Brock A Hoyt 1

Brock A Hoyt
Land Use Exercise
Environmental Issues
ENVL 4300

Brock A Hoyt 2

Table of Contents
Abstract.. 3
Introduction.. 3
Objective..4
Camden County Land Use..5
Passaic County Land Use..8
Bergan County Land Use..10
Ocean County Land Use..13
Neighborhood Land Use..16
Conclusion..18
References..19
Appendix..20

Brock A Hoyt 3
Abstract
This land use exercise was performed to provide a hands on understanding of how land use and
land cover can change over a period of time. With an in depth look at four New Jersey counties, it was
determined that there was a direct correlation between decreased forested area and increased urban
development. This trend was further exemplified, as 1995 aerial imagery of my own neighborhood
showed land use that was entirely forested. As the years approached 2007, the forested area was
thinned into short corridors, and the development reached full completion. The study of land use
change is among the most apparent and important environmental changes, especially for a state that
looks to tackle issues like sprawl through the elements of smart growth.
Introduction
Siting between two economic powerhouses (Philadelphia and New York City), the state of New
Jersey is viewed as a very attractive landscape to live. Over the past two decades, New Jersey has seen a
drastic increase in population. Extreme land use change, in the studied counties, has demonstrated a
large increase urban development land use, while consequently decreasing the states forest areas.
Monitoring land use changes becomes crucial when it comes to protecting the environmental laws that
are already in place and ensuring that residential/urban development occur at a suitable place. The
changing of land use signifies the alternation of what naturally occurs in those environmental
conditions. In New Jerseys case, land use modifications tend to deal with human altered events. The
creation of shopping malls, new residential developments, and the implantation of new infrastructure
are the causes the decreasing forest and agricultural land use. To avoid such harmful environmental and
sprawling effects, land use planning most incorporate smart growth development.
Objective
The objective of this lab exercise was to help better understand land use change over time in
New Jersey. During our two lab periods, we downloaded land use and land cover data from ArcGIS and

Brock A Hoyt 4
NJ GeoWeb. Using this data, the primary goal was to describe the land us characteristics of our
particular county (Ocean). Comparisons of urban, agriculture, barren, water, and forest land were made
between 1986 and 2012. Other objectives of this lab were to compare land use in three other counties.
A discussion around land use changes in my neighborhood was also incorporated from 1995-2012.

Brock A Hoyt 5
Land Use of Camden County
Camden County Urban Land Use:
Figure 1

Figure 1 is the breakdown of Camden Countys urban land use. The pink map, in the upper left
of the page, is of 1986. The purple map illustrates 2012. The third dark purple map is an overlay of both
years. Figure 1 demonstrates an increase of urbanization from 1986 to 2012. Camden country saw this
increase in the central portion of the state. Being so close to Philadelphia, the increase of development
and urbanization is likely due to those who live in Camden County, but commute to the city for work
opportunity.

Brock A Hoyt 6
Camden Forest Land Use
Figure 2

Figure 2 is the breakdown of Camden Countys forest land use. The brown map is of 1986. The
bright green map illustrates 2012. The third dark green map is an overlay of both years. Figure 2
demonstrates a decrease of forest from 1986 to 2012. Camden County saw this decrease in central and
slightly in the southern portion of the county. The decrease in forest has a direct correlation to the
increase of urbanization. The central portion of the county saw an increase of residential development
exactly where there was a decrease of forest.

Brock A Hoyt 7
Camden Agricutlure Land Use
Figure 3

Figure 3 is the breakdown of Camden Countys agriculture land use. The brown map is of
1986. The yellow map illustrates 2012. The overlay of both years is directly above. Figure 3
demonstrates a slight decrease of agriculture from 1986 to 2012. Camden County saw this decrease in
the southwest portion of the county. The decrease in agricultural land use has a direct correlation to the
increase of urbanization. This trend is similar to the rest of the country, as agriculture becomes lost to
various land development such as housing and the construction of roads. The decrease in agriculture
could also be due to soil degradation and erosion that makes the land unsuitable for crop growing
(Busch,2006).

Brock A Hoyt 8
Land Use of Passaic County
Passaic Urban Land Use
Figure 4

Similar to Camden County, Passaic County exhibits the same significant changes from 1986 to
2012. Figure 4 is a depiction of the 1986 urban land (blue map), the 2012 urban land (dark red map), and
an overlay of both (brown map). An increase of urban land use is observed over the 26 year period.
Evident in the overlay image, the increase of urban land use was seen strongly in the southwest part of
the county. Passaic County also offers a lot of working opportunity, being an hour outside of New York
City. With an increase of urbanization density, comes an increase of resource usage. The southwest area
more than likely saw a population increase, which will call for more water usage and an increase in
electric demand (Madlener,2011).

Brock A Hoyt 9
Passaic Forest Land Use
Figure 5

Once again, figure 5 illustrates a continuing correlation trend between the increase of
urbanization and decrease of forest land use. The figure above is broken down into three separate
images. The pink map demonstrates forest land in 1986, while the highlighted green map on the right
shows forest land in 2012. The overlaying image depicted a decrease of forest land, where there was an
increase in urbanization. Looking at the overlaying image in a zoomed view, its noticeable that
significant tree land use was diminished along roadsides and the string like developments that cut into
the forest. This trend from forest area to urban land use is very harmful for ecological and biodiversity
components. Looking at Passaic County, its noticeable that urban development is causing habitat
fragmentation. Rather than constant stretches of forest, the developments create forest patches. These
patches cause biodiversity to face a greater exposure to human impact, and will ultimately change a
species mobility within the region (Alig,2004).

Brock A Hoyt 10
Land Use of Bergan County
Bergan Forest Land Use
Figure 6

Similar to Passaic County, Bergan County exists in Northern New Jersey, only 40 minutes from
New York City. Figure 6 above shows forest land use of 1986 (the brown colored map), 2012 (the green
coated map), and an overlay of both years. With desirable economic opportunity in NYC, but also the
desire to live in a rural setting, Bergan County has consequently suffered with a decrease of forest for
urbanized development. A noteworthy amount of concentrated forest decrease was seen in the
northwest part of Bergan County. However, sprawl is also apparent with highlighted brown splotches of
decreased forest land use throughout the entire county.

Brock A Hoyt 11
Bergan Urban Land Use
Figure 7

Figure 7 above, yet again exemplifies how closely correlated urban development and the loss of
forest are. The figure is broken into 3 image components. The blue coated map is urban land use in
1986, while the green coated map shows urban land use data from 2012. A large increase of urban
development is seen throughout the state in the overlaying image above. While the urban development
is very encroaching on forest land use, it doesnt seem to fragment the forest areas as much compared
to Passaic and Camden Counties.

Brock A Hoyt 12

Bergan Barren Land Use

Figure 8

Another significant change of land use in Bergen County was the increase of classified Barren
Land. In the figure 8 above, the pink was data from 2012 and the red was data from 1986. A small focus
of increased Barren land is noticeable in the very southern tip of Bergen County, but for the most part
the barren land is sporadic throughout. An increase in barren land can signify a few things. Looking
closely at the map with decreased forest use, the first potential option presented is unconstructed
housing lots. The urban development seems to overlap with similar areas of increased barren land. This
more than likely is the explanation of unfinished developments. The other option to explain the increase
of barren land use areas, is the increase of polluted or brown field sites from 1986 (De-Sousa,2002).
Brownfield sites are often left to sit because the reuse of the land is complicated because of the
potential presence of a hazardous substance.

Brock A Hoyt 13
Land Use of Ocean County (My County)
Figure 9

The maps above are total land use for Ocean County in 1986 (left image) and 2012 (right image).
Of all the counties that I compared land use for, Ocean seemed to exhibit the least substantial changes.
As seen in the two images above, water and wetlands had almost no change, because Ocean County
closely boarders waters from the sound and ocean. Even though the areas of wetlands seem to exhibit
similar patterns and occupy the same area over the 26 year span, they pose the greatest chance for land
use change in the future. With rising sea levels, current wetlands and water bodies could greatly
increase in size, and eventually displace coastal development. Its estimated that New Jersey could lose
up to 3% of land area, in the next century, due to extreme storms and permanent coastal flooding
(Cooper,2008). The other land use change that experienced almost no difference between the images in
figure 9 was agricultural area. In 1986 Ocean County had agricultural land use crowded in the upper
western corner of the map. In the most recent image, 2012, the agricultural land use occurs in the same

Brock A Hoyt 14
western corner of figure 9. Mostly a county revolved around beach aspects and lifestyle, its no surprise
to see limited agricultural land use.
Figure 10: Ocean County Urban Compaison: Gray 2012 Data, Brown 1986 Data

Figure 11: Resdiential Land Use: Sky Blue 2007 Data, Red 1986 Data

Brock A Hoyt 15
Figure 12: Ocean County Forest Land Use Comparison: Light Green 1986 data, Dark Green 2012 Data

The land uses that have seen some change in Ocean County from 1986 to 2012 were
urban and forest areas. Represented in gray in figure 10, the 2012 data demonstrates an
increase in development along bay front property. This trend is revealed heavily in the southern
portion of the county and continues in a directional northern line. Figure 11 further proves the
increase of housing development, as it also represents a trend that shows an increase of
residential land use up to 2007. The Northern part of Ocean County also shows a slight increase
in residential land use. As mentioned in other counties, an increase of urban land use generally
results in a decrease of forested land. Ocean County is no different, as it falls directly under this
trend. Forested land use along the bay front of Ocean County was greatly diminished from the
original 1986 data. Figure 12 shows a similar trend line as figure 10. The forested coastline of
1986, now exists as strong residentially used land. The western region of Ocean County has
stayed almost the exact same in the amount of forested land. The dark green shading in figure
12 illustrates a half shaped oval that has been protect by the New Jersey Pineland Preservation.
While this preserve is seeing an encroaching land use of urban development, the density of the
preserve is staying constant.

Brock A Hoyt 16
Part 3: Nieghborhood Land Use

2012

2007

Brock A Hoyt 17

2002

1995

Brock A Hoyt 18
Looking at the aerial photos of my neighborhood, land use change is very prominent from 1995
to 2012. From 1995 to 2002, the only changes that occurred was the quality of the image. The land were
my neighborhood currently is, had then existed as a dominant forest area. From 2002 to 2007, is where
the most drastic land use changes occurred. The forest was almost completely altered, with exceptions
that exist as thin corridors above and below my development. The land use photos are now
predominantly developed housing. The 2007 photo also shows continual housing construction projects
in the upper left quadrant. Barren land exists in a few lots that havent seen the start of housing
projects. From 2002-2012 the development was complete. Barren lots now exist as finished construction
and several of my neighbors have added in ground pools. My neighborhood is now mainly residential
development, and forest use is only seen as thin strips between developmental neighborhoods.
Conclusion
Looking at the land use change from 1986 to 2012 in various New Jersey counties, the prevalent
problem of over urbanization and sprawl were visualized in land cover comparisons. In every county
studied, the significant changes that existed were large decreases in the states forest areas. This was
directly a result by the takeover of urban development land use. The states constant demand of trying
to satisfy a growing population seemed to be met with the increasing residential land use. However, the
greater number of developed areas also creates a much larger ecological state footprint. The increase of
urban areas calls for an increase in electrical demand and an increase in environmental resource usage.
The importance of land use monitoring is not only to protect environmental state laws, but also to
identify problematic trends. Its already known the urban sprawl is a huge issue in New Jersey, but
closely monitoring land use will allow for more accurate developmental changes. Its critical to provide
incentives for tighter knitted communities, where citizens can engage and open space can be preserved.

Brock A Hoyt 19
References
Alig, R. J., Kline, J. D., & Lichtenstein, M. (2004). Urbanization on the US landscape: looking ahead in the
21st century. Landscape and urban planning, 69(2), 219-234.
Busch, G. (2006). Future European agricultural landscapesWhat can we learn from existing
quantitative land use scenario studies?. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), 121-140.
Cooper, M. J., Beevers, M. D., & Oppenheimer, M. (2008). The potential impacts of sea level rise on the
coastal region of New Jersey, USA. Climatic Change, 90(4), 475-492.
De Sousa, C. A. (2002). Brownfield redevelopment in Toronto: an examination of past trends and future
prospects. Land Use Policy, 19(4), 297-309.
Madlener, R., & Sunak, Y. (2011). Impacts of urbanization on urban structures and energy demand:
What can we learn for urban energy planning and urbanization management?. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 1(1), 45-53.

Brock A Hoyt 20
Appendices

A Look at the Overall Counties Explored with regards to New Jersey