he opportunity to 
s as well as to 
and GIS tools, 
Town of Middle- 
"se relationships 
ise plan for the 
investment/ 
predict land-use 
»nmental impacts, 
pment. 
e private sector." ' 
995), 
ry to the tradition- 
or land-use plan- 
or. This assump- 
community 
sion that the land- 
ehow find tradi- 
itoring helpful for 
ise debate. Such a 
uing land-use de- 
980s, County resi- 
| that in the Mid- 
outh or the West 
suggest a reversal 
1e County feeling 
nd related growth. 
ion, ‘traditional’ 
ion (through aerial 
n) can prove to be 
> 1). In a some- 
:ntial and industri- 
rom the Dane 
mmission 
hat, 
in the incorporat- 
percent of the 
leveloped and rec- 
5) 
ormation suggest 
n a non-remote- 
as the 1990 Census 
basis of popula- 
t portrayal be- 
1e origins of the 
rent from those of 
on density is meas- 
ured through mail-in surveys and assimilated 
into units of aggregation ("blocks") to protect 
individuals' privacy. These results are not in 
themselves depictions of actual land use, but in 
Dane County they are a more reliable measure 
of the actual amount of rural land committed to 
development and dispersed at a very different 
density from that depicted on the DCRPC map 
(Figure 1). 
Yet another view of how lands have been 
allocated for various uses is the Property Parcel 
Tax map (Figure 3). Compared with DCRPC 
map, many more areas or parcels have been 
identified by the tax assessor as being of resi- 
dential use. Compared on an acre-by-acre basis 
with the residential categories in Figure 1, the 
Tax Parcel Map (Figure 3) suggests a different 
land-use pattern, more reflective of the distribu- 
tion depicted by Census TIGER data (Figure 2). 
In the assessor's map and the Census map, the 
impact of the three-mile extra-territorial zoning 
controls exercised by the City of Madison is 
quite evident. The non-residential span be- 
tween Madison's city limits and the residential 
areas beyond the three-mile limit is portrayed 
much more reliably with respect to actual and 
intended land use across the county. 
III. LAND TENURE 
AS LAND-OWNER INTENT 
Another major issue of complexity facing 
land-use planners is the intent of the land- 
owner. This variable is difficult to reliably de- 
tect from traditional remote sensing sources. 
But, the ownership of particularly -- the rural 
land owner -- can be quite reflective of future 
land use and its intended management (Popper, 
1978). In the case of Dane County, as specifi- 
cally implied by Lehmann, much of the urban 
fringe is owned by those with development as- 
pirations or those intending to capitalize on the 
incoming growth. 
This contrast in reality between what is cat- 
egorized as "undeveloped" as opposed to built- 
up or residential is again evident when one 
compares the residential category on the Dane 
County Land-Use map in the Town of Middle- 
ton (Figure 4) with the Town of Middleton Ag- 
ricultural Tenure map (Figure 5). The pattern 
of smaller parcels being scattered throughout 
the Town of Berry (Figure 3) is quite similar to 
the pattern of tenure portrayed in the Agricultu- 
ral Tenure map for the Town of Middleton (Fig- 
ure 5). In contrast to the Town of Berry, resi- 
dential growth in the form of less-than-one-acre 
parcels -- commonly referred to as subdivisions 
-- has also occurred in the Town of Middleton. 
19 
However, to suggest that the remaining white 
areas in the DCRPC map (Figure 1) are in "all 
other agricultural, undeveloped, [and] recrea- 
tional [lands]" is a bit misleading (Hall, 1995). 
Land ownership status suggests that a rapid 
transition from current agricultural use to resi- 
dential development is inevitable. Except for 
those lands remaining in the category "family 
owned/operated" (about 14% of the remaining 
lands in agriculture or about 36% of all remain- 
ing 'undeveloped' Dane County land) is in a 
transition to residential (Figure 6). Of the re- 
maining land in agricultural use, Wisconsin De- 
partment of Revenue Grade 1 Soils (i.e., most 
productive and taxed at the highest assessment 
value) are distributed across all tenure classes. 
This suggests that the intended land use will not 
likely remain in agriculture even though these 
owners retain rights over lands that are highly 
assessed and inherently very productive agricul- 
tural soils (Figure 7). 
As for "undeveloped, recreational" land, 
some very sensitive natural environments exist 
in the Town of Middleton, especially in the 
north-west corner where the nationally recog- 
nized trout stream Black Earth Creek runs (Fig- 
ure 8). Since these types of natural areas are of 
both environmental and recreational impor- 
tance, their overall fate is of double conse- 
quence. Again, given the existing land-tenure 
or ownership status (1.e., 36% of this land being 
owned by non-farming owners), their fate both 
environmentally and recreationally is quite un- 
certain (Figure 9). 
IV. SUMMARY 
Planning the uses and management of public 
and private land remains an important responsi- 
bility of local governments. Reliable estimates 
of change in actual land use are important as lo- 
cal planning officials attempt to develop a com- 
mon vision and plan. Valid representations of 
the actual existing uses and intents are essential 
for the land-use planning community to main- 
tain credibility with the citizenry. In recent his- 
tory, a variety of remote sensing methods -- 
ranging from manual aerial photography to 
more automated means such as image analysis - 
- has been employed to monitor land-use and 
land-cover change. 
The increasing familiarity with analytical 
power that GIS offers, along with the emer- 
gence of and access to more detailed data sets 
such as land ownership, land-use, and land ten- 
ure, implies that more entities are becoming in- 
volved in land-use planning activities, though it 
does not imply that they are all using all the best