Download Comparing Neglect in Historic Urban Areas: Newman's Model & GIS and more Essays (university) Urban planning in PDF only on Docsity!
Contemporary Urban Affairs
2018 , Volume 2 , Number 2 , pages 33 – 45
Gauging the Relationship between Contextual
Growth and Structural Neglect
* Dr. GALEN NEWMAN^1 , Dr. MICHELLE MEYER^2 , Dr. BOAH KIM 3 and Dr. RYUN JUNG LEE 4
1, 3 , 4 (^) Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, USA (^2) Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, USA E MAIL: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu E mail: mmeyer@lsu.edu , E mail: boah.kim@gmail.com E mail: ryunjunglee@gmail.com
A B S T R A C T
Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result in
non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point where
removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing rate of
neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for research
investigating connections between urban growth management and its effect on
neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of measuring neglect
to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect in historic
Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA utilizing
different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are made
examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric correlation
evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-comparative GIS
spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved farmlands
increase, neglect can be lowered.
CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (201 8 ) 2 ( 2 ), 33 - 45.
https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018. www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.
1. Urban Dynamics and Heritage Neglect Forrester (1969) theorizes that the city is a living organism whose form takes its shape as the result of a combination of external forces. Further, actions and interactions of cultures are a product of the desires, necessities, and values of a city’s actors and give meaning to its form (Newman, 2015). This theory presupposes that comprehension of the built environment must be considered in conjunction with the understanding of both exogenous and endogenous factors and their causal relations (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Listokin (1997) takes this theory a step further, positing that growth management and preservation of the built environment are fundamentally connected; he also states that these connections are, however, not fully understood. Local policies do not conserve built heritage fully (Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). For example, evidence from historic areas in Germany has shown that contextual economic and political changes significantly impact historically preserved buildings (Alberts & Brinda, 2005). Historic preservation has a primary objective to protect structures and districts of historic prestige
A R T I C L E I N F O:
Article history: Received 10 October 2017 Accepted 16 August 2017 Available online 16 October 2017 Keywords: Historic preservation; Structural neglect; Correlation; Geographic information systems; Urban growth.
- Corresponding Author: Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, USA
E-mail address: gnewman@arch.tamu.edu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 4.0. "CC-BY-NC-ND"
from alteration, degradation, and demolition (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Historic urban areas require high levels of support to retain structural viability, safeguard the integrity of heritage structures, and stimulate local economies. Urban spatial change is largely tied to alterations in contextual land uses, threatening many elements within the historic built environment. Simultaneously, many urban fringe areas (such as farmlands), the settings of historic urban buildings, are also threatened. As such, regulations now go beyond local preservation policies and include larger scaled contextual approaches for heritage management (Collins, Waters, & Dotson, 1991). Centrifugal development has effected many urban historic buildings, in many cases resulting in their removal. Urban sprawl can create a uniform spatial form across cities and destroy much structural heritage in its wake (Treib, 2008; Yahner & Nadenicek, 1997). Urban expansion can accelerate the loss of historic buildings because of a lack of utility, a process referred to as demolition by neglect (DBN). DBN is the removal of a historic building or structure due to prolonged vacancy and extreme maintenance issues (Leatherbarrow & Mostafavi, 1993). The capabilities of historic preservation policies to assist in retaining historic character and function in heritage buildings is highly dependent on the examination of process and changes within urbanized areas and their surrounding contexts (Alderson, 2006; Cook, 1996). Since urban contexts are constantly in flux, form and function rarely coincide in any environment for an extended period of time (Jackson, 1997). Contemporary historic preservation theory gives priority to form through the pursuit of historic integrity. An unfortunate outcome of this position is that if a historic building loses its function in contemporary society, it can also eventually be removed. Luckily, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation efforts have increased recently, leading to small upsurges in historic structure retainance in some localities (Newman, 2015). Many U.S. historic structures are policed on a unit- by-unit basis and are then analyzed based on whether or not they appear as they once did at a given historical time (or based on their historic integrity). Jigyasu (2002), notes that historic structures have two fundamental dimensions: historic integrity, and a relationship to the contextual environment with which they interact. A vital approach to the preservation of historic buildings lies with the ability to managing the individually with local policy (internally) and successful management of regional land use changes (externally). Therefore, the examination of the individual structure and its dynamic setting must occur if neglect can be fully understood. (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). The shift toward a more dynamic management of historic structures must focus on adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and land use management. American historic preservation can differ from European approaches due to a stronger emphasis on local regulations in the U.S., while many European cities practice an area-based approach (Doratli, 2005). Area-based strategies can increase non-government funding, allow for greater expansions in historic districts, increase private sector investment in historic regeneration projects, and increase heritage rehabilitation in marginalized neighborhoods (Pickerill & Armitage, 2009). In the U.S., broader heritage management approaches are typically regulatory or incentive- based. Regulatory measures, such as state regulated monetary penalties, generally involve punishment for allowing neglect to occur or continue. South Dakota statutes makes willful neglect a misdemeanor; in West Virginia, local landmark commissions enforce standards for the maintenance of landmarks; San Francisco, California can assess a $500 per day penalty to owners who allow neglect to occur (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008). Listokin (1997) theory suggests that local polices, when used in a singular approach, will not adequately result in conserved built heritage in the long-term (Alberts & Brinda, 2005; Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). Contemporary research reinforces this position, but shows a separation between historic preservation and external land use management (Avrami, 2012). Historic buildings are just one component within a larger, ever-changing system; if both aims are focused to align to one goal, only then will the system be mutually beneficial properly (Newman & Saginor, 2014).
3. Research Questions and Methodology This research uses GIS to determine if contextual land use management helps deter neglect within the historic built environment. It seeks to answer the question, what relationship does farmland preservation have on neglect within historic urban areas? It is hypothesized that preserving fringe farmlands as a policy for external land use management can aid in increasing viable buildings within historic urbanized boroughs. The urban boroughs analyzed – Bristol, Quakertown, and Doylestown – are all historic colonial cities in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, USA. Pennsylvania uses farmland preservation to aid in the conservation of the historic character of its boroughs and townships as a means of countering the effects of sprawl. Bucks County lost 70% of its agricultural properties from 1950 - 1997 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005). The entire region was ranked second in the U.S when ranked according to areas with farmlands threatened to conversion (Olson & Lyson, 1999) (Bourke, Jacob, & Luloff, 1996). Bucks Count, is a contested landscape characterized by rapid land consumption and conversion. It is in southeast Pennsylvania within an area suffering from threatened farmland and concentrations of historic teardowns. From 1985 to 1995, Pennsylvania lost an area of farmland the size of Delaware to development while populations declined in many inner cities (Hylton, 1995). To counteract decentralization, the state enacted agricultural preservation as a primary means of managing growth Each borough under investigation is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2008) and is approximately two-square-miles in size; similar polices for preserving farmlands are also practiced (purchase of development rights). Evaluating units of analysis within an identical county with analogous geographic sizes, populations, and ages helps to control for other intervening variables. We utilized the central place theory (King, 1984) to outline an external boundary for each borough to determine the highest impacted areas for the context according to town centers with this particular size and population (Table 1). Within this boundary, we calculated the total quantity of preserved agricultural lands which encircled each borough. Newman’s model (2013) of calculating neglect is applied using (Figure 1) GIS based tools. It combines dimensions of integrity and viability using five factors: 1) timeframe of construction (when the building was built), 2) architectural modification (how much the building has been altered since construction), 3) land use change (how much the building’s function has changed), 4) physical condition (the condition of each building), and 5) assessed value (the fair market value). A 95% confidence level was reached based on the sample size and clustered, multistage area random sampling was utilized to survey each building (Montello & Sutton, 2006). Each factor was then measured by scoring three characteristics. Table 1. Similarities of Cases under Investigation Variable Doylestown Quakertown Bristol Population 8227 8688 9923 Size 2.2m2 2.0 m2 1.9 m Date Founded 1745 1803 1720 # of Preserved Farms 46 13 1 Total Acreage of Preserved Farmland
Agricultural Preservation Strategy Purchase of Development Rights Purchase of Development Rights Purchase of Development Rights National Register Listing Yes Yes Yes
The evaluation of conservation planning requires measurement on multiple scales for meaningful analysis (Nijkamp, 1991). The research utilized three scales of analysis: an inventory presenting descriptive statistics of the measures utilized to assess variables, a Polychoric correlation to assess relationships of variables, and GIS spatial analyses which combining geocoding, reclassification of attributes, Hot Spot Analysis, Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation, Weighted Suitability overlays. The inventory describes conditions on a building by building scale; the correlation examined which variables impacted DBN significantly; and the comparison analyzed the relationship between DBN and amount of preserved agricultural lands. An ordinal scale was used in the inventory and GIS analyses to assign attributed to each building surveyed. Higher overall totals in summed scores indicated a lower occurrence of neglect. Characteristics accepted of each measure per variable were then evaluated using percentages as a means of inventorying conditions. The scores for the five variables were then summed to evaluate structural neglect on a building scale. The total score of a given building could range from 5 to 15. Neglected buildings had point ranges from 5 to 8, transitory buildings had score ranges from 9 to 12, and viable structures had scores ranging from 13 to 15. The relationship with each factor contributing to DBN neglect was assumed to be (as sums were greater, DBN was lessened), a Polychoric correlation was utilized to test correlation. The variables utilized to assess neglect were correlated with their overall impact in a specific location within the sample frame. Figure 1. Newman’s Model of Measuring Neglect. After individual building totals were mapped as point values, the cross-case comparison used GIS analyses to identify and map larger-scaled areas of the built environment which were neglected. Hot spot analysis was performed for each spatially located variable and an IDW was performed from the hot spot analysis. Each hot spot analysis map was then overlaid using suitability modeling which was weighted to identify both neglected and viable spaces.
Physical Condition d2 = Moderate 8 0.123 13 0.197 14 0.255 35 0. d3 = Well Composed
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1 Assessed Value e1 = $0 - 81,000 52 0.800 31 0.470 51 0.927 134 0. e2 = $82,000 - 162,
e3 = $163,000 - 243,
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1 Table 3. Neglected and viable structures per town. Doylestown Quakertown Bristol n % n % n % Neglected (5-8) 1 1.5 2 3.1 5 9. Transitory (9-12) 52 80 51 78.5 45 81. Viable (13-15) 12 18.5 12 18.5 5 9. Table 4. Polychoric Correlation Analysis Output. Land Use Change Architectural Modification Building Condition Assessed Value Time Frame of Construction Polychoric Correlation - 0.016 0.697** - 0.014 0. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.065 0.000 0.110 0. Land Use Change Polychoric Correlation 1 - 0.094** 0.241 - 0. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.019 0. Architectural Modification Polychoric Correlation 1 - 0.211 - 0. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.592 0. Building Condition Polychoric Correlation 1 - 0. Sig. (2-tailed) 0. **α<0.01; *α<0. Table 5. Explanation of Variances. Measure Eigenvalue Variance Explained Cumulative Variance Explained 1 1.77 0.354 0. 2 1.3 0.259 0. 3 1.01 0.203 0. To understand how these five variables can be combined into, we ran polychoric principle component analysis. In Table 5, we notice that the selected variables explain three underlying aspects of neglect with Eigenvalues above 1 for three factors. These three factors together explain over 80 percent of the variance in the neglect scores among units. As expected from the correlation matrix, the variables Time Frame of Construction and Architectural Modification indicate one similar factor of neglect and load on the first factor. The other three variables, Land Use Change, Building Condition, and Assessed Value, load onto both factors 2 and 3. Because all five variables relate to our conceptual understanding of neglect and the lack of one clear factor, we choose to combine them into one rate of neglect. There are various
methods to create a combined index score, including weighting variables based on the correlation matrix or polychoric factor analysis results. Because of the limited ordinal scaling of the variables (i.e., only values of 1, 2, and 3) and the smaller sample size (n=186), we are concerned about strongly interpreting these results. Thus, we chose simplicity in this exploratory analysis of neglect rating and sum the scores of the five variables. We reverse code timeframe of construction and architectural modification because of their negative correlations with the other variables. The scores could range from 5 (a building scored 1 on every variable) to 15 (a building scored 3 on every variable). Overall, our actual rate of neglect scores range from 6 to 15, with a mean of 11 and standard deviation of 1.61. In Table 6, we show the rates of average neglect for each town. All three towns have similar rates of neglect, but Bristol shows the highest rates with an average score per structure of 10.55. Only 1 building in our study scored the maximum of 15, and it is in Doylestown (Table 6). Table 6. Output of IDW and Neglect Rate Comparisons. Output of IDW and Neglect Rates Doylestown Quakertown Bristol Neglected (Black) (^) (<-2.58) (-2.58 - 1.96) 22.21% 18.37% 37.58% (-1.96 - 1.65) Grey (Transitory) (-1.65 - 1.65) 29.41% 57.45% 60.20% Viable (White) (^) (1.65 - 1.96) (1.96 - 2.58) 48.38% 24.18% 2.22% (> 2.58) Range 15 - 8 14 - 8 13 - 7 Mean per Structure (SD) Total Score/Sample Size
Rate of Avg. Neglect (Mean/15) – 100%
4.3. Cross-Case GIS Analysis Each building surveyed was geocoded using its address, new fields were created as attributes using the data obtained, maps were created according the attributed developed, and then Hotspot and IDW tools were applied. High z-scores, hot spots, designated areas which with clustered neglect. The IDW combined points created from each building surveyed and suitability models were then run with equal weighting. The suitability maps read where darker areas represent and lighter areas are less neglected (Figure 2, 3, and 4). Doylestown has nearly one half of its area as viable and a very low proportion of neglected area (48.38% and 22.21%, respectively) (Table 6). Quakertown has nearly one quarter of its space as viable and nearly one fifth neglected (24.18% and 18.37%, respectively) and Bristol has relatively no viable space and over one third of its area neglected (2.22% and 37.58%, respectively) (Table 6).
5. Conclusions and Outlook This research sought to determine if external land use management could help deter the process of demolition by neglect in the historic built environment, specifically focusing on the alteration of viability rates and the characteristics of neglect as land preservation increased or decreased. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved land increased, viable areas increase while rates of neglect decreased. As fringe farmland preserves increased by city, the overall ratio of viable structures increased, the amount of individual neglected structures decreased, the rate of average neglect decreased, but the overall proportion of the area of the built environment in need of immediate regeneration was not necessarily smaller. This suggests that external land use management strategies can have an indirect effect on neglect rates in historic areas. Hot Spot Analyses supported the hypothesis - as amount of agricultural preservation increased, there was an increase in viability. While all three towns had high ratios of historic structures, many of the land uses in these structures had changed over time in an effort to keep them viable. However, each borough also displayed a high proportion of vacancies, with Bristol experiencing the highest. The relationship of timeframe of construction and architectural modification indicates if historic structures are present, modification of the area’s structural integrity may be necessary to keep it vital through time. This presents preservationists with a tough predicament– a battle between integrity and viability. Historic buildings and vacancy rates were relatively high across all cases. Also, while amount of retained historic buildings was larger as amount of farmland preserves increased, changes in function per retained building were also quite high, suggesting that if a town is to retain heritage structures, adaptive reuse could be a key factor in decreasing the neglect of these retained structures while contributing to their viability. This condition suggests that that while external land use management can help contain cities to retain historic buildings, population stability and land use consistency cannot be soundly proclaimed to be heavily affected. For these reasons, it cannot be soundly stated that external land preservation has a direct influence on increasing viability in historic areas. However, exogenous approaches to managing the historic built environment are a necessary to deter the process of neglect, but need to be implemented as part of a multi-combinational approach involving adaptive reuse and land use and incentive policies. Studies linking heritage preservation to broader regional land use strategies need to be continually explored, and the current paradigm shift should be accepted as a pliable avenue of examination. Local preservation policies need to begin to determine which broad-scale practices fit best into their smaller scale preservation efforts to produce a multi-combinational/multi-scalar approach. Acknowledgments This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-for-profit sectors. References Alberts, H. C., & Brinda, M. R. (2005). Changing approaches to historic preservation in Quedlinburg, Germany. Urban Affairs Review, 40(3), 390 - 401. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Alderson, C. R. (2006). Responding to context: Changing perspectives on appropriate change in historic settings. APT Bulletin, 37(4), 22 - 33. Available at: https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publication s_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/cahe_bibliogr aphy.pdf Avrami, E. C. (2012). A systems approach to historic preservation in an era of sustainability planning. Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers- lib/37522/ Ben-Hamouche, M. (2013). The paradox of urban preservation: Balancing permanence and changeability in old Muslim cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2), 192-
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.
Bourke, L., Jacob, S., & Luloff, A. (1996). Response to Pennsylvania's agricultural preservation Programs. Rural sociology, 61(4), 606 - 629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549- 0831.1996.tb00636.x Box, P. (2003). Safeguarding the plain of jars: Megaliths and unexploded ordnance in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Journal of GIS in Archaeology, 1, 90 - 102. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 48630_Safeguarding_the_Plain_of_Jars_megaliths _and_unexploded_ordnance_in_the_Lao_Peopl e%27s_Democratic_Republic Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1988). Principles of geographical information systems: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d8e0/b6b225b 36cac23608b41a51e13ddb2746cbd.pdf Cano, M., Garzon, E., & Sanchez-Soto, P. (2013). Historic preservation, GIS, & rural development: The case of Almería province, Spain. Applied Geography, 42, 34 - 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.04. Cassar, M. (2009). Sustainable heritage: challenges and strategies for the twenty-first century, APT Bulletin. Journal of Preservation Technology, 40(1), 3 - 11. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18790/1/18790.pdf Collins, R. C., Waters, E. B., & Dotson, A. B. (1991). America's downtowns: Growth, politics and preservation. In Politics and Preservation. Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press. https://www.amazon.com/Americas- Downtowns-Growth-Politics- Preservation/dp/ Cook, R. E. (1996). Is landscape preservation an oxymoron. Paper presented at the George Wright Forum. http://www.georgewright.org/131cook.pdf Doneus, M. (2001). Precision mapping and interpretation of oblique aerial photographs. Archaeological Prospection, 8(1), 13 - 27. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099- 0763(200103)8:1<13::aid-arp158>3.0.co;2-# Doratli, N. (2005). Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the most relevant strategic approach. European Planning Studies, 13(5), 749 - 772. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/ 2/ Guillot, D., & Leroy, G. (1995). The use of GIS for archaeological resource management in France: The SCALA Project, with a case-study in Picardie. London: Taylor and Francis. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ZPTLjMLSc
UC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=The+use+of+GIS+f or+archaeological+resource+management+in+F rance:+The+SCALA+Project,+with+a+case- study+in+Picardie&source=bl&ots=ivPcYE1ji0&sig =_- UGvwYZ5wB8SvoVuL5wRz2peV8&hl=tr&sa=X&ve d=2ahUKEwit2- rprazfAhXFmIsKHWnYBioQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v =onepage&q&f=false Hylton, T. (1995). Save our land, save our towns: a plan for Pennsylvania: Rb Books. http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/guides/saveguide. pdf Jackson, J. B. (1997). Landscape in sight: looking at America: Yale Univrsity Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/ /landscape-sight Jigyasu, R. (2002). Monuments and sites in their setting: Conserving cultural heritage in changing townscapes and landscapes. Paper presented at the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) Symposium, India. http://openarchive.icomos.org/387/ Kaimaris, D., Sylaiou, S., Georgoula, O., & Patias, P. (2011). GIS of landmarks management. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 12(1), 65 - 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.09. King, L. J. (1984). Central Place Theory. In. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bo ok/lookupid?key=olbp Kvamme, K. L. (1993). Spatial statistics and GIS: An integrated approach. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation- 2569 Leatherbarrow, D., & Mostafavi, M. (1993). On weathering: The life of buildings in time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
