B38D 010
B38B 058
B38D 191
B38D 017C
B38B 058
A02 002
B38B 058

Acres
Property Value Weighted Overlay
1.26
5,969
Environmental
3.83
18,566
Environmental
1.26
5,969
Economic
1.92
6,436
Economic
1.40
11,638
Economic
1.20
11,722
Economic
1.32
17,047
Economic
3.83
18,566
Economic
2.64
19,305
Economic
1.68
23,774
Economic
1.06
25,888
Economic
2.17
28,613
Economic
1.08
31,112
Economic
3.44
38,927
Economic
2.17
28,613
Diversity
3.83
18,566
Balanced
2.17
28,613
Balanced

Results from
three Overlays

Summary of Report:
The processes outlined in the Suitability Model yielded the results shown above. If this
report were to be given to the City, they would take the list of parcels and use it as a
guide to determine the final location of the park. Owner willingness to sell, asking price,
and variables not included within this report may skew the final decision-making process.
After the completion of the project, I see a few areas for improvement were I to run the
model once more. First, I would base my price variable on the price per acre, not the
lot value. This would provide for a more uniform understanding of the cost of each
parcel. Second, I would like to have more detailed existing land use and building data,
so as to incorporate any extra costs or prohibitors from developing various parcels.
Finally, I would like to have included a sixth variable that would allow me to prioritize
locations near schools. A Euclidean Distance of the school locations would have been
an effective tool for this. Despite these shortcomings, I believe the existing model does
hold up, especially for its academic purposes, because it incorporates various pieces
of data, analyzes them with consistancy, and processes the information to produce a
list of reasonable parcels. Additionally, the inclusion of four different weighted overlays
gives the model flexibility and allows multiple scenarios that might exist in the realworld.


Related documents


camyearty land6920 midterm assignment suitability study
2 0000168
red
strada mixed use icsc 2015 10 15
devry cis 115 week 4 exercise
cindy beckett letter opposing approval


Related keywords