Prepared for the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability 

(SERPPAS)

Historic and Forecasted Population and Land-Cover 

Change in Southeastern North Carolina, 1992–2030

By Peter R. Claggett, Paul P. Hearn, Jr., and David I. Donato

Open-File Report 2014–1125

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod. 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Claggett, P.R., Hearn, P.P., Jr., and Donato, D.I., 2015, Historic and forecasted population and land-cover change 

in southeastern North Carolina, 1992–2030: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1125, 23 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141125. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................1

Historic and Forecasted Population Change..............................................................................................................1

Historic Land-Cover Change (1992–2006) ................................................................................................................2

Forecasting Land-Cover Change...............................................................................................................................8

Web-Based Map Viewer............................................................................................................................................9

Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................................9

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................11

References Cited.....................................................................................................................................................11

Figures

1. Map showing the 13-county study area in southeastern North Carolina.....................................................13

2. Graph showing historic and projected population growth in the 13-county study area, southeastern 

North Carolina ............................................................................................................................................13

3. Map showing projected population change for the period 2010–30 in the 13-county study area, 

southeastern North Carolina.......................................................................................................................14

4. Map showing land-cover for a portion of North Carolina, 1992...................................................................14

5. Map showing areas of land-cover change for a portion of North Carolina, 1992–2006 ..............................15

6. Map showing detail from figure 5 of land-cover change in Onslow and surrounding counties, 

North Carolina, 1992–2006.........................................................................................................................15

7. Graph showing changes over time of the relative proportions of the nine aggregated land-cover 

types in the southeastern North Carolina study area..................................................................................16

8. Map showing relative suitability for urban growth in southeastern North Carolina......................................16

9. Map showing relative suitability for urban growth in Onslow County, North Carolina, and surrounding areas 

to the west ..................................................................................................................................................17

10. Map showing probability of urban growth in southeastern North Carolina by the year 2030.......................18

11. Map showing probabilities of urban growth in Onslow County, North Carolina, and surrounding areas 

by the year 2030.........................................................................................................................................19

12. Web-based map viewer image showing growth suitability layer ................................................................. 19

13. Web-based map viewer image showing detail of urban growth forecasts for Wilmington, 

North Carolina, and surrounding areas.......................................................................................................20

14. Maps showing results from the GAMe model for 2000–30 .........................................................................21

15. Maps showing results from the SLEUTH model .........................................................................................22

16. Maps showing results from the combination of the GAMe and SLEUTH models .......................................23

Tables

1. Land-cover classes for southeastern North Carolina created by aggregating relevant classes defined 

for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Change Analysis Program..................3

2. Land-cover change sub-tables for southeastern North Carolina: 1992–96, 1996–2001, and 2001–6. .........4

3. Total amount of land in the study area that changed from one land-cover class to another during 

each of three time periods. ...........................................................................................................................6

4. Summary of absolute and percentage net change in land cover by land-cover class in southeastern 

North Carolina during 1992–2006.................................................................................................................6 
iv

 

5. Change in acreage by land-cover class for each of three time periods in the southeastern North 

Carolina study area.......................................................................................................................................7

6. Acres and percent of the total land area of the study area in southeastern North Carolina at four 

points in time. ...............................................................................................................................................7
v 

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Abbreviations

Camp Lejeune U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune

CBLCM Chesapeake Bay Land-Change Model

DOD Department of Defense

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

NCOBM North Carolina Office of Budget and Management

NOAA-CCAP National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Coastal Change Analysis Program

SERPPAS Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

1 

Historic and Forecasted Population and Land-Cover 

Change in Southeastern North Carolina, 1992–2030

By Peter R. Claggett, Paul P. Hearn, Jr., and David I. Donato

Introduction

The Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) was formed in 

2005 as a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) and State and Federal agencies to 

promote better collaboration in making resource-use decisions. In support of this goal, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study to evaluate historic population growth and landcover change, and to model future change, for the 13-county SERPPAS study area in southeastern 

North Carolina (fig. 1). Improved understanding of trends in land-cover change and the ability to 

forecast land-cover change that is consistent with these trends will be a key component of efforts to 

accommodate local military-mission imperatives while also promoting sustainable economic growth 

throughout the 13-county study area. 

The study had three principal objectives:

1. Evaluate historic changes in population and land cover for the period 1992–2006 using both 

previously existing as well as newly generated land-cover data. 

2. Develop models to forecast future change in land cover using the data gathered in objective 

1 in conjunction with ancillary data on the suitability of the various sub-areas within the 

study area for low- and high-intensity urban development. 

3. Deliver these results—including an executive-level briefing and a USGS technical report—

to DOD, other project cooperators, and local counties in hard-copy and digital formats and

via the Web through a map-based data viewer. 

This report provides a general overview of the study and is intended for general distribution to 

non-technical audiences.

Historic and Forecasted Population Change

The study area consists of 13 counties in southeastern (coastal) North Carolina: Beaufort, 

Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus, Craven, Duplin, Jones, Lenoir, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, 

Pender, and Wayne. The area is mostly rural, dominated by forests and wetlands. Data from the North 

Carolina Office of Budget and Management (NCOBM) show that prior to the 1992 start of this study’s 

period of interest, substantial population growth had occurred in Onslow County following the founding 

of the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp Lejeune) in 1941, with continued rapid growth 

from 1940 to 1990 (fig. 2). During the 1990s, however, the population of Onslow County remained 

unchanged, though growth resumed around the year 2000. The NCOBM projected modest future urban 

growth in the 13-county area, mostly concentrated in the coastal counties to the south (fig. 3). In the 

mid-2000s, additional population growth in the region was anticipated from planned increases in 

military and associated personnel at Camp Lejeune, and at the Cherry Point and New River Air 

Stations.

The NCOBM population estimates and projections indicate that the population of Onslow 

County is expected to increase by an additional 20,000 from 2010 to 2030. Additional growth in the 
2 

military population was expected owing to the Grow the Force Initiative. Counties with the highest 

projected population growth rates from 2010 to 2030 are Brunswick (58 percent), Pender (45 percent), 

New Hanover (37 percent), and Duplin (23 percent). Growth in New Hanover County is focused around 

the city of Wilmington, and growth in Brunswick County is focused around its oceanshore 

communities. Through the year 2030, the three fastest-growing counties are expected to be 

New Hanover (74,696 projected new residents), Brunswick (64,921 projected new residents), and 

Pender (24,526 projected new residents). By contrast, population in Columbus, Jones, Lenoir, and 

Pamlico Counties is expected to decline.

Historic Land-Cover Change (1992–2006) 

Note: The terms "land cover" and "land use" are often confused with one another. Land use is 

the human use of land. Land use often involves the management and modification of land from its 

natural or prior state into a developed state, with buildings, roads, and other human-made structures; or 

into fields, pastures, parks, or other human-influenced states. Land use also has been defined as "the 

arrangements, activities and inputs people undertake in a certain land cover type to produce, change or 

maintain it" (Di Gregorio, 2005). Land cover, on the other hand, is defined as "the observed 

(bio)physical cover on the earth's surface" (Di Gregorio, 2005). 

While the historic and projected growth data shown previously provide a useful regional picture 

of how population is changing over time, planning for future development at the county or municipal 

level requires more detailed information. As a first step in addressing this need, personnel involved in 

this study worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Coastal Change Analysis 

Program (NOAA-CCAP) to develop maps of land cover for the 13-county study area for the target 

dates 1992, 1996, 2001, and 2006. Derived from Landsat satellite imagery, the maps have a spatial 

resolution of 30 meters (m). The 1996 and 2001 datasets were already in hand; the 1992 and 2006 

datasets were added by this study to support and improve the quality of the land-change modeling 

effort. All 4 datasets originally included 22 classes of land cover, but for clarity in reporting and 

visualizing land-cover change trends, the data were reclassified into 9 aggregated land-cover classes

(tables 1 and 2 and fig. 4). 
3 

Table 1. Land-cover classes for southeastern North Carolina created by aggregating relevant classes defined for 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA-CCAP).

Relevant CCAP Land-Cover Classes Aggregated Land-Cover Classes Used in This Study

High Intensity Developed

High Intensity Urban Medium Intensity Developed

Low Intensity Developed

Low Intensity Urban Developed Open Space

Cultivated Land Agriculture

Pasture Hay

Grassland

Grass/Scrub/Shrub Scrub/Shrub

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland

Deciduous Forest

Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Palustrine Forested Wetland

Estuarine Forested Wetland

Palustrine Emergent Wetland

Estuarine Emergent Wetland Emergent Wetland

Bare Land Barren 

Water Water

Unconsolidated Shore

Other Palustrine Aquatic Bed

Estuarine Aquatic Bed
4 

Table 2. Land-cover change sub-tables for southeastern North Carolina: 1992–96, 1996–2001, and 2001–6. 

[The unit of measure for land area is acre. In all three sub-tables, each value on the diagonal (with a black background) is the acreage of the associated land-cover class that remained unchanged 

throughout the period covered by the sub-tables. Each value not on the diagonal is the acreage converted from the land-cover class of the row to the land-cover class of the column. Therefore, 

reading across the rows, each non-diagonal entry may be regarded as the reduction in acreage over the time period due to conversion from the land-cover class of the row to the land-cover class of 

the column. Conversely, reading down the columns each non-diagonal entry may be regarded as the increase in acreage over the time period due to conversion to the land-cover class of the column 

from the land-cover class of the row. For example, reading down the column for the Low Intensity Urban class in the 1992-96 sub-table: 843 acres of Agriculture; 10,485 acres of 

Grass/Scrub/Shrub; and 4,658 acres of Forest were converted to the Low Intensity Urban class. The pink shaded cells highlight the top three land-cover classes that were converted to either High 

Intensity Urban or Low Intensity Urban in each time period] 

1996

High 

Intensity 

Urban

Low 

Intensity 

Urban Agriculture

Grass/Scrub/

Shrub Forest

Emergent 

Wetland Barren Water Other 1992 Total

1992

High Intensity 

Urban 31,653 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 31,657

Low Intensity 

Urban 95 204,471 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 204,599

Agriculture 148 843 1,167,384 2,576 3,589 180 2,120 429 6 1,177,276

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 1,204 10,485 8,781 747,935 223,647 1,105 722 736 22 994,636

Forest 549 4,658 13,066 159,858 2,430,457 8,906 600 582 12 2,618,688

Emergent Wetland 22 153 1,190 20,476 19,051 148,672 198 326 3 190,091

Barren 23 181 32 398 108 20 20,111 318 32 21,224

Water 8 49 15 147 92 96 1,370 94,824 47 96,647

Other 0 3 0 6 12 2 76 42 3,513 3,655

1996 Total 33,703 220,844 1,190,467 931,396 2,676,956 158,980 25,233 97,257 3,635 5,338,474
5 

2001

High 

Intensity 

Urban

Low 

Intensity 

Urban Agriculture

Grass/Scrub/

Shrub Forest

Emergent 

Wetland Barren Water Other 1996 Total

1996

High Intensity

Urban 33,703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,703

Low Intensity

Urban 0 220,844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220,844

Agriculture 41 1,127 1,188,813 380 49 3 20 35 0 1,190,467

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 97 4,127 1,231 813,771 104,756 5,674 692 1,044 5 931,396

Forest 313 7,301 14,095 346,255 2,288,241 17,453 1,269 1,933 96 2,676,956

Emergent Wetland 1 10 151 8,009 4,092 146,075 125 510 8 158,980

Barren 45 113 0 945 80 295 22,647 908 200 25,233

Water 8 41 98 884 358 895 492 94,327 155 97,257

Other 0 4 4 14 3 37 94 160 3,320 3,635

2001 Total 34,209 233,567 1,204,392 1,170,258 2,397,578 170,432 25,338 98,916 3,784 5,338,474

2006

High 

Intensity 

Urban

Low 

Intensity 

Urban Agriculture

Grass/Scrub/

Shrub Forest

Emergent 

Wetland Barren Water Other 2001 Total

2001

High Intensity 

Urban 34,173 24 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 34,209

Low Intensity 

Urban 907 232,588 0 26 0 0 0 46 0 233,567

Agriculture 1,205 828 1,200,895 687 0 64 95 618 0 1,204,392

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 573 906 1,451 1,138,903 12,635 6,972 7,993 824 0 1,170,258

Forest 808 1,323 22 194,640 2,176,603 16,435 7,463 284 0 2,397,578

Wetland 9 12 0 1,583 5,141 163,666 0 20 0 170,432

Barren 28 25 0 130 0 0 23,486 1,612 56 25,338

Water 14 4 28 151 0 50 370 98,244 55 98,916

Other 0 0 0 8 0 0 173 46 3,557 3,784

2006 Total 37,718 235,710 1,202,396 1,336,127 2,194,379 187,187 39,580 101,708 3,669 5,338,474
6 

During each of the three change periods considered in the study, 1992–96, 1996–2001, and 

2001–6, less than 10 percent of the landscape changed from one class to another (figs. 5 and 6). Change 

was greatest during the 1996–2001 period when change occurred on 9.87 percent of the land area 

(table 3 and fig. 7). The majority of observed change during all three periods resulted from forest 

transitioning to grass or scrub/shrub and vice versa (tables 2, 4, and 5). Transitions to urban 

development are highlighted in pink in table 2. Over the 13-year observational record, urban area 

increased to more than 37,000 acres (tables 4 and 6), mostly associated with the development of 

grass/scrub/shrub, and forested areas rather than with the development of agricultural areas. 

Table 3. Total amount of land in the study area that changed from one land-cover class to another during each 

of three time periods. The land area of the entire study area is 5,338,474 acres.

Time period Total acreage converted

Percent of study area changing 

land-cover class

1992–96 489,451 9.17

1996–2001 526,735 9.87

2001–6 266,356 4.99

Table 4. Summary of absolute and percentage net change in land cover by land-cover class in southeastern 

North Carolina during 1992–2006. The unit of measure for land area is the acre.

Land-Cover Class 1992 1996 2001 2006

Net change 

(acres)

Net change 

(percent)

High Intensity Urban 31,657 33,703 34,209 37,718 +6,062 +19.1

Low Intensity Urban 204,599 220,844 233,567 235,710 +31,111 +15.2

Agriculture 1,177,276 1,190,467 1,204,392 1,202,396 +25,120 +2.1

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 994,636 931,396 1,170,258 1,336,127 +341,490 +34.3

Forest 2,618,688 2,676,956 2,397,578 2,194,379 −424,309 −16.2

Emergent Wetland 190,091 158,980 170,432 187,187 −2,905 −1.5

Barren 21,224 25,233 25,338 39,580 +18,357 +86.5

Water 96,647 97,257 98,916 101,708 +5,060 +5.2

Other 3,655 3,635 3,784 3,669 +13 +0.4
7 

Table 5. Change in acreage by land-cover class for each of three time periods in the southeastern North Carolina study area. For each land-cover class in 

each time period acreage increased due to conversion to the land-cover class from other classes, but acreage also decreased due to conversion to other landcover classes; the net change is the difference between the increase and the decrease.

Land-Cover Class

1992–96 1996–2001 2001–06

Increase Decrease Net change Increase Decrease Net change Increase Decrease Net change

High Intensity Urban 2,049 3 2,046 505 0 505 3,544 36 3,508

Low Intensity Urban 16,372 128 16,244 12,723 0 12,723 3,122 979 2,143

Agriculture 23,084 9,891 13,193 15,579 1,655 13,924 1,501 3,497 -1,996

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 183,461 246,702 -63,241 356,487 117,626 238,861 197,225 31,354 165,871

Forest 246,499 188,231 58,268 109,338 388,715 -279,377 17,776 220,975 -203,199

Emergent Wetland 10,309 41,419 -31,110 24,357 12,906 11,451 23,521 6,765 16,756

Barren 5,122 1,112 4,010 2,692 2,586 106 16,094 1,851 14,243

Water 2,433 1,824 609 4,590 2,931 1,659 3,462 672 2,790

Other 122 141 -19 464 316 148 111 227 -116

Table 6. Acres and percent of the total land area of the study area in southeastern North Carolina at four points in time. The sum of the acres columns for 

1992 and 1996 do not equal the exact total acreage of the study area (5,338,474) because of rounding.

Land-Cover Class

1992 1996 2001 2006

Acres

Percent of land 

area Acres

Percent of land 

area Acres

Percent of land 

area Acres

Percent of land 

area

High Intensity Urban 31,657 0.59 33,703 0.63 34,209 0.64 37,718 0.71

Low Intensity Urban 204,599 3.83 220,844 4.14 233,567 4.38 235,710 4.42

Agriculture 1,177,276 22.05 1,190,467 22.30 1,204,392 22.56 1,202,396 22.52

Grass/Scrub/Shrub 994,636 18.63 931,396 17.45 1,170,258 21.92 1,336,127 25.03

Forest 2,618,688 49.05 2,676,956 50.14 2,397,578 44.91 2,194,379 41.10

Emergent Wetland 190,091 3.56 158,980 2.98 170,432 3.19 187,187 3.51

Barren 21,224 0.40 25,233 0.47 25,338 0.47 39,580 0.74

Water 96,647 1.81 97,257 1.82 98,916 1.85 101,708 1.91

Other 3,655 0.07 3,635 0.07 3,784 0.07 3,669 0.07
8 

Forecasting Land-Cover Change

From the early years of land-cover change science, the USGS has played a lead role in 

measuring and forecasting land change at the national and regional scales. Under the USGS Urban 

Dynamics research program, USGS researchers have authored and contributed to studies that assessed 

the causes and consequences of urban growth and simulated urban growth into the future (Clarke and 

others, 1997; Auch and others, 2004; Acevedo and others, 2006). USGS researchers and collaborating 

partners have built on this work and developed the Chesapeake Bay Land-Change Model, version 1 

(CBLCM_v1) to inform State and Federal restoration decisions in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The 

CBLCM_v1 combines the strengths of a growth-allocation model, based on GAMe (Reilly, 2003), with 

those of a cellular-automata model, SLEUTH (slope, land use, excluded land, urban extent, 

transportation, and hillshade) (Clarke and others, 1997; Jantz and others, 2004), to simulate future urban 

growth throughout the 64,000 square mile (mi2) Chesapeake Bay Watershed. GAMe is used to convert 

county population forecasts into urban footprints assigned to small watersheds. SLEUTH utilizes maps 

of urban growth derived from Landsat satellite imagery to generate maps showing the probability of 

future urban growth. 

For this study, the USGS utilized the GAMe and SLEUTH models to forecast future land 

change in the 13-county study area at a 30-m cell resolution. (That is, the entire study area was covered 

by a regular array of rows and columns of 30 m × 30 m cells.) GAMe was originally developed in the 

mid-1990s for the New Jersey Office of State Planning to generate municipal-scale forecasts of housing 

and office-space demand. For the purposes of this study, GAMe was used to (1) translate county-scale 

population projections produced by NCOBM into estimates of new housing demand, and (2) downscale 

the housing demand from the County to the Minor Civil Division scale. Given the lack of data on 

locally available office space, no further attempt was made to forecast future office-space requirements.

The NCOBM county-level population projections out to the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 were used as 

input to GAMe for generating forecasts of housing demand. 

SLEUTH is an urban-growth model that forecasts urbanization based on input images for slope 

(topography), land use, exclusion of land (suitability), historical urbanization, and transportation 

(especially roads) (http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/gig/). SLEUTH output is in the form of a map 

showing the probability of future growth. Using spatial data on historic urban growth (1992–2006), the 

SLEUTH model was then used to forecast urban growth (which under the study’s modeling approach 

included suburban and semi-rural residential development). As part of the input to the SLEUTH model, 

a suitability map was developed identifying areas where growth was prohibited (for example, parks, 

game preserves, and other State lands) or encouraged (for example, areas designated for development). 

Developed from data provided by the State, counties, and other sources, this suitability layer was 

essential in the development of plausible forecasts. Acquiring up-to-date and accurate information for 

the suitability layer is an ongoing and evolving process that will continue as new growth forecasts are 

developed in the future (figs. 8 and 9).

GAMe and SLEUTH were run separately from each other, and currently (2015) there is no 

coded connection between the models. Using spreadsheets, the adjusted urban-area estimates from 

GAMe were multiplied by the relative proportions of future growth allocated to each land-cover class 

based on the SLEUTH predictions in order to forecast the amount of new urban growth and of forest 

and farmland loss within each township. 

Calibrating SLEUTH is a computationally intensive process, requiring repeated runs of the 

model, one for each of thousands of combinations of the calibration parameters. Calibration proceeds 

from a coarse calibration, in which input parameters are allowed to vary across wide ranges of values, 

through successively finer calibration runs with narrower ranges of variables. The goal of calibration is 

to find a set of parameters that enables SLEUTH to match historic rates and patterns of growth. More 
9

than 30 calibration runs were conducted for this study, making use of the USGS Eastern Geographic 

Science Center High-Performance Computing Cluster (Beowulf), which allowed us to perform each 

calibration run to test hundreds or thousands of parameter combinations, generally with a turnaround 

time for each run of 24 hours or less.

SLEUTH forecasts were based on seven datasets: urban extent and major roads in 1992 and 

2006, slope (expressed as a percentage), hillshade, and lands “excluded” from urbanization. The 30-m 

resolution National Elevation Dataset (http://ned.usgs.gov/) was used to derive percent slope and 

hillshade. The 1992 and 2006 urban land-cover data were developed by the NOAA-CCAP, and the 

North Carolina Department of Transportation’s Integrated Statewide Road Network provided the static 

roads data for 1992 and 2006.

The exclusion, or suitability, layer in SLEUTH represents areas partially or completely excluded 

from development and areas partially or highly attractive to development. The same data used in GAMe 

to identify lands eligible for development also were used to prepare the SLEUTH suitability layer for 

the study area of this study. The sub-areas prone to exclusion of development included all protected 

lands, military lands and facilities, frequently flooded soils, important natural-heritage areas, steep 

slopes (≥10 percent), open water, emergent wetlands, and unconsolidated shorelines. Lands partially 

suitable for development included residential parcels that are not shown as currently urbanized in the

urban land-cover data, which are located within current or future public-sewer service areas, and that 

cover an area of 5 acres or less.

In prediction mode, SLEUTH’s output images match the resolution of the input images. In this 

study, input images with 30 m × 30 m cells were used, so the output of a prediction run is a probability 

map of 30 m × 30 m cells, with cell values ranging from 0 (never urbanized) to 100 percent (always 

urbanized). High probability cells are found predominantly around growing urban areas and roads, 

while low probability cells are found mostly in rural areas. The final SLEUTH output was aggregated 

into an array of larger 250 m × 250 m cells (figs. 10 and 11) in order to aid interpretation and 

presentation. These larger cells were then overlaid on the areas eligible for urban growth to derive 

statistics on the proportion of agriculture and forest land likely to be converted to urban land-cover 

classes within each township.

Web-Based Map Viewer

In addition to the hard and soft copies of historic and forecasted population and land-cover data,

this information also will be provided through a Web-based map viewer. The viewer will allow users to 

view, zoom, pan, print maps, and access project reports (figs. 12 and 13).

Results and Discussion

SLEUTH model results indicate that most of the population growth in the study area will occur 

in and around the major cities in the region (such as Wilmington and Jacksonville), along the coast, and 

around oceanshore communities (figs. 14A and B). Similar but not identical growth patterns are evident

in the map of urban-land demand from the GAMe model (fig. 14C). The differences between the 

pattern of housing growth produced with SLEUTH and the pattern of demand for urban land produced 

with GAMe are the result of considering average lot sizes in GAMe. SLEUTH model results do not 

directly reflect changes in lot size unless those changes are reflected in the land-cover data informing 

the SLEUTH model. Given the same housing demand in two townships, urban-land demand will be 

greatest in the township with a larger average residential-lot size. For example, in New Hanover 

County, the average residential-lot size in Cape Fear township is three times greater than the average 

residential-lot size in neighboring Harnett township. Demand for urban land (that is, demand for 

residential-lot acreage) in Cape Fear township is 67 percent higher than in Harnett township despite the 
10

fact that housing demand in Harnett is 61 percent higher than in Cape Fear. The apparent contradiction 

goes away with the realization that a smaller number of sufficiently large lots can cover more acreage 

than a larger number of small lots.

The percent of land available for development within a township or county also must be 

considered when forecasting how population growth will be specifically distributed among townships 

and counties. About 63 percent of the developable land area in Harnett township, for example, had been 

developed prior to the year 2000, compared to only 34 percent in Cape Fear township. In both Harnett 

and Cape Fear townships, the average future residential-lot size is expected to decrease to half the 

current average size, based on the modeled regional relationship between average residential-lot size 

and the percent of land remaining available for development (fig. 14D). The four townships with the 

highest density factors (Wilmington, Federal Point, Masonboro, and Harnett) are all projected to grow 

beyond their current capacities of residential land if current average lot sizes remain constant; therefore,

either future lot sizes will decrease or growth will be distributed to neighboring townships. Currently

(2015), GAMe, as implemented for this study, is not designed to simulate the redistribution of growth 

among townships.

While the principal subject of (and reason for) this study has been to model urban development 

near military assets, an important contextual finding has emerged: forestry activities drove the 

overwhelming majority of land-cover change in the region during the period 1992–2006. The levels of 

forest clearing and regeneration (forest to grass/scrub/shrub and grass/scrub/shrub to forest) were

particularly high throughout the 1990s. During the period 1992–2006, urban growth was highest in the 

earliest period, 1992–96. The rate and amount of urban growth steadily declined in the latter two 

periods, 1996–2001 and 2001–6.

Because the SLEUTH urban-growth model was calibrated to match and extrapolate historic 

patterns of urban change observed during the period 1992–2006, the forecasted urban growth patterns 

are similar to the actual past urban growth in the study area (figs. 15B and D). The pattern of forecasted

growth was strongly influenced by roads and previously developed areas. The forecasted urban growth 

patterns reveal that growth surrounding existing military installations, particularly Camp Lejeune and 

Cherry Point, and within low-altitude flight corridors is expected to continue over the next several 

decades. Part of the reason for this growth is that these areas are suitable for development (blue areas in 

figs. 15A and C) in that they are either currently or prospectively served by public sewers or already 

exhibit evidence of residential use. Future increases in military personnel at these installations will 

increase the likelihood that surrounding lands will be developed.

The extent of forest, grass/shrubland, and farmland forecasted to be converted to urban 

development in the study area by 2030 are 72,024 acres, 94,250 acres, and 59,728 acres, respectively.

Grass and shrubland are transitional classes created mostly through the clearing of forests and are 

mostly located near forests. The patterns of forest and farmland loss (figs. 16A–D) are similar to each 

other because both follow the pattern of forecasted urban growth for the study area. The relative 

proportions of forest and farmland loss, however, vary because the proportions of forests and farmlands 

adjacent to existing and growing urban areas are unique for each municipality. For example, the same 

amount of development in townships in Brunswick, New Hanover, and Craven Counties will probably

result in greater declines in forest cover than conversion of farmland, while the same amount of 

development in townships in Wayne, Duplin, and Carteret Counties is expected to result in more 

farmland conversion than declines in forest cover. The proportions of grass or shrubland converted to 

development are not shown because they are closely associated with the patterns of forest loss.

The total amount of GAMe-forecasted urban change that impacts forests, grass/scrub/shrub, or 

farmlands is 226,000 acres. This is more than double the 98,000 acres of development forecasted with 

SLEUTH. The amount of development forecasted with SLEUTH corresponds closely to a linear 

extrapolation of the historical extent of urban change during 1992–2006. The GAMe forecast is 

substantially higher even though the rate of population growth in the study area is projected to decline.
11

The GAMe forecast is higher than the SLEUTH forecast because as discussed above, GAMe uses an 

estimate of residential-lot size to forecast the extent of urban development. The lot-size estimate is 

informed by the spatial extent of small parcels (≤ 5 acres), which generally are not represented as urban 

land in the datasets used to calibrate the SLEUTH model. For this reason, the SLEUTH forecast of 

urban growth constitutes a conservative estimate. The GAMe forecast, by contrast, provides a more

liberal estimate of urban growth especially in those sub-areas of the study area containing large 

commercial or industrial facilities. The more liberal estimate was used because all urban development, 

including commercial and industrial areas, represented in the land-cover datasets is assumed in the 

GAMe model to be proportional to population and represent potential residential lands. Consequently,

in a sub-area with few residents and a disproportionate amount of developed land taken up by 

commercial or industrial facilities, the estimated average residential-lot size will be larger than it is in 

actuality, and a small forecasted change in population would yield a disproportionate increase in 

developed land.

Conclusions

The conclusions of this study are based on maps, land-cover data, and other data and forecasts 

for the study area. The land-cover data provide a regionally consistent and temporally comparable 

perspective on how land cover in the 13-county study area changed during the period 1992–2006. The

population projections, density factors, and fine-scale forecasts of urban growth identify localized areas 

where the potential for urban development is most likely to occur.

The suitability-layer map provides a regional perspective on the amount and locations of land 

available for development, and it illustrates the effect of wastewater policies on patterns of high- and 

low-intensity urbanization. Through the combination of two urban growth models, GAMe and 

SLEUTH, the extent of urban development in the study area is forecast to range from 98,000 to 

226,000 acres through the year 2030.

The creation and growth of U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune starting in the 1940s 

resulted in substantial population and urban growth, particularly in the Jacksonville area. The rise of 

tourism and recreation in the 1960s and 1970s and improved road access to coastal counties also has 

been an important driver of urban growth along the North Carolina coast. The past, however, is not 

always prologue to the future, as demonstrated by comparing the economic recession that began in 2008 

and the associated decline in housing prices with the dot.com boom of the late 1990s and rapid rise of 

land and housing values during the 2000–6 period. Forecasts of future urban growth can only describe

plausible future conditions. Any particular forecast represents just one of many possible future states.

The results of this study provide the foundation for continued U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

efforts to work with other Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS)

partners and local government agencies to refine growth-forecast methodologies and to generate

improved information for local use in planning and managing resources and growth in southeastern 

North Carolina.

References Cited

Acevedo, William, Taylor, J.L., Hester, D.J., Mladinich, C.S., and Glavac, Sonya, eds., 2006, Rates, 

trends, causes, and consequences of urban land-use change in the United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1726, 200 p.

Auch, Roger; Taylor, Janis; and Acevedo, William, 2004, Urban growth in American cities—Glimpses 

of U.S. urbanization: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1252, 52 p.
12

Clarke, K.C., Hoppen, S., and Gaydos, L., 1997, A self-modifying cellular automaton model of 

historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area: Environment and Planning B—Planning and 

Design, v. 24, no. 2, p. 247–261.

Di Gregorio, Antonio, 2005, Land cover classification system—Classification concepts and user 

manual (software version 2): Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome; 

accessed October 14, 2014, at http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7220e/y7220e00.HTM.

Jantz, C.A., Goetz, S.J., and Shelley, M.K., 2004, Using the SLEUTH urban growth model to simulate

the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan 

area: Environment and Planning B—Planning and Design, v. 31, no. 2, p. 251–271.

Reilly, James, 2003, The New Jersey (USA) growth allocation model—Development, evaluation and 

extension, in Geertman, Stan, and Stillwell, John, eds., Planning support systems in practice—

Advances in spatial science: Springer, chap. 20, p. 373–389, available online at 

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-24795-1/page/1.
13 

Figure 1. Map showing the 13-county study area in southeastern North Carolina.

Figure 2. Historic and projected population growth in the 13-county study area, 

southeastern North Carolina.
14 

Figure 3. Projected population change for the period 2010–30 in the 13-county 

study area, southeastern North Carolina. Projected absolute change in population 

is shown on the map within each county. (Source: North Carolina Office of State 

Budget and Management).

Figure 4. Land-cover map for a portion of North Carolina, 1992 (aggregated to 

nine classes from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Coastal 

Change Analysis Program data). Maroon line designates boundary of U.S. 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune; magenta lines designate State-protected 

areas.
15 

Figure 5. Areas of land-cover change for a portion of North Carolina, 1992–2006 

(aggregated to nine classes from National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCoastal Change Analysis Program data). Magenta lines designate boundaries of 

protected areas managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

Maroon lines designate the boundary of U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.

Figure 6. Detail from figure 5 showing land-cover change in Onslow and 

surrounding counties, North Carolina, 1992–2006.
16 

Figure 7. Changes over time of the relative proportions of the nine aggregated landcover types in the southeastern North Carolina study area. The bottom layer of this 

chart for High Intensity Urban is difficult to see because High Intensity Urban makes up 

such a relatively small proportion of overall land cover in the study area.

Figure 8. Relative suitability for urban growth in southeastern North Carolina. 

Shades of blue from dark to light indicate moderate to high suitability for growth. 

Beige areas are neutral. Shades of brown to black indicate areas increasingly 

unsuitable for growth.
17 

Figure 9. Relative suitability for urban growth in Onslow County, North Carolina, and 

surrounding areas to the west. In this example, the Holly Shelter Game Land to the west 

of U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Camp Lejeune proper, and Hoffman Forest to 

the north are classified as unsuitable for growth (black), while the town of Jacksonville is 

classified as highly suitable (light shades of blue).
18 

Figure 10. Probability of urban growth in southeastern North Carolina by the year 

2030. Lighter shades of pink indicate lower probabilities of growth, while shades of 

orange and red indicate higher probabilities. This map indicates the areas in which 

urbanization is more or less likely. It does not indicate the density of urbanization. 

Pixel size is 250 meters.
19 

Figure 11. Probabilities of urban growth in Onslow County, North Carolina, 

and surrounding areas by the year 2030. Note the absence of predicted 

growth within the Holly Shelter Game Land, Angola Swamp, and U.S. Marine 

Corps Base Camp Lejeune; the growth predicted around the perimeters of 

these areas; and growth predicted in the town of Jacksonville. Pixel size is 

250 meters.

Figure 12. Web-based map viewer image showing growth suitability layer.
20 

Figure 13. Web-based map viewer image showing detail of urban growth 

forecasts for Wilmington, North Carolina, and surrounding areas.
21 

Figure 14. Results from the GAMe model for 2000–30. A, Projected county population growth. B, County 

population projections converted to future housing demand by township. C, Estimated urban land demand by 

township. D, Forecasted decrease in residential lot size.
22 

Figure 15. Results from the SLEUTH model. A, Suitability of land for urban development. B, Forecasted urban 

growth and military-use areas for 1992–2006. C, Suitability of land in Onslow and Craven Counties, North Carolina. 

D, Forecasted urban growth in Onslow and Craven Counties for 1992–2006.
23 

Figure 16. Results from the combination of the GAMe and SLEUTH models. A, Total forest loss forecast for the 

region by township. B, Total farmland loss forecast by township. C, Proportion of the total acreage converted to 

urban currently in forest. D, Proportion of the total acreage converted to urban currently in farmland.
ISSN 2331-1258 (online) 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141125