Supporting planning to co-locate public facilities: A case study from Loudoun County, Virginia

Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Supporting planning to co-locate public facilities: A case study from Loudoun County, Virginia Edmund Zolnik a, *, Julie Minde b, Debasree Das Gupta a, Sidney Turner a a b

School of Public Policy, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, United States Department of Geography and Geoinformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Co-location Public facility planning Planning Support System Cost-benefit analysis

Co-locating public facilities is an example of a local government policy with perceived benefits in terms of resource savings, increased efficiency and synergy of services, and enhanced sense of community. Such benefits may be especially critical for local governments that are experiencing rapid population growth. This research is designed to support planning to co-locate public facilities in Loudoun County, Virginia; a rapidly-growing county in the northern Virginia suburbs of the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The goal of the research is to undertake a retrospective cost-benefit analysis for a co-located elementary school and library. Results highlight the dramatic savings in land acquisition costs that co-locating public facilities can provide. Further research to more accurately estimate the social costs and benefits of co-locating public facilities is needed to make its widespread adoption more feasible. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Providing public services is a critical function of local government. One of the trends in public facility planning is colocation. Co-location is defined as the intentional siting together of public facilities, such as schools and libraries, on the same parcel of land (Romeo, 2004; Walter, 2000). While still not mainstream, co-location is becoming an increasingly common practice in the US (Building Educational Success Together, 2005; Dixon, Evans, Loeffelman, & Simmens, 2005; Donnelly, 2003; Generations United, 2002; Walter, 2000) and elsewhere such as in the UK (Andrew, Donald, Pitt, & Tucker, 2008; Dalton, Elkin, & Hannaford, 2006), and Sweden (Hansson, 2006). Interest in co-locating public facilities stems from its perceived benefits which include: resource savings; increased efficiency and synergy of services; and an enhanced sense of community. Resource savings derive from monetary savings on: land purchases; construction; utility installation; and facility operation. By properly planning and integrating facilities and their services, a synergy of services which otherwise might not be possible is also achievable. In addition to providing space for formal public gatherings, co-located public facilities can also provide more opportunities for casual encounters amongst residents who are frequenting the same site to access different services. This latter benefit is particularly important because, depending on the types of facilities that are co-located, it can encourage the healthy mixing of society (Duerksen & Dale, 1999; Filardo, 2002). Such mixing is especially beneficial in a location undergoing rapid growth, where local government may be struggling to garner the resources to keep up with the pace of growth and, at the same time, engender a sense of community. The ability to plan and manage the process of co-locating public facilities can therefore be very important to the harmonious growth of a community.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 703 993 1144; fax: þ1 703 993 8215. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Zolnik). 0143-6228/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.01.006

688

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

The objective of this case study is to describe efforts to support planning to co-locate public facilities in a rapidly-growing US county. Loudoun County, Virginia is an ideal study area to achieve this objective because it is trying to implement a countywide co-location policy to cope with rising service demands due to rapid growth. The next section provides pertinent background on this study area.

Background Study area Loudoun County, Virginia is an outer suburban county in the Washington, DC metropolitan area that borders two states – Maryland and West Virginia (Fig. 1). It has undergone rapid growth over the past decade – between 1990 and 2000 the population almost doubled from 86,129 to 169,599 – due to the suburbanization of employment away from the District of Columbia. By 2005, Loudoun County was the fastest-growing county of its size in the US (US Census Bureau, 2006). Over the same time period, it changed considerably both demographically and socioeconomically. Today, the average Loudoun County household is younger, more family-oriented, better educated, and wealthier than the average Virginia or US household. Given the rapid pace of growth and the finite amount of land available for new public facilities, there is great concern in Loudoun County about providing high-quality public services to residents in the near term. It is common knowledge that even if the influx of people drastically slows down, the County would still need to build a considerable number of new public facilities, particularly schools, to keep up with demand for services. In addition, lower property tax revenues associated with the slowdown in the housing market are making it harder for the County to continue to pursue traditional methods of public facility planning (Hernandez & de Vise, 2008). This confluence of circumstances has heightened the County’s interest in pursuing co-location as a policy to more efficiently allocate its scarce public facility resources. The County has undertaken several measures, besides co-locating public facilities, to manage its rapid development while ensuring that residents are satisfied with the services it provides. For example, Loudoun County has built new offices, hired new personnel, expanded government functions, and established a new office to manage construction projects. It also designated or hired individuals to purchase or otherwise acquire land for public facilities. A Proffer Matrix Team was created to manage proffers which are voluntary contributions of money, land, facilities, or roads made by developers to mitigate the residential impacts of rezoning. Loudoun County has also enlisted the help of its Office of Mapping and Geographic Information (OMAGI) to develop models and other analytical tools to support public facility planning. Finally, the County has

Fig. 1. Loudoun County regional map.

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

689

included questions in its biannual resident surveys to gauge satisfaction with its services. These surveys show that, even though residents continually identify growth/development as the biggest problems facing the County, they have been generally satisfied with the services it provides (County of Loudoun, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2008). Co-location policy and planning In addition to the above measures, Loudoun County has developed a policy to encourage the co-location of public facilities as a means to better support its growing communities. It has also developed its own institutional knowledge in order to establish standards for co-locating public facilities and a general method for integrating co-location into the County planning process. A team comprised of staff from different County departments is charged by the County Administrator with reviewing County policy and standards on facility co-location and developing guidelines outlining which types of facilities are appropriate for potential co-location. This team consults regularly with land acquisition staff to evaluate sites throughout the County for their co-location potential. In planning a co-located site, the major planning players are the Offices of Capital Construction (OCC) and Budget, the departments involved in the specific co-location project, and, for political oversight, the County Administrator. In terms of facilities planning, a Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) is used for longer-term planning (ten years), while a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is used for short-term planning (two years). A Fiscal Impact Committee (FIC) serves as the bridge between the two planning cycles (CNA and CIP) and helps to determine where and when the County needs new facilities based on population projections. Retrospective co-location case study Multiple interviews with representatives from the aforementioned County departments and staff from all of the County’s service providers were conducted in order to gather information on the way that public facilities are co-located in Loudoun County. Topics addressed in these interviews included building and operating standards for County facilities, guidelines for siting and co-locating facilities, and the location and co-location criteria adopted by different County service providers. The latter topic was particularly important because not all of the County’s service providers use the same criteria in their facility location and co-location planning. Based on the information gathered in these interviews, a retrospective case study to estimate the costs and benefits of co-location – especially the capital and operational savings that the County might have realized if two previously constructed, stand-alone facilities had been co-located – was undertaken. This research reports on the results of this retrospective case study. Co-location planning: a wicked problem The kinds of problems that government planners tend to deal with have been characterized as wicked problems because they: refer to that class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing (Churchman, 1967, p. B-141). The adjective wicked describes the ‘‘mischievous and even evil quality of these problems’’ owing to the fact that their solutions ‘‘often turn out to be worse than the symptoms’’ (Churchman, 1967, p. B-141). The problems of government planning are inherently wicked because they are ill-defined and they rely on political judgment for resolution (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Verma, 1998). Government planners often attempt to tame wicked problems by focusing on a piece of the problem and then finding a resolution to that piece. Unfortunately, that leaves it up to someone else to deal with the untamed part of the problem. In this case study, co-location planning is the wicked problem. It is a complex wicked problem because the problem is agreed upon, but how best to resolve it is not (Roberts, 2000). Resolving wicked problems, whether they be simple or complex, requires an approach that is participatory and adaptive. However, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that this case study did not adopt such an approach. Rather, the wicked problem of co-location planning was purposefully tamed, at the behest of the County Administrator who funded this research, by focusing narrowly on the capital and operational savings of co-location. In this way the wicked problem of co-location planning was tamed. Unfortunately, adopting an authoritative approach to tame a wicked problem leaves it to someone else to deal with the untamed part of the problem. It also has several practical implications which are also important to acknowledge (Roberts, 2000). The advantage of relying on experts is that it makes resolving the problem seem more professional especially when their specialization provides the County Administrator with knowledge and sophisticated problem solving tools which are not accessible otherwise. One disadvantage is that experts can be wrong. They also tend to search for resolutions from within their own narrow fields of expertise and so ignore other potentially viable resolutions. Another disadvantage is that reliance on experts distances residents from the planning process which is anathema in a democracy.

690

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

Co-location planning support system: CommunityViz To help the County evaluate and visualize the costs and benefits of different co-location scenarios, an off-the-shelf Planning Support System (PSS) known as CommunityViz (http://www.communityviz.org) was used. A PSS is a subset of geoinformation technologies dedicated to supporting planners ‘‘in exploring, representing, analyzing, visualizing, predicting, designing, implementing, monitoring, and discussing issues associated with the need to plan’’ (Vonk & Geertman, 2008, p. 154). They have much in common with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS), but each possesses some distinguishing characteristics (Geertman & Stillwell, 2004). On the one hand, GIS are general purpose systems comprised of tools for handling georeferenced data. They are applicable to many problems in many different settings. Proprietary GIS are often a part of PSS given their standard set of functional capabilities; CommunityViz planning software is an extension of ArcGIS Desktop that supports scenario planning. On the other hand, SDSS are systems specifically designed to support decision making processes for complex spatial problems. They are usually designed to support shortterm decision making by individuals or groups, while PSS are usually designed to support long-term planning. Overall, PSS are distinguished from GIS and SDSS by the fact that they are dedicated to supporting planning in practice. Anyone who is familiar with PSS, GIS, or SDSS might argue that evaluating and visualizing the costs and benefits of colocation could be just as easily be accomplished without using any such systems. But these systems can add value to the co-location planning process by clarifying the outcomes of different co-location scenarios. These systems are unique in that they allow planners to play a more direct role in determining what and how data are input into the system (Delgado & Sendra, 2004; Malczewski, 2006a, 2006b; Matthews, Sibbald, & Craw, 1999; O’Connell & Keller, 2002). They can be structured so that multiple variables are input and prioritized based on the planner’s priorities. Outcomes can be visualized and input subsequently changed in an iterative fashion so that planners can see the modeled results of various scenarios. This capability to visualize and change input by planners themselves is a key advantage of using such systems.

Fig. 2. Scenario schematic.

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

691

Data and methodology Data The base layers in the PSS include the County’s boundary, towns, parcels, centerlines, and 1-foot panchromatic orthophotography. The County owned-and-leased-properties layer was created by the Loudoun County OMAGI by querying the County’s Land Management Information System database for property owned or leased by the County and then brought into CommunityViz. The following information is contained in this layer: address; size; current owner; and current use. This layer was also used to develop other needed layers such as extraction of the facilities under analysis and other features provided for visualization and context such as parks, trails, and other government facilities. Demographic data and projections are important for implementing a co-location policy because they provide information on current and future demand for public facilities and services. Since Loudoun County develops demographic data and projections based on Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geography consisting of one or many census blocks, block groups, or census tracts, this is the geography used in this case study. This consistency in geography helps to ensure that future demographic data and projections can be seamlessly integrated into the co-location PSS. Methodology This case study is a retrospective analysis of the costs and benefits of not co-locating a library and an elementary school at the same site in Loudoun County. It was determined, through consultation with local government officials in Loudoun County, that a retrospective, rather than a prospective, case study would provide more accurate and defensible estimates of the costs and benefits of a co-location scenario. This case study attempts to determine the impacts of not co-locating the library at a site which presently accommodates only an elementary school. This scenario was chosen to test the utility of the co-location PSS because it was determined that the elementary school site, as currently configured, is underutilized. Co-location of an extant library located not far from the site, and built within a few years of the elementary school, provides a reasonable co-location scenario for evaluation. Thus, Scenario A, the No Co-location Scenario, is the as-is situation. It represents the current allocation of facilities on the case study sites, i.e., Newton Lee Elementary School and Ashburn Library at separate sites. Scenario B is the hypothetical co-location situation. It is one interpretation of what the sites might have looked like if it had been planned as a co-location project, i.e., Newton Lee Elementary School and Ashburn Library co-located on the Newton Lee site (Fig. 2). In order to estimate the costs and benefits of co-location, ten impacts of co-location were developed. These impacts are: cost of land; cost of construction; cost of utilities installation; operating costs; planning resources; space savings; accessibility; resident coverage/service; time/distance savings to patrons; and synergy of services. These impacts are provided in Table 1, which includes a description of each and the expected result after co-location. Table 2 describes how each of the impacts is operationalized in the case study. Table 3 shows how Impact 5, Planning Resources, is evaluated. Table 1 Co-location impact chart. #

Impact

Description

Expected result of co-location

1

Cost of land

Reduced costs

2

Cost of construction

3

Cost of utilities installation

4

Operating costs

5

Planning resources

6

Space savings

7

Accessibility

8

Resident coverage/service

9

Time/distance savings to patrons

10

Synergy of services

How much money is saved in land costs by colocating public facilities vs. siting them in different places? How much money is saved by constructing colocated facilities vs. facilities constructed at different places and/or times? How much money is saved by running utilities to co-located facilities vs. running them at different places and/or times? How much money is saved by operating co-located facilities vs. facilities at different sites? What is the comparison of planning time, resources expended between co-located vs. non-co-located projects? How much physical space is saved in co-location (e.g., buffer area, parking space) vs. siting facilities at different locations? How will traffic patterns differ in co-located vs. non-co-located sites? How will this impact accessibility to the site? How will resident coverage/service provision be affected by co-location vs. non-co-location? How much time will the co-location project save patrons by having to make fewer/shorter trips than if facilities were at different sites? Will there be increased synergy of services by colocating vs. not co-locating the facilities?

Reduced costs

Reduced costs

Reduced costs for integrated (i.e., non-campus) facilities Higher expenditure of planning resources

Reduced space required

Traffic patterns negatively impacted

Resident coverage not significantly impacted Reduced time/distance required by patrons for multi-stop trips Increased synergy of services

692

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

These impacts were developed based on the public facility planning literature (Bingler, Quinn, & Sullivan, 2003; Building Educational Success Together, 2005; Bundy & Amey, 2006; Dixon et al., 2005; Filardo, 2002; Generations United, 2002; Haycock, 2006; McNicol, 2006; Romeo, 2004), County policy, and interviews with relevant County stakeholders. These interviews provided priorities and location-specific issues and standards to be considered when co-locating public facilities in Loudoun County. The impacts were chosen carefully so as to not only capture the most important points of analysis in this particular case study, but also with the intent that these impacts could be applied to other co-location scenarios in the future. This is important because standardization of the methodology could be expected to lead to more consistent evaluation of scenarios within the County co-location planning process. Thus, while operationalization of impacts may change from case study to case study due to differences in scenario types and unique situational attributes, standardization of co-location impacts would ultimately help the County more efficiently implement its co-location policy. The work flow for the cost-benefit analysis is depicted in Fig. 3. The key concepts underlying the work flow are as follows. First, assumptions and indicators are CommunityViz tools used to both conceptually and technically estimate the magnitude of the different impacts. Assumptions about an impact such as cost of construction are entered into the system and can be

Table 2 Newton Lee case study impact operationalization. Impact 1 Cost of land

Scenario A: Add land costs for the Newton Lee plot(s) and for the Ashburn Library plot(s). Scenario B: Add land costs for the Ashburn Library plot(s) alone. This sum is what could have been saved through co-location with Newton Lee Elementary School. Impact 2 Cost of construction

Scenario A: Add construction costs for Newton Lee Elementary School & Ashburn Library. Scenario B: Query OCC for estimate of how much might have been saved through co-location. Calculate savings based on figure from Scenario A and this estimate (e.g., 5%). Impact 3 Cost of utilities installation

Scenario A: Add utility installation costs for Newton Lee Elementary School & Ashburn Library. Scenario B: Query OCC for estimate of how much might have been saved through co-location. Calculate savings based on figure from Scenario A and this estimate (e.g., 5%). Impact 4 Operating costs

Scenario A: Add operating costs for Newton Lee ES and for Ashburn Library for 1 year. Scenario B: Query General Services to see if co-location of the two facilities might have saved on operating costs. If so, query for estimate of how much might have been saved. Calculate savings based on figure from Scenario A and this estimate. Impact 5 Planning resources

Scenario A: Evaluate scenario based on scale (See Table 3). Scenario B: Evaluate scenario based on scale (See Table 3). Impact 6 Space savings

Scenario A: Add area for facilities, parking, and surroundings for Newton Lee ES and Ashburn Library. Scenario B: Query OCC & Schools to see if co-location might have saved space. Calculate savings based on figures from Scenario A & these estimates; use modeling to augment, refine. Impact 7 Accessibility

Scenario A: Develop assessment based on information from the Loudoun County Transportation Department for accessibility to Newton Lee Elementary, Ashburn Library, and surrounding areas. Scenario B: Develop assessment based on estimate from the Transportation Department for accessibility to Newton Lee Elementary, Ashburn Library, and surroundings as if the two facilities were co-located. Impact 8 Resident coverage/service

Scenario A: Conduct buffer analysis of population in TAZ around the Ashburn Library in order to estimate population coverage (current and future). Scenario B: Conduct buffer analysis of population in TAZ around the library at the co-located site in order to estimate population coverage (current and future). Calculate differences. Impact 9 Time/distance savings to patrons

Scenario A: Develop trip distance/time estimation for a hypothetical visit between various schools and Ashburn Library. Calculate average. Scenario B: Develop trip distance/time estimation for a hypothetical visit between various schools and Ashburn Library at co-located site. Calculate average. Calculate difference between the averages in order to determine average time savings. Look for spatial differences on map. Impact 10 Synergy of services

Scenario A: Evaluate scenario based on scale 1 (No or low synergy of services), 2 (Moderate synergy of services), or 3 (High synergy of services). Scenario B: Evaluate scenario based on scale described above.

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

693

Table 3 Planning resources scale (Impact 5). 1: Low resource expenditure

  

Geographically or temporally separate location projects Two facility projects One or two departments involved

2: Moderate resource expenditure

 

Two facility co-location One or two departments involved

3: Moderate-high resource expenditure

 

Geographically or temporally separate, multi-facility location projects Two or more departments involved

4: High resource expenditure

 

More than two facility co-location Two or more departments involved

5: Very high resource expenditure

   

Complex More than two facilities More than two departments involved Special considerations

manipulated iteratively in order to show planners how impacts can change based on their assumptions, e.g., assuming 5% savings in the cost of construction by co-locating. Indicators are performance measures, for example, the estimated monetary savings associated with assuming a 5% construction cost savings due to co-location. Thus, in this case, the assumption of 5% savings in cost of construction due to co-location would be used in conjunction with the actual combined cost of construction for the elementary school and library in order to derive the estimated cost of those facilities if they had been co-located. Second, the last step, chart development, greatly enhances visualization of the impacts by depicting comparisons of the indicator outcomes for each impact. Analysis This section reviews the results for each of the impacts for the Newton Lee Elementary School case study. Table 4 provides a synopsis of the results of the ten impacts used to compare the two scenarios. While cost of land seemed problematic because both sites were proffers, there are opportunity costs to consider that make the co-location scenario a more attractive option, such as the potential for a larger library at the co-location site, as well as the opportunity to place another public facility at the original library site, such as a senior center. A modest savings estimate of 5%, suggested by the Director of Loudoun County’s OCC, for constructing the school and library together might have saved approximately $1,050,000. Utilities installation on a campus-style, co-location site is estimated to have saved 5% or $10,920. Because the site would have been arranged campus-style current thought is that there probably would not have been any significant savings in operating costs. Co-location would likely have lead to moderately higher expenditures for planning resources because of the added time and effort needed to plan for co-location. Space savings are estimated to have been about 5%, or approximately 96,500 square feet, in the co-location scenario. While it appears that accessibility to the co-location site is not ideal, no significant negative impacts from traffic congestion were expected. Resident coverage – the number of residents served by the facilities – was assessed to be higher for the co-location scenario by over 2000 residents for both 2005 and 2010. The co-location scenario does not appear to offer time/distance cost savings for travel, as evaluated by estimating the time/distance traveled between nearby schools and the library. Synergy of services was estimated to be moderately higher for the co-location scenario, based primarily on the proximity not only to the Newton Lee Elementary School but also to local parks and public access trails. A further consideration is that another facility besides a library such as a senior center might have been built at the original library site. Discussion In short, a cost-benefit analysis which assumes reasonably conservative cost savings for the costs of construction and utilities installation, indicates that the co-location of the Ashburn Library with Newton Lee Elementary School might have reduced construction and installation costs by $1,060,920. Co-location might have saved 96,500 square feet of land, but could also have afforded the opportunities to build a larger Ashburn Library and to locate another facility at the original library site. Service coverage might have been increased by over 2000 residents for the 5-year period from 2005 to 2010, while potentially improving services through locational synergies. Probable costs include modestly higher vehicular travel times and distances between local schools and the Ashburn Library (less than one mile and less than 1 min) as well as increased use of planning resources.

694

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

Fig. 3. Work flow of the cost-benefit analysis.

By focusing on the above ten co-location impacts, it is possible to evaluate both intended consequences, such as savings in construction costs and space, as well as unintended consequences, such as changes in traffic patterns and service coverage. In this retrospective case study, it appears that there are advantages and disadvantages to each scenario. For example, the colocation scenario offers various types of resource savings to the County. However, the new location may not offer time/ distance benefits to residents. The next step in the co-location planning process is for the County to prioritize these ten impacts in order to confirm which scenario is more suitable.

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

695

Table 4 Co-location impact results. #

Impact

1

Cost of land

Description

How much money is saved in land costs by co-locating public facilities vs. siting them in different places? 2 Cost of construction How much money is saved by constructing co-located facilities vs. facilities constructed at different places and/or times? 3 Cost of utilities installation How much money is saved by running utilities to co-located facilities vs. running them at different places and/or times? 4 Operating costs How much money is saved by operating co-located facilities vs. facilities at different sites? 5 Planning resources What is the comparison of planning time, resources expended between co-located vs. non-co-located projects? 6 Space How much physical space is saved in co-location (e.g., buffer area, parking space) vs. siting facilities at different locations? 7 Accessibility How will traffic patterns differ in co-located vs. non-co-located sites? How will this impact accessibility to the site? 8 Resident coverage/service How will resident coverage/service provision be affected by co-location vs. non-co-location? 9 Time/distance savings to patrons How much time will the co-location project save patrons by having to make fewer/shorter trips than if facilities were at different sites? 10 Synergy of services Will there be increased synergy of services by co-locating vs. not colocating the facilities?

Expected result of co-location

Actual result of co-location

Reduced costs

Benefits include larger library, additional facility at original site

Reduced costs

Savings of approximately $1,050,000

Reduced costs

Savings of approximately $10,920

Reduced costs for integrated (i.e., non-campus) facilities

No known savings for this campusstyle case study

Higher expenditure of planning resources

Moderate planning resource expenditure

Reduced space required

Savings of approximately 96,500 sq. ft.

Traffic patterns negatively impacted

No significant negative impact (average accessibility)

Resident coverage not significantly impacted

Improved resident service coverage by over 2000 for period 2005–2010

Reduced time/distance required by patrons for multi-stop trips

Increased time/distance required by patrons for school-library multistop trips

Increased synergy of services

Moderately increased synergy of services

Conclusions This retrospective case study demonstrates the utility of an off-the-shelf PSS for public facility co-location planning in a rapidly-growing US county. It is the methodology, with its set of ten standardized co-location impacts which can be operationalized within a PSS that is distinct in the co-location literature. Research is ongoing to fully operationalize the colocation PSS by integrating all ten of these co-location impacts. While the retrospective Newton Lee Elementary School case study served as a proof-of-concept pilot study, a future case study will focus on ongoing co-location planning in Loudoun County. In addition to testing the PSS in a prospective, rather than a retrospective, application, its use will allow for collection of more accurate input data as well as empirical data about the planning process as conducted by a local government. For example, the County is currently analyzing multiple years’ worth of data on the operating costs for co-located facilities and comparing them to the operating costs for its non co-located public facilities. Incorporating this operating cost data for co-located and non co-located public facilities such as elementary schools and libraries will make future cost-benefit analyses more accurate and help better understand the long-term consequences of public facility co-location. Lastly, an important related area of future research involves one of the assumed fundamental benefits of co-location discussed above. This is its potential for increasing sense of community. While there is abundant literature from various disciplines that conceptually discusses sense of community as a co-location benefit (Bingler et al., 2003; Building Educational Success Together, 2005; Filardo, 2002; Romeo, 2004; Stevenson, 2006), there seems to be little empirical evidence to support this purported positive impact of co-location. Without such data, it is difficult to accurately assess co-location’s impact on sense of community, either in a retrospective or a prospective case study. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the County Administrator from Loudoun County, Virginia for funding this research. Thanks also go to those Loudoun County government personnel who participated in interviews needed to support this research. Special thanks to the Loudoun County OMAGI for providing technical assistance and access to geospatial data.

696

E. Zolnik et al. / Applied Geography 30 (2010) 687–696

References Andrew, A., Donald, G., Pitt, M., & Tucker, M. (2008). Collaboration in property and facilities management: the experience of the Grampian public sector property group. Property Management, 26, 310–318. Bingler, S., Quinn, L., & Sullivan, K. (2003). Schools as centers of community: a citizen’s guide for planning and designing. http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/ (last visited December 31, 2006). Building Educational Success Together. (2005). Recommended policies for public school facilities. http://www.21csf.org/csfhome/publications/ modelpolicies/PlanningSectionMay205.pdf (last visited January 8, 2007). Bundy, A., & Amey, L. (2006). Libraries like no others: evaluating the performance and progress of joint use libraries. Library Trends, 54, 501–518. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14, B-141–B-142. County of Loudoun. (1996). 1995 survey of Loudoun residents. Leesburg, VA: Office of the County Administrator. County of Loudoun. (1998). 1997 survey of Loudoun County residents. Leesburg, VA: Office of the County Administrator. County of Loudoun. (2000). 1999 survey of Loudoun residents. Leesburg, VA: Office of the County Administrator. County of Loudoun. (2001). 2001 survey of Loudoun residents. Leesburg, VA: Department of Economic Development. County of Loudoun. (2003). 2002 survey of Loudoun Residents. Leesburg, VA: Department of Economic Development. County of Loudoun. (2006). 2005 survey of Loudoun residents. Leesburg, VA: Public Information Office. County of Loudoun. (2008). 2007 survey of Loudoun residents. Leesburg, VA: Public Information Office. Dalton, P., Elkin, J., & Hannaford, A. (2006). Joint use libraries as successful strategic alliances. Library Trends, 54, 535–548. Delgado, M. G., & Sendra, J. B. (2004). Sensitivity analysis in multicriteria spatial decision making: a review. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 10, 1173–1187. Dixon, D., Evans, D., Loeffelman, P., & Simmens, H. (2005). Schools as catalysts for community development. http://www.aia.org/print_template. cfm?pagename¼cae_a_20050622_catalysts (last visited November 23, 2006). Donnelly, S. (2003). A toolkit for tomorrow’s schools: new ways of bringing growth management and school planning together. http://www.tricc.org/docs/ APAschools.pdf (last visited November 23, 2006). Duerksen, C., & Dale, G. (1999). Creating city centers. http://www.planning.org/thecommissioner/19952003/summer991.htm (last visited November 29, 2006). Filardo, M. (2002). For generations to come: a leadership guide to renewing public school buildings. http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/ (last visited December 30, 2006). Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2004). Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28, 291–310. Generations United. (2002). Reaching across the ages: an action agenda to strengthen communities through intergenerational shared sites and shared resources. http://ipath.gu.org/documents/A0/Reaching_Across_Ages.pdf (last visited January 8, 2007). Hansson, J. (2006). Just collaboration or really something else? On joint use libraries and normative institutional change with two examples from Sweden. Library Trends, 54, 549–568. Haycock, K. (2006). Dual use libraries: guidelines for success. Library Trends, 54, 488–500. Hernandez, N., & de Vise, D. (2008). Housing downturn squeezing schools. Washington Post, January 30, 2008, A01. Malczewski, J. (2006a). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20, 703–726. Malczewski, J. (2006b). Integrating multicriteria analysis and geographic information systems: the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) approach. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 6, 7–19. Matthews, K. B., Sibbald, A. R., & Craw, S. (1999). Implementation of a spatial decision support system for rural land use planning: integrating geographic information system and environmental models with search and optimization algorithms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 23, 9–26. McNicol, S. (2006). What makes a joint use library a community library? Library Trends, 54, 519–534. O’Connell, I. J., & Keller, C. P. (2002). Design of decision support for stakeholder-driven collaborative land valuation. Environment and Planning B-Planning and Design, 29, 607–628. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Roberts, N. C. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1, 1–19. Romeo, J. (2004). The ABCs of mixed use schools: schools and communities learn the meaning of ‘‘co-location’’. Planning, 70, 4–9. Stevenson, K. (2006). Educational facilities within the context of a changing 21st century America. http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/ (last visited January 1, 2007). US Census Bureau. (2006). US Census Bureau news: income climbs, poverty stabilizes, uninsured rate increases. http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/ releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html (last visited April 1, 2008). Verma, N. (1998). Similarities, connections, and systems: The search for a new rationality for planning and management. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Vonk, G., & Geertman, S. (2008). Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Applied Spatial Analysis, 1, 153–173. Walter, C. (2000). Location, location, location: The key elements and factors involved in the co-location of human services for low-income families. Berkeley, CA: Dissertation University of California.