LAND-USE PLANNING AND SPATIAL TECHNOLOGIES: 
EXPLORING LAND TENURE AND LAND-USE CHANGE 
B.J. Niemann, Jr., and W.M. Heinzel 
Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Madison, Wisconsin U.S.A. 
ABSTRACT 
Spatial technologies that include the land-ownership/tenure condition provide the opportunity to 
more fully explain the reasons for certain urbanization and suburbanization patterns as well as to 
elucidate the resultant natural resource changes. Using LIS-based digital mapping and GIS tools, 
LICGF researchers analyzed various land-tenure and land-use relationships in the Town of Middle- 
ton and, more generally, in Dane County, Wisconsin. They spatially compared those relationships 
with existing and predicted resource conditions in the context of a proposed land-use plan for the 
Town. Knowing the predisposition of land ownership and land-tenure status (i.e., investment/ 
business-owned vs. owner-occupied/farmer) improves the ability to anticipate and predict land-use 
change in urbanizing communities, aids in modeling and assessing resultant environmental impacts, 
and more reliably aids in predicting how much land is actually available for development. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
The interplay between land tenure (i.e., who 
owns what, with what intent) and land-use 
change and its resultant environmental impacts 
have been a long-standing research topic of the 
planning community. Ever since the launch of 
ERTS 1 in 1972 by NASA, land-use planners 
and researchers interested in predicting and 
monitoring land-use change have been told re- 
peatedly that "the next level of resolution” or 
"the next spatial technology adaptation” (i.e., 
GIS) will provide a truly useful tool for plan- 
ning the use and management of the land (Nie- 
mann and McCarthy, 1979). Possibly some two 
decades later the spatial information community 
may be in a position to deliver the goods. Now, 
large-scale digital mapping of property boun- 
daries and natural resources, combined with re- 
mote sensing and integrated into land and geo- 
graphic information systems (LIS/GIS) offers 
researchers and planners new capabilities. Nev- 
ertheless, it is incumbent upon those responsible 
to use the most integrated approaches to the col- 
lection and manipulation of land-use informa- 
tion to ensure the equity of automated systems. 
II. LAND-USE PLANNING 
Planning the uses and management of land 
continues to be an important societal issue even 
though it is not clear by whom or what mode it 
is being planned. This is evident in Dane 
County as noted recently by Richard Lehmann, 
a local planner and lawyer, when he said, 
"We've got sort of a schizophrenia ... . 
[L]and-use is being planned in Wisconsin, 
18 
but it's being planned in the private sector." ' 
(quoted in Hall and Hall, 1995). 
This observation is contrary to the tradition- 
al assumption that authority for land-use plan- 
ning rests with the public sector. This assump- 
tion by the spatial technology community 
typically results in the conclusion that the land- 
planning community will somehow find tradi- 
tional notions of land-use monitoring helpful for 
all those engaged in the land-use debate. Such a 
notion is evident in the continuing land-use de- 
bate in Dane County. In the 1980s, County resi- 
dents were lulled into the idea that in the Mid- 
west, emigration toward the South or the West 
was the norm. The '90s now suggest a reversal 
-- a net immigration, with Dane County feeling 
the brunt of new population and related growth. 
In this period of immigration, ‘traditional’ 
forms of land-use data collection (through aerial 
photo or satellite interpretation) can prove to be 
potentially misleading (Figure 1). In a some- 
what typical analysis of residential and industri- 
al/commercial land-use data from the Dane 
County Regional Planning Commission 
(DCRPC), it was concluded that, 
"Most development is in the incorporat- 
ed cities and villages. 85 percent of the 
county is agricultural, undeveloped and rec- 
reational land." (Hall, 1995) 
Other forms of spatial information suggest 
otherwise. For example, when a non-remote- 
sensing mode is used -- such as the 1990 Census 
TIGER Data, depicted on the basis of popula- 
tion density -- a very different portrayal be- 
comes evident (Figure 2). The origins of the 
census data set are quite different from those of 
the DCRPC. Actual population density is meas- 
ured through 
into units of 
individuals' ] 
themselves d 
Dane County 
of the actual 
development 
density from 
(Figure 1). 
Yet anotl 
allocated for 
Tax map (Fi 
map, many n 
identified by 
dential use. 
with the resi 
Tax Parcel N 
land-use patt 
tion depicted 
In the assess 
impact of the 
controls exer 
quite evident 
tween Madis 
areas beyonc 
much more 1 
intended lan 
Il 
AS L 
Another 
land-use plat 
owner. This 
tect from tra 
But, the own 
land owner - 
land use and 
1978). In th 
cally impliec 
fringe is owr 
pirations or t 
incoming gr 
This con 
egorized as ' 
up or resider 
compares the 
County Lanc 
ton (Figure 4 
ricultural Te: 
of smaller pe 
the Town of 
the pattern o 
ral Tenure m 
ure 3)... In co 
dential grow 
parcels -- co 
-- has also o