Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A R T I C L E I N F O: ABSTRACT
Article history: Population and land use out-migrations from urban to peripheral areas can result in
Received 10 October 2017 non-functional, unmaintained historic structures which deteriorate to the point where
Accepted 16 August 2017 removal is cheaper than removal – or demolition by neglect. The increasing rate of
Available online 16 October neglected historic structures is a growing concern. There is a need for research
2017 investigating connections between urban growth management and its effect on
Keywords: neglect. This paper applies Newman’s (2013) conceptual model of measuring neglect
Historic preservation; to Geographic Information Systems, comparing rates of neglect in historic
Structural neglect; Doylestown, Quakertown, and Bristol boroughs in Pennsylvania, USA utilizing
Correlation; different amounts of peripheral agricultural preservation. Comparisons are made
Geographic examining descriptive statistics on existing conditions, a Polychoric correlation
information systems; evaluating relationships between drivers of neglect, and a cross-comparative GIS
Urban growth. spatial analysis. Results indicate as amounts of peripheral preserved farmlands
increase, neglect can be lowered.
CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 33-45. Doi: 10.25034/ijcua.2018.3669
www.ijcua.com
Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved.
1. Urban Dynamics and Heritage Neglect these connections are, however, not fully
Forrester (1969) theorizes that the city is a living understood. Local policies do not conserve built
organism whose form takes its shape as the result heritage fully (Pickerill & Pickard, 2007). For
of a combination of external forces. Further, example, evidence from historic areas in Germany
actions and interactions of cultures are a product has shown that contextual economic and political
of the desires, necessities, and values of a city’s changes significantly impact historically preserved
actors and give meaning to its form (Newman, buildings (Alberts & Brinda, 2005).
2015). This theory presupposes that Historic preservation has a primary objective to
comprehension of the built environment must be protect structures and districts of historic prestige
considered in conjunction with the understanding from alteration, degradation, and demolition
of both exogenous and endogenous factors and (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). Historic urban areas
their causal relations (Ben-Hamouche, 2013). require high levels of support to retain structural
Listokin (1997) takes this theory a step further, viability, safeguard the integrity of heritage
positing that growth management and structures, and stimulate local economies. Urban
preservation of the built environment are spatial change is largely tied to alterations in
fundamentally connected; he also states that contextual land uses, threatening many elements
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
within the historic built environment. successful management of regional land use
Simultaneously, many urban fringe areas (such as changes (externally). Therefore, the examination
farmlands), the settings of historic urban buildings, of the individual structure and its dynamic setting
are also threatened. As such, regulations now go must occur if neglect can be fully understood.
beyond local preservation policies and include (Listokin, Listokin, & Lahr, 1998; Pickerill & Armitage,
larger scaled contextual approaches for heritage 2009).
management (Collins, Waters, & Dotson, 1991). The shift toward a more dynamic management of
Centrifugal development has effected many historic structures must focus on adaptive reuse,
urban historic buildings, in many cases resulting in rehabilitation, and land use management.
their removal. Urban sprawl can create a uniform American historic preservation can differ from
spatial form across cities and destroy much European approaches due to a stronger emphasis
structural heritage in its wake (Treib, 2008; Yahner on local regulations in the U.S., while many
& Nadenicek, 1997). Urban expansion can European cities practice an area-based
accelerate the loss of historic buildings because of approach (Doratli, 2005). Area-based strategies
a lack of utility, a process referred to as demolition can increase non-government funding, allow for
by neglect (DBN). DBN is the removal of a historic greater expansions in historic districts, increase
building or structure due to prolonged vacancy private sector investment in historic regeneration
and extreme maintenance issues (Leatherbarrow projects, and increase heritage rehabilitation in
& Mostafavi, 1993). marginalized neighborhoods (Pickerill & Armitage,
The capabilities of historic preservation policies to 2009). In the U.S., broader heritage management
assist in retaining historic character and function in approaches are typically regulatory or incentive-
heritage buildings is highly dependent on the based. Regulatory measures, such as state
examination of process and changes within regulated monetary penalties, generally involve
urbanized areas and their surrounding contexts punishment for allowing neglect to occur or
(Alderson, 2006; Cook, 1996). Since urban contexts continue. South Dakota statutes makes willful
are constantly in flux, form and function rarely neglect a misdemeanor; in West Virginia, local
coincide in any environment for an extended landmark commissions enforce standards for the
period of time (Jackson, 1997). Contemporary maintenance of landmarks; San Francisco,
historic preservation theory gives priority to form California can assess a $500 per day penalty to
through the pursuit of historic integrity. An owners who allow neglect to occur (National Trust
unfortunate outcome of this position is that if a for Historic Preservation, 2008).
historic building loses its function in contemporary Listokin (1997) theory suggests that local polices,
society, it can also eventually be removed. Luckily, when used in a singular approach, will not
adaptive reuse and rehabilitation efforts have adequately result in conserved built heritage in the
increased recently, leading to small upsurges in long-term (Alberts & Brinda, 2005; Pickerill &
historic structure retainance in some localities Pickard, 2007). Contemporary research reinforces
(Newman, 2015). this position, but shows a separation between
Many U.S. historic structures are policed on a unit- historic preservation and external land use
by-unit basis and are then analyzed based on management (Avrami, 2012). Historic buildings are
whether or not they appear as they once did at a just one component within a larger, ever-changing
given historical time (or based on their historic system; if both aims are focused to align to one
integrity). Jigyasu (2002), notes that historic goal, only then will the system be mutually
structures have two fundamental dimensions: beneficial properly (Newman & Saginor, 2014).
historic integrity, and a relationship to the Cassar (2009) suggests that historic preservation
contextual environment with which they interact. requires new research to aid in the understanding
A vital approach to the preservation of historic of how traditional buildings behave in
buildings lies with the ability to managing the environmental systems, if structural performance is
individually with local policy (internally) and to be improved.
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 34
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Newman’s (2013) conceptual model for dominated the used of GIS in regards to historic
measuring neglect takes a systems approach to preservation based research (Kaimaris, Sylaiou,
measuring areas of the historic built environment. Georgoula, & Patias, 2011). While archaeologists
It is a method to begin to compare neglect rates globally have recognized the possibilities GIS can
across cities and historic districts to initialize the offer and applied its analytical tools in countries
exploration of the effects of strategies for outside of America such as Scotland (Murray,
managing contextual growth and techniques to 1995), France (Guillot & Leroy, 1995) and Holland
preserve the historic built environment. It is a (Roorda & Wiemer, 1992), preservationists applying
framework for measuring neglect, based on GIS to solve the issues of current development
Listokin’s (1997) theory of urban dynamics. The patterns on neglected heritage structures are
model is a means to begin to examine area based nearly non-existent. Remote sensing applications,
approaches for regulating historic areas through satellite imagery set the stage for initial historic
the surveyance and analysis of neglect of the built structure analysis (Doneus, 2001) but as data
environment, specifically in regards to historic sources have grown, new statistical analysis and
buildings. Newman’s model (2013) uses dimensions multi-scalar analyst tools have been created to
of integrity and viability from Listokin’s (1997) theory move beyond traditional GIS based approaches.
to measure the rate of demolition by neglect. It is Cultural resource management professionals have
the only model currently utilized to measure this relied upon these databases for years to ensure
phenomenon. A synergetic relationship between the protection and preservation of valuable
urbanization and historic preservation can be historic information (Box, 2003). GIS data can also
eventually realized through increased application be used as a way of distilling priorities for
of the model. While the original model was management decisions. For example, the Almería
developed and assessed through qualitative Province in Spain utilizes its cultural and heritage
analysis, newer methods of analysis using inventory data to assess the rehabilitation
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) should also potential of buildings and has established a priority
be employed for more thorough spatial analyses. order for their reuse for a ‘decision index’ which
corresponds to the considerations of each building
2. Geographic information Systems in Heritage (Cano, Garzon, & Sanchez-Soto, 2013). This makes
Management each management decision unique to its
GIS are powerful spatial tools using computational corresponding heritage structure.
technologies which allow for storing altering, In regards to the historic built environment, GIS
creating,, displaying and overlaying spatial data have been primarily applied for landscape
(Limp, 1999). They offer the possibility to visualization, viewshed impact assessment, multi-
simultaneously store, organize, map and scale synthesis, spatial sampling, and forecast
represent, manage, and analyze data concerning modelling. GIS must become more common in
geographic locales and their context while. This urban heritage studies to help synthesize efforts
allows for a much more thorough spatial analysis land use planning, environmental management
of an historic urban area (Burrough & McDonnell, and a variety of historic analyses; a new set of
1988). While information obtained from methods needs to be developed which may
surveyance or research can be applied to require preservationists to alter the way asses the
generate new databases, the innovative tools historic built environment through expanding its
involved with the program have been used too scope beyond individual built units (Limp, 1999).
sparingly in historic built environment studies,
typically involving analyses involving 3. Research Questions and Methodology
chronological historical spatial data combined This research uses GIS to determine if contextual
with statistical assessments (Kvamme, 1993). land use management helps deter neglect within
The field of archaeology, studying human activities the historic built environment. It seeks to answer the
of the past and their resultant material culture, has question, what relationship does farmland
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 35
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
preservation have on neglect within historic urban approximately two-square-miles in size; similar
areas? It is hypothesized that preserving fringe polices for preserving farmlands are also practiced
farmlands as a policy for external land use (purchase of development rights). Evaluating units
management can aid in increasing viable of analysis within an identical county with
buildings within historic urbanized boroughs. analogous geographic sizes, populations, and
The urban boroughs analyzed – Bristol, ages helps to control for other intervening
Quakertown, and Doylestown – are all historic variables. We utilized the central place theory
colonial cities in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, USA. (King, 1984) to outline an external boundary for
Pennsylvania uses farmland preservation to aid in each borough to determine the highest impacted
the conservation of the historic character of its areas for the context according to town centers
boroughs and townships as a means of countering with this particular size and population (Table 1).
the effects of sprawl. Bucks County lost 70% of its Within this boundary, we calculated the total
agricultural properties from 1950-1997 (U.S. quantity of preserved agricultural lands which
Department of Agriculture, 2005). The entire region encircled each borough.
was ranked second in the U.S when ranked Newman’s model (2013) of calculating neglect is
according to areas with farmlands threatened to applied using (Figure 1) GIS based tools. It
conversion (Olson & Lyson, 1999) (Bourke, Jacob, combines dimensions of integrity and viability using
& Luloff, 1996). Bucks Count, is a contested five factors: 1) timeframe of construction (when
landscape characterized by rapid land the building was built), 2) architectural
consumption and conversion. It is in southeast modification (how much the building has been
Pennsylvania within an area suffering from altered since construction), 3) land use change
threatened farmland and concentrations of (how much the building’s function has changed),
historic teardowns. From 1985 to 1995, 4) physical condition (the condition of each
Pennsylvania lost an area of farmland the size of building), and 5) assessed value (the fair market
Delaware to development while populations value). A 95% confidence level was reached
declined in many inner cities (Hylton, 1995). To based on the sample size and clustered,
counteract decentralization, the state enacted multistage area random sampling was utilized to
agricultural preservation as a primary means of survey each building (Montello & Sutton, 2006).
managing growth Each factor was then measured by scoring three
Each borough under investigation is listed on the characteristics.
National Register of Historic Places (National Trust
for Historic Preservation, 2008) and is
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 36
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
The evaluation of conservation planning requires overall totals in summed scores indicated a lower
measurement on multiple scales for meaningful occurrence of neglect. Characteristics accepted
analysis (Nijkamp, 1991). The research utilized three of each measure per variable were then
scales of analysis: an inventory presenting evaluated using percentages as a means of
descriptive statistics of the measures utilized to inventorying conditions.
assess variables, a Polychoric correlation to assess The scores for the five variables were then summed
relationships of variables, and GIS spatial analyses to evaluate structural neglect on a building scale.
which combining geocoding, reclassification of The total score of a given building could range
attributes, Hot Spot Analysis, Inverse Distance from 5 to 15. Neglected buildings had point ranges
Weighted (IDW) interpolation, Weighted Suitability from 5 to 8, transitory buildings had score ranges
overlays. The inventory describes conditions on a from 9 to 12, and viable structures had scores
building by building scale; the correlation ranging from 13 to 15. The relationship with each
examined which variables impacted DBN factor contributing to DBN neglect was assumed
significantly; and the comparison analyzed the to be (as sums were greater, DBN was lessened), a
relationship between DBN and amount of Polychoric correlation was utilized to test
preserved agricultural lands. An ordinal scale was correlation. The variables utilized to assess neglect
used in the inventory and GIS analyses to assign were correlated with their overall impact in a
attributed to each building surveyed. Higher specific location within the sample frame.
After individual building totals were mapped as analyses to identify and map larger-scaled areas
point values, the cross-case comparison used GIS of the built environment which were neglected.
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 37
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Hot spot analysis was performed for each spatially mean value (93%). The lowest proportion of
located variable and an IDW was performed from buildings that were neglected belonged to
the hot spot analysis. Each hot spot analysis map Doylestown (1.5%), Quakertown had 3.1% of its
was then overlaid using suitability modeling which buildings neglected and Bristol had 9.1% (Table 3).
was weighted to identify both neglected and The portion of transitory structures were all
viable spaces. extremely similar across boroughs while Bristol had
a low proportion of buildings that were viable
4. Findings (9.1%.)
4.1. Inventory of Conditions
Each borough under investigation displayed 4.2. Correlational Results
analogous patterns during the building-scaled We performed polychoric correlation analyses for
inventory (Table 2). The largest percentage of ordinal variables to measure the relationship
buildings built from 1971 to present was occupied between the five variables (Table 4). We notice an
by Doylestown (60%), but a large proportion of interesting result – the variables show positive and
these buildings were also vacant (69%). Over one- negative correlations. Specifically, land use
half of the sampled buildings were provided new change and building condition are negatively
land uses through adaptive reuse (60%); correlated with time frame of construction and
simultaneously Doylestown has a large proportion architectural modification. This result is intuitive
of its buildings in good condition (86%). when we consider how the variables are
Quakertown had a large percentage of its measured. For example, this result means that
buildings erected from 1940 to 1970 (36%) and also newer buildings are more likely to have continuous
show a large degree of vacancy (64%). Relatedly, land use and be well-composed. The only
a large proportion of its built environment was also statistically significant correlations are between
experiencing dilapidation (74%). The assessed architectural medication and time frame of
value of structures with occupants was generally construction (0.697)—indicating that buildings that
above market average (47%). Bristol, has the are modern are more likely to be newer buildings—
lowest proportion of newly erected buildings (44%) and architectural modification and land use
but the highest vacancy percentage (80%). While change (-0.094)—indicating buildings that are
65% were renovated, 67% were considered modern structures are more likely to have
dilapidated. Bristol, on the other hand, had a continuous land use.
relatively high amount of buildings above market
Total 65 1 66 1 55 1 186 1
Land Use b1 = Vacant 2 0.031 7 0.106 8 0.146 17 0.091
Change
b2 = Alternate Use 18 0.277 17 0.258 5 0.091 40 0.215
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 38
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Cumulative Variance
Measure Eigenvalue Variance Explained
Explained
To understand how these five variables can be component analysis. In Table 5, we notice that the
combined into, we ran polychoric principle selected variables explain three underlying
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 39
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
aspects of neglect with Eigenvalues above 1 for smaller sample size (n=186), we are concerned
three factors. These three factors together explain about strongly interpreting these results. Thus, we
over 80 percent of the variance in the neglect chose simplicity in this exploratory analysis of
scores among units. As expected from the neglect rating and sum the scores of the five
correlation matrix, the variables Time Frame of variables. We reverse code timeframe of
Construction and Architectural Modification construction and architectural modification
indicate one similar factor of neglect and load on because of their negative correlations with the
the first factor. The other three variables, Land Use other variables. The scores could range from 5 (a
Change, Building Condition, and Assessed Value, building scored 1 on every variable) to 15 (a
load onto both factors 2 and 3. building scored 3 on every variable). Overall, our
Because all five variables relate to our actual rate of neglect scores range from 6 to 15,
conceptual understanding of neglect and the with a mean of 11 and standard deviation of 1.61.
lack of one clear factor, we choose to combine In Table 6, we show the rates of average neglect
them into one rate of neglect. There are various for each town. All three towns have similar rates of
methods to create a combined index score, neglect, but Bristol shows the highest rates with an
including weighting variables based on the average score per structure of 10.55. Only 1
correlation matrix or polychoric factor analysis building in our study scored the maximum of 15,
results. Because of the limited ordinal scaling of the and it is in Doylestown (Table 6).
variables (i.e., only values of 1, 2, and 3) and the
(> 2.58)
Range 15-8 14-8 13-7
4.3. Cross-Case GIS Analysis were then run with equal weighting. The suitability
Each building surveyed was geocoded using its maps read where darker areas represent and
address, new fields were created as attributes lighter areas are less neglected (Figure 2, 3, and 4).
using the data obtained, maps were created Doylestown has nearly one half of its area as viable
according the attributed developed, and then and a very low proportion of neglected area
Hotspot and IDW tools were applied. High z-scores, (48.38% and 22.21%, respectively) (Table 6).
hot spots, designated areas which with clustered Quakertown has nearly one quarter of its space as
neglect. The IDW combined points created from viable and nearly one fifth neglected (24.18% and
each building surveyed and suitability models 18.37%, respectively) and Bristol has relatively no
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 40
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 41
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 42
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 43
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Journal King, L. J. (1984). Central Place Theory. In.
of GIS in Archaeology, 1, 90-102. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1988). Kvamme, K. L. (1993). Spatial statistics and GIS:
Principles of geographical information An integrated approach. Aarhus: Aarhus
systems: Oxford University Press. University Press.
Cano, M., Garzon, E., & Sanchez-Soto, P. (2013). Leatherbarrow, D., & Mostafavi, M. (1993). On
Historic preservation, GIS, & rural weathering: The life of buildings in time.
development: The case of Almería province, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spain. Applied Geography, 42, 34-47. Limp, W. F. (1999). Geographic information
Cassar, M. (2009). Sustainable heritage: systems in historic preservation. Archives and
challenges and strategies for the twenty-first Museum Informatics, 13(3-4), 325-340.
century, APT Bulletin. Journal of Preservation Listokin, D. (1997). Growth management and
Technology, 40(1), 3-11. historic preservation: Best practices for
Collins, R. C., Waters, E. B., & Dotson, A. B. (1991). synthesis. The Urban Lawyer, 199-213.
America's downtowns: Growth, politics and Listokin, D., Listokin, B., & Lahr, M. (1998). The
preservation. In Politics and Preservation. contributions of historic preservation to
Washington, D.C: The Preservation Press. housing and economic development.
Cook, R. E. (1996). Is landscape preservation an Housing policy debate, 431-478.
oxymoron. Paper presented at the George Montello, D., & Sutton, P. (2006). An introduction
Wright Forum. to scientific research methods in geography.
Doneus, M. (2001). Precision mapping and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
interpretation of oblique aerial photographs. Murray, D. M. (1995). The management of
Archaeological Prospection, 8(1), 13-27. archaeological information-A strategy. BAR
Doratli, N. (2005). Revitalizing historic urban INTERNATIONAL SERIES, 598, 83-83.
quarters: A model for determining the most National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2008).
relevant strategic approach. European Teardown resource guide: Teardowns by
Planning Studies, 13(5), 749-772. state and community. Retrieved from
Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. http://www.preservationnation.org/teardo
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. wns
Guillot, D., & Leroy, G. (1995). The use of GIS for Newman, G. D. (2013). A conceptual model for
archaeological resource management in measuring neglect in historic districts.
France: The SCALA Project, with a case- Journal of Preservation, Education, and
study in Picardie. London: Taylor and Francis. Research(6), 41-58.
Hylton, T. (1995). Save our land, save our towns: Newman, G. D. (2015). The eidos of urban form:
a plan for Pennsylvania: Rb Books. a framework for heritage-based place
Jackson, J. B. (1997). Landscape in sight: looking making. Journal of Urbanism: International
at America: Yale Univrsity Press. Research on Placemaking and Urban
Jigyasu, R. (2002). Monuments and sites in their Sustainability, 1-20.
setting: Conserving cultural heritage in Newman, G. D., & Saginor, J. (2014). Four
changing townscapes and landscapes. Imperatives for Preventing Demolition by
Paper presented at the International Centre Neglect. Journal of Urban Design, 19(5), 622-
for the Study of the Preservation and 637.
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) Nijkamp, P. (1991). Evaluation measurement in
Symposium, India. conservation planning. Journal of Cultural
Kaimaris, D., Sylaiou, S., Georgoula, O., & Patias, Economics, 15(1), 1-27.
P. (2011). GIS of landmarks management. Olson, R. K., & Lyson, T. A. (1999). Under the
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 12(1), 65-73. blade: The conversion of agricultural
landscapes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 44
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 2(2), 33-45 / 2018
Galen Newman, Michelle Meyer, Boah Kim, and Ryun Jung Lee 45