Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105

An approach for greenway suitability analysis

William Miller*, Michael G. Collins, Frederick R. Steiner, Edward Cook
School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-2005, USA

Abstract

Greenway analysis is designed to identify and measure the suitability of potential sites for greenway development. This
evaluation can be regarded as an extremely dif®cult task due, in part, to the large number of criteria and large volume of data
that may be required for the determination. The purpose of this paper is to present an approach to greenway analysis that
integrates suitability analysis with geographic information system (GIS) technology to identify suitable sites for greenway
development in the town of Prescott Valley, AZ, USA. This approach identi®ed ®ve major steps involved in the greenway
analysis, these include: identi®cation of land-use functions, spatial data collection, development of weighting values, data
integration and analysis using GIS, and output evaluation. Land-use function identi®cation, and weighting values were
developed from a wide range of resources including the Prescott Valley General Plan, surveys, expert opinion and published
literature. Spatial data were obtained from federal, state, and local agencies. Where speci®c data were not available, these data
were collected from the site using inventory techniques. Three land-use functions were identi®ed for the Prescott Valley study
area, wildlife habitat, recreation, and riparian corridor. For each of these functions, four or ®ve primary factors were
determined. Additionally, for each factor, a land capability rating was established. Results of the surveys indicated that
normalized weightings for the functions were 1.0 for wildlife habitat, 0.862 for recreation, and 0.653 for riparian corridor.
Rankings for the primary factors within the functions ranged from a high of 0.468 to a low of 0.049, with the sum of weighting
values for all factors within a function equal to 1.0. Land capability values for attributes within factors were set as high,
moderate, low, and no capability. All data were integrated into a vector-based GIS software and a total of 14 coverages were
created, Spatial analysis was performed using an overlay technique combining all factors within a function, and then by
combining all resulting factor outputs to produce an overall greenway suitability analysis. The ®nal analysis was then
evaluated by a panel of experts to determine its accuracy and potential for use in a greenway development plan. # 1998
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Suitability analysis; Greenway planning; Geographic information systems

1. Introduction protect natural areas and to provide recreation oppor-

Greenways, sometimes referred to as environmental
corridors, landscape linkages, wildlife corridors, or
riparian buffers, provide an important means to both
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-602-965-5567; fax: +1-602-
965-9656; e-mail: bill@habitat.caed.asu.edu
tunities (Little, 1990; Ahern, 1995). Greenways con-
tribute to many ecological and societal values (Fabos
and Ahern, 1995). They help maintain biological
diversity, protect water resources, conserve soils, sup-
port recreation, enhance community and cultural
cohesion, and provide species migration routes during
climate or seasonal change (Forman, 1983, 1995;

0169-2046/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S0169-2046(98)00080-2
92 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Forman and Godron, 1986). Greenways can be used to
create interconnected networks of open space that may
include more traditional non-linear parks and natural
areas. They can help to maintain ecological integrity
in human-dominated landscapes, especially with
regard to sustaining high-quality water reserves and
preserving biological diversity (Smith and Hellmund,
1993).
Local of®cials and citizens frequently advocate the
development of greenways and other open spaces to
improve environmental quality or their communities.
Many citizens, elected of®cials, and landscape plan-
ners seek a better understanding of concepts and
procedures for more sustainable greenway develop-
ment. Greenway planning methods are needed to
perpetuate ecological processes and to conserve wild-
life populations while affording continued human
interaction with the natural landscape.
The most dif®cult challenge is to design for social
and cultural settings which permit people to maximize
their needs without generating future social and envir-
onmental problems. This dilemma points out the need
for new multi-objective greenway planning methods.
These planning methods can be applied to the protec-
tion of threatened ecosystems and outdoor recrea-
tional system as well.
Better research methods are needed to accurately
assess and analyze environmental constraints and
opportunities. Socio-economic and ecological data
must be prepared so that meaningful comparison
can occur. Technological developments such as geo-
graphic information systems (GIS), when combined
with the suitability analysis methods, may provide the
necessary tools for the integration of these data into a
meaningfuldatabase.These databaseshave thepotential
to enable planners to integrate both social and ecological
interests in multi-objective greenway planning.
The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis
that the integration of suitability analysis with GIS
will provide an effective tool for greenway analysis
that blends both socio-economic and ecological data
into a comprehensive land management plan. This
approach is based on the premise that successful
greenway suitability analysis can serve as a founda-
tion for a greenway plan.
The development of suitability analysis has a
strong tradition within landscape planning (Hills,
1961; McHarg, 1969; Murray et al., 1971; Steinitz
et al., 1976; Steiner, 1983; Linden, 1984; Banai-
Kashani, 1989; Searns, 1995; McHarg, 1996). This
paper addresses the design of a greenway suitability
analysis for a rural area of the American Southwest
(Collins, 1996).
2. Study area
The study area is located approximately 80 miles
(128 km) northwest of Phoenix, Arizona (USA), and
incorporates approximately a 45 square mile
(115 km2) section of central Yavapai County. It is a
scenic, predominately rural area which includes the
town of Prescott Valley (Fig. 1). Within the last 10
years the area has experienced rapid growth, and
signi®cant changes in land-use patterns (Fig. 2).
2.1. Biophysical characteristics
The study area has a mean elevation of 1450 m,
with a bi-seasonal climatic regime of summer and
winter precipitation. Summer precipitation normally
occurring as thunderstorms, with annual precipitation,
is about 32.5 cm (Town of Prescott Valley, 1994). The
average summer daily minimum and maximum tem-
perature ranges from 16.38C to 31.98C, respectively,
while winter temperatures range from ÿ4.78C to
10.38C.
Geologically, the area is part of the Basin Range
lowlands of the Central Highlands Province. The
terrain is characterized by rolling hills, long mesas,
and deep ravines. Slopes range from <5% throughout
the middle of the study area to >15% on the eastern
and western boundaries. Soils in the valley bottoms are
characterized as shallow and moderately drained con-
taining predominantly loam, clay loam, gravely or
cobbly sandy loam or gravely sandy clay loam. The
steeper elevations are typically shallow, well-drained,
stony soils that are predominantly sandy loam and
loam (Anderson and Creasey, 1958).
The primary drainage pattern of the area consists of
the headwaters of the Agua Fria river and two lesser
tributaries. The two smaller tributaries generally ¯ow
west to east and empty into the Agua Fria just south of
the town of Prescott Valley. The headwater of the
Agua Fria river is located to the north and east of
Prescott Valley and ¯ows south and east.
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 1. Location of the study area used in the greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
The area is predominately characterized as a semi-
desert grassland, with pockets of Arizona chaparral.
The dominant grass species include blue grama (Bou-
teloua gracilis), sideoats grama (B. curtipendula),
hairy grama (B. hirsuta), ring muhly (Muhlenbergia
torrii), tobosa grass (Hilaria mutica), and curly mes-
quite (H. belangeri). Dominant woody species
include: broom snakeweed (Gutierreza sarothrae),
cat claw acacia (Acacia greggii), Wright's buckwheat
(Eriogoum wrightii), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), and
shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella). The dominant tree
species is juniper (Juniperus spp.).
There are a number of wildlife species in the area,
the most notable being a herd of pronghorn antelope
(Antiliocarpa americana) which inhabit the large
grassland to the east of the town of Prescott Valley.
This herd of antelope is limited in its movement
pattern by a number of physical constraints. The area
93
occupied by this herd is bounded on the north and
south by U.S. Highway 89A and State Highway 69,
respectively, on the east by dense vegetation, and by
urban encroachment for Prescott Valley on the west.
This con®nement coupled with the increasing devel-
opment pressure along State Highway 69 and in
Prescott Valley, present a signi®cant threat to the
preservation of this antelope population.
2.2. Socio-economic characteristics
With the exception of the area within, and imme-
diately adjacent to the town of Prescott Valley, the
predominant land-use has been and remains agricul-
tural, mostly livestock production. Starting in the mid
1960s the area that is presently Prescott Valley began
development with the introduction of several subdivi-
sions. At the time of its incorporation in 1978 the
94 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 2. Landscape view of the study area used in the greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
population of Prescott Valley was 1521. By 1980 that
number had grown to 2284, 8967 by 1990, 11 559 in
1994, and is projected to be 33 700 by 2010 (Town of
Prescott Valley, 1994).
At the time of incorporation, Prescott Valley
encompassed approximately six square miles
(16 km2) with nearly 12 000 lots. The area was pre-
dominantly zoned for single family residences. By
1982 an aggressive annexation program of land sui-
table for commercial and industrial development was
adopted, while continuing to add adjacent residential
areas. As of 1993, Prescott Valley occupied 18 square
miles, (46 km2) including approximately nine square
miles (23 km2) of Arizona state trust land. The town is
continuing to expand, with emphasis on expansion to
the east and south.
Prescott Valley contains approximately 141 miles
(226 km) of interior streets bounded by state Highway
69 on the south and U.S. Highway 89A on the
north. Most local streets provide direct access to
properties, and feed into collector streets. The
rapid growth of Prescott Valley population has
resulted in increased volumes of traf®c on arterioles
as well as main collector streets. A number of plans
have been proposed to expand the transportation
infrastructure for the area. Proposed transportation
development would increase the volume of traf®c
through the primary habitat of the local pronghorn
antelope herd.
The town of Prescott Valley offers a broad range of
community, including nine parks. Plans are underway
to develop continuous, linear parks and commercial
areas along state Highway 69. These linear parks exist
in cretin areas along the highway and consist of 60±
90 ft. (18±27 m) strips of grass with mid size trees
planted throughout.
Relative to greenway planning and development,
several goals and objectives have been adopted by the
town of Prescott Valley in its general plan. This plan is
the of®cial policy guide for the future of the town. It
emphasizes greenway planning through the following
goals:
 To provide and expand recreational services and
park facilities to serve Prescott Valley residents and
visitors.
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
 To preserve open spaces and the environmental
qualities of those areas.
 To protect the essence of the Prescott Valley quality
of life exemplified by the open areas of wildlife
habitat (Town of Prescott Valley, 1994).
3. Method
There are ®ve major steps involved in suitability
analysis, these include: identi®cation of land-use func-
tions, spatial data collection, development of weight-
ing values, data integration and analysis using
geographic information systems (GIS), and output
evaluation.
3.1. Greenway function identification
In order to identify the context in which a greenway
will function, it is necessary to identify the various
biophysical and human community factors found
within the study area. In suitability analysis, functions
refer to fundamental processes related to the land-use.
A factor is the term used to label a group of attributes,
such as soil potential size of the site, compatibility
with adjacent uses, or scenic quality (Pease and
Coughlin, 1996).
Greenway suitability projects require many differ-
ent types of data. For this study these data include the
number of people who live within one mile (1.6 km) of
the study area and their perceptions of the proposed
planning project. Extensive information about the
biophysical characteristics of the area (soil-type,
slope, ¯oodplain, and wildlife habitat) were also
collected. Ideally, several levels of inventories
from regional to local scale are included. This hier-
archy of levels is identi®ed so that the planning area
can be understood as part of a larger system
and speci®c places can be seen as parts of a whole
(Steiner, 1991).
For the Prescott Valley study, several sources of
information were used to identify the various func-
tions, factors and capability levels needed to perform
the greenway analysis. The primary source for the
identi®cation of greenway function was the goals and
objectives set forth in the town of Prescott Valley
General Plan. These goals and objectives, and their
associated elements were further supplemented by
95
advice from community of®cials and the general
public.
Factors within each function were identi®ed using a
combination of published literature and expert opi-
nion. Finally, information on the attributes associated
with each factor was derived from a combination of
published literature, expert opinion, and ®eld inven-
tory. An attribute in this study is de®ned as the
categories, or classes, used to describe a factor, such
as slope classes, vegetation classes, or population
densities.
3.2. Spatial data collection
The nature of the spatial data collected to represent
each function, factor and capability was dependent on
the nature of the component. Data of a biophysical
nature were derived from a number of sources includ-
ing: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital elevation
models (DEM) ®les, USGS digital line graph (DLG)
hydrology ®les, the Yavapai County Soil Survey, and
Landsat thematic mapper (TM) imagery. Socio-eco-
nomic data for the study area were obtained from the
Yavapai County assessor's of®ce, the county GIS
of®ce, and the town of Prescott Valley. These data
included: land ownership, land-use, parcel boundaries,
population distribution, and existing greenbelt plan.
The majority of the data needed were in a format
compatible for import to the GIS, however, some of
the data needed additional processing before it could
be incorporated. In order to utilize the Landsat TM
data, a supervised classi®cation had to be performed
on the raw data. This was accomplished using TM
bands 3 and 4 (red and near infrared spectra), and data
areas of known vegetation within the study area.
3.3. Weighting values
Weighting values were divided into three levels; (1)
weighting value between functions; (2) weighting
value between factors within functions, and (3) cap-
ability values between traits within factors. Weighting
in suitability analysis refers to assigning a weight to
each factor in order to recognize its relative impor-
tance (Pease and Coughlin, 1996).
For each greenway function, three experts were
identi®ed as sources for individual factor-ranking
information. These experts were chosen for their
96 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
knowledge in the area of multi-objective greenway
functions as well as their professional ability to
provide accurate and discernible data with regards
to a respective greenway function. Each expert was
asked to rank the greenway functions in order of
importance.
A broader approach was used to select experts for
the ranking of factors within greenway functions. In
order to provide community-wide involvement in the
planning process, it was necessary to collect a sig-
ni®cant sampling of the general population. This was
accomplished through the circulation of the function-
based questionnaires to the town council, and among
all town of Prescott Valley employees who lived in the
area. This sampling technique proved successful in
distributing the questionnaires to over 60 Prescott
Valley citizens.
Unstructured interviews were used to discuss the
overall factor-ranking method and to explain why and
how the expert was selected to assist with the
study. Structured interviews were then used to answer
any ®nal questions the expert had before leaving the
factor questionnaire with them to complete. Factor
questionnaires were completed and returned. Func-
tion-ranking questionnaires and an introductory mem-
orandum were circulated to the town department
heads through the town mail system. The completed
questionnaires were collected by the department heads
and returned.
The results of the individual factor questionnaires
were averaged within each greenway function, and a
preliminary factor ranking within each function was
computed. The same procedure was used to interpret
the results of the within-function ranking question-
naires provided by the local citizens. Once collected,
these data were then combined to produce an overall
factor ranking for the proposed greenway. The weight-
ing values obtained from this procedure were designed
to sum to one.
The weighting value for the capability of within
factor attributes was based on the interpretation of
published materials as well as several conversations
with local professionals, scientists, and wildlife man-
agers. The factors were discussed in terms of their
capability to support greenway development accord-
ing to their respective function. The criteria estab-
lished for interpreting the capability of each factor
were based on their respective value to support a given
function. In order to assure similar assessments and
representations of capability, standard categories of
suitability were created based on high, moderate, low,
or non-capability.
Factor characteristics of high capability were given
a capability value of 0.9, moderate 0.6, low 0.3, and
those with no capability a value of ÿ50. These values
were assigned based on a meaningful representation of
attribute capability. Note that a value of ÿ50 was
given to those areas deemed `not capable' in order to
avoid mathematical errors with the division of zero
and so that there is no possibility of ®nal suitability of
any `not capable' area being positive.
3.4. Data integration and GIS analysis
All spatial data were imported into a vector-based
GIS system for display and analysis. Since suitability
analysis involves determination of the capabilities of
an area, and the identi®cation of those areas meeting
speci®ed criteria, the primary entity-type needed for
this analysis was polygon data. Where spatial data
were not represented by polygons (vector or line data),
they were converted to polygons using a buffering
technique. Buffer widths were assigned according to
the capability identi®cations (e.g. distance to water
and distance from human activity at 500 m intervals,
multi-family dwellings and commercial developments
at 400 m intervals).
Once all the data were in the proper format, the
numeric values from the combination of between
function, between-factor within-function, and capabil-
ity rankings within factor, were added to the appro-
priate polygon within the polygon attribute table
(PAT). The non-normalized suitability score for each
polygon within a factor coverage was de®ned as the
product of the three weighting values. The resultant
values within each factor coverage were then normal-
ized and a new column created within the PAT con-
taining the normalized integrated score (NIS).
The greenway function value (GFV) was de®ned as
the sum of the NIS of all factors within a function. This
value was derived by overlaying all coverages within a
function and calculating the NIS of the unique poly-
gons produced. The ®nal greenway suitability output
was derived in a similar fashion, with the three green-
way function coverages being composited to generate
a greenway suitability value (GSV). The GSV was
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105 97

further re®ned by constructing a matrix of four suit- Table 1

ability categories where each composite suitability Normalized function rankings for greenway suitability analysis for
Prescott Valley, AZ
score could be interpreted as a particular level of
overall greenway suitability. Once this composite Function Normalized Ranking
suitability score was calculated, a ®nal greenway Wildlife habitat 1.0
suitability map was produced based upon the resultant Recreation 0.862
classi®cations of total suitability. Riparian corridor 0.653

3.5. Output evaluation

Table 2
Following the completion of the ®nal suitability Between factor rankings within functions for greenway suitability
analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ
map, three of the original nine experts identi®ed to
rank factor relationships were asked to review the Function Factor Factor
results and provide feedback. The experts were to look Ranking
for adjacency con¯icts and other inconsistencies Wildlife habitat
which would not have not surfaced until the ®nal Macrohabitat-type 0.468
composite map was created. Individual buffer cov- Slope 0.293
Distance to water 0.150
erages were also presented to these experts to validate
Distance to human activity 0.089
prior land capability categories. Recreation
Existing land use 0.363
Development pressure 0.234
4. Results Greenbelt component 0.180
Extending public parcels 0.139
Population density 0.084
4.1. Greenway function identification and weighting Riparian Corridor
Surface water quality 0.349
Review of the Prescott Valley General Plan revealed Groundwater recharge 0.277
three important greenway functions necessary for the Vegetative cover 0.227
Erosion control 0.099
basis of a greenway suitability analysis. These func-
Channel morphololgy 0.049
tions were:
1. Protection of natural riparian corridors and their
tat capabilities could be evaluated using macrohabitat-
associated functions towards groundwater re-
type, slope, distance to water, and distance to human
charge and surface water runoff.
activity. The results of between factor evaluations
2. Preservation of open spaces for wildlife habitat and
based on published data, expert opinion, and the
more specifically the protection of sensitive ante-
broader expert questionnaires are reported in Table 2.
lope habitat areas and travel corridors.
These results indicated that macrohabitat availability
3. Provision of multi-use recreation areas and ame-
was the most important factor associated with ante-
nities to increase the general public's exposure to
lope habitat, followed by slope. These same results
the natural environment.
suggest that distance to water and distance to human
Whitley (1993) and Banai-Kashani (1989) suggest activity were much less important factors.
that the ranking score as calculated should be normal- The capability evaluation for the attributes present
ized for each function under analysis. The normalized within each antelope habitat factor are presented in
weighting results of the expert opinion evaluation of Table 3. Based on these data, those areas of habitat
the greenway functions are presented in Table 1. located in grassland±shrub vegetation-types, with
Antelope habitat was considered to have the highest <5% slope, within 0.5 km of water, and greater than
priority among the three functions. Ockenfels et al. 1 km from human activity would receive the highest
(1996), O'Gara and Yoakum (1992), and Perry and capability rankings, while those areas in dense
Miller (1995), reported that pronghorn antelope habi- Pinion-juniper of Chaparral, on greater than 15%
98 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105

Table 3
Description of within factor capability classes, of the wildlife habitat function, used in a greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ

Factor Capability Class Class description

Macrohabitat-type
High Grassland±shrub vegetation community
Moderate Shrubland vegetation community
Low Sparse pinyon/juniper vegetation community
No Dense pinyon/juniper or chaparral vegetation community
Slope
High Area characterized by <5% slope
Moderate Area characterized by 5±10% slope
Low Area characterized by 10±15% slope
No Area characterized by >15% slope
Distance to water
High Distance to nearest open water source is within <0.5 km
Moderate Distance to nearest open water source is >0.5 km, but <1.5 km
Low Distance to nearest open water source is >1.5 km
No None
Distance to human activity
High Distance to nearest human activity is >1 km
Moderate Distance to nearest human activity is 0.5±1 km
Low Distance to nearest human activity is 0.1±0.5 km
No Distance to nearest human activity is <0.1 km

slopes, greater than 1.5 km from water, and within
0.1 km of human activity would receive the lowest
ranking.
Recreation considerations received the second
highest greenway function weight at 0.862 (Table 1).
Cook (1991) and Thrall et al. (1988) suggest that ®ve
factors have the greatest in¯uence on the recreation
function. These factors include: existing land-use,
development pressure, population density, greenbelt
compatibility, public parcel associations. The survey
results of our study suggest that existing land-use and
development pressure were considered as having the
greatest in¯uence on the recreation function (Table 2).
Greenbelt component and extending parcels, were
seen as intermediate in importance, with population
density having the least impact.
Description and ranking of the capabilities for the
recreation function are presented in Table 4. Only one
event resulted in a no-capability ranking, i.e., an
existing land-use of urban or built-up. Those areas
receiving the highest recreation capabilities were
characterized as being located on open space in par-
cels that had been zoned or set aside for open space,
within a projected greenbelt region, with the capabil-
ity of linking of two or more existing parks of greater
than 100 acres (40 a), in high population densityareas.
Riparian corridor preservation received the lowest
greenway function value at 0.653 (Table 1). Fry et al.
(1994), and McHarg (1969) indicate that ®ve factors
in¯uence riparian corridor characteristics; surface
water quality, groundwater recharge, vegetation cover,
erosion control, and channel morphology. The
between factor evaluation of these characteristics is
reported in Table 2. Surface water quality and ground-
water recharge characteristics received the highest
weighting values at 0.349 and 0.277, respectively.
Vegetation cover was close behind at 0.227. The
general consensus of the survey data were that erosion
cover and channel morphology had the least impact on
greenway suitability, with weighting values of 0.099
and 0.049, respectively.
The capability values for riparian corridor preser-
vation are presented in Table 5. Areas with the highest
capabilities in this function were characterized
by meandering channels in a natural state with
well-developed ¯oodplains, the banks were well vege-
tated with remnant riparian species, that had the
capability to slow surface runoff, thereby, reducing
surface erosion, facilitating groundwater recharge,
and improving surface water quality. There were
no factors in this function receiving a no-capability
ranking.
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105 99

Table 4
Description of within-factor capability classes, of the recreation function, used in a greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ

Factor Capability class Class description

Existing land-use
High Public open space or rangeland
Moderate Agricultural lands
Low Forest land
No Urban or built-up
Development pressure
High Public parcel zoned to be set aside for open space, or private parcel set aside as open space
Moderate Public parcel not currently zoned, private parcel under current long term lease, or privately
owned parcel not intended for development
Low Public or private parcel scheduled to be developed
No None
Greenbelt component
High Area within projected greenbelt region
Moderate Area within 0.8 km of projected greenbelt component
Low Area >0.8 km from any projected greenbelt component
No None
Extending land use
High Area physically links two or more existing parks of >100 acres (40 ha), or extends lands that
are part of the natural area network
Moderate Area offers linkage separated by a roadway between two or more parks of <100 acres (40 ha),
or site will extend the size of an existing park or open space
Low All areas not meeting the classification as high or moderate capability
No None
Population density
High >25% of the land within an area having a radius of 0.4 km, having multi-family and/or
business/commercial parcels
Moderate From 5 to 25% of the land within an area having a radius of 0.4 km, having multi-family and/
or business/commercial parcels
Low <5% of the land within an area having a radius of 0.4 km, having multi-family and/or
business/commercial parcels
No None

4.2. Data integration and GIS analysis
Following the development of the weighting values
for all levels, a total of 14 GIS data coverages were
created, one for each of the greenway factors identi®ed
above. These coverages were based on the individual
capability values for each factor.
Integration of the factors within functions was
achieved using an overlay procedure. The product
of this procedure was a suitability evaluation of each
function (Figs. 3±5). Examination of the wildlife
habitat function (Fig. 3) suggests that 35% of the area
was rated as high capability, 26% as moderate cap-
ability, and 39% as low-to-no capability. Similarly, the
recreation function analysis produced 31% as high
capability, 47% as moderate capability and 22% as
low-to-no capability (Fig. 4). Finally, the riparian
corridor function had 62% as high capability, 22%
as moderate capability and 16% as low capability
(Fig. 5).
These three function coverages were then combined
to produce the overall greenway suitability analysis
(Fig. 6). Evaluation of this output indicated that 14%
of the area was high capability, 41% as moderate
capability and 45% as low-to-no capability. This ®nal
coverage was then used in the output evaluation phase
of the process.
4.3. Output evaluation
Following the completion of the ®nal suitability
map, three of the original nine experts identi®ed to
100 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105

Table 5
Description of within factor capability classes, of the riparian corridor function, used in a greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ

Function Capability class Class description

Surface water quality

High Banks are well vegetated, capable of trapping sediment and slowing erosion, with potential
for active nutrient cycling via aquatic plants
Moderate Low levels of human activity, healthy upland vegetation, some bank stabilization needed, few
erosion factors present
Low Some areas showing indications of advance erosion, turbidity factors present, little or no
vegetation present to trap sediment or cycle nutrients, presence of mine tailings or other toxic
products
No None
Groundwater recharge
High Natural meandering channel pattern with sufficient vegetation to slow water and facilitate
recharge
Moderate Combination of meandering and straight channel pattern with some vegetation to slow water
and facilitate recharge
Low Straightened channel with impermeable bottom, banks or floodplain, water is not slowed to
facilitate recharge
No None
Vegetation cover
High Banks are well vegetated, remanant riparian vegetation present, medium-to-good cover on
uplands
Moderate Some vegetation on banks, some remanant riparian vegetation present, medium-to-good
cover on uplands
Low Little or no bank vegetation, no riparian vegetation present, uplands devoid of vegetation
because of overgrazing development activity
No None
Erosion control
High Erosion being stemmed by vegetation, current use of uplands do not accelerate erosion
potential
Moderate Erosive conditions exist, however erosion control structures such as gabions or holding ponds
are in place
Low Erosion is severe, bank downcuts are 1 m and are perpendicular to channel, no mitigation
structures are present
No None
Channel morphology
High Channels in a natural meandering state with well-developed floodplains, and well-vegetated
banks
Moderate Channels and banks mostly in natural state with a mixture of native and introduced vegetative
species, some human impact visible
Low Channel reach manipulated by human activity, poorly developed floodplain with little or no
native vegetation
No None

rank-factor relationships were asked to review the
results and provide feedback. The experts looked
for adjacency con¯icts and other inconsistencies
which would not have surfaced until the ®nal compo-
site map was created (Fig. 6). Individual function
coverages were also presented to these experts to
validate prior land capability categories. All three
experts returned comments suggesting that the process
appeared to produce a valid and credible greenway
suitability result. One expert expressed concern on the
process of normalization and its potential to cloud the
relationships among the individual factor variables.
This concern was noted and further research on the
topic recommended.
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 3. Graphic result of the wildlife habitat function analysis used in the greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
5. Discussion
We recognize that the 14 criteria evaluated within
the process are not independent of each other. Ideally,
each criterion would relate to a speci®c concept or
factor, each being completely independent of each
other. The inter-relationship of factors and functions,
however, presents the primary opportunity to propose
and test new factor ranking processes such as the one
for this project. We also recognize problems of adding
radio values such as those attained when evaluating
the inherent capability of a parcel's slope to ordinal
values indicating the spatial distance of a parcel to an
existing town proposed greenway location (Hopkins,
1977, 1980). Such inherent impurities tend to arise in
the design of most decision aids (Hepner, 1984). We
consider such trade-offs necessary for the adoption of
this GIS based method for the composite estimation of
multi-objective greenway suitability. The format of
101
the surveys was adapted from Whitley (1993) and
Whitley and Xiang (1993) and proved easy for the
experts to read, understand, and complete. The manip-
ulation of the ranking data also proved quite manage-
able. Both weighting and normalization worked well
in generating valid numerical values for factor suit-
ability. These values were easily transferred into the
GIS and readily available for manipulation within the
GIS analysis environment.
The draft greenway suitability map (Fig. 6) was a
composite of all the three function maps (Figs. 3±5)
and contained over 66 000 polygons. Post-processing
was performed on the draft greenway suitability map
to reduce the number of polygons and their inherent
`cluttering' effect. The results of this post processing
are displayed in the ®nal greenway suitability map and
homogenous areas are classi®ed according to their
calculated levels of suitability (Fig. 6). It is recom-
mended that this post-processing always be performed
102 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 4. Graphic result of the recreation function analysis used in the greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
due to its unique ability to help clarify the data and to
make the resulting maps more decipherable and easier
to interpret.
As can be seen on the map, large portions of the
study area were found not to be suitable for greenway
development. This is a direct result of the growing
con¯ict between developmental pressures and the
natural environment. Areas which received high and
moderate suitability levels were revealed to be the
predominant areas of existing antelope activity. The
similarity of previously observed and collected ante-
lope locations and projected locations for suitable
habitat preservation aided in the validation of the
method since antelope habitat preservation received
the highest ranking. (See Perry and Miller, 1995 for
further explanation of the habitat suitability analysis
process.) While certain limitations to herd migration
and transportation throughout the study area can be
found, the eastern end of the study area was found to
contain several areas of potential multi-functional
greenway development.
This kind of greenway suitability assessment can be
used to help direct future growth and protect the
physical and environmental resources of the land at
the same time. Since resulting greenway suitability
results are mathematically derived, they can be used as
valid factors for into the generation of other methods
to derive alternative land-use or design strategies. Re-
evaluation of initial assumptions or updated informa-
tion can also yield easily regenerated land-use or
design strategies. It is important, however, to ensure
that the process be explicit so that alternative scenarios
can be modeled without reconstructing the entire
procedure.
At the technical level, this GIS-based greenway
suitability model is quite capable of integrating
physical, environmental, and social geographic data
with human knowledge in an objective and manage-
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 5. Graphic result of the riparian corridor function analysis used in the greenway suitability analysis for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
able nature. It allows for a variety of information from
experts and citizens to be used in the weighting
process. The GIS software used in this study was of
a vector-based design, more recent versions have
incorporated the use of raster-based capabilities.
The major advantages of raster based software are
their capability of individual pixel analysis and map
algebra inherent in raster systems (Star and Estes,
1990). The use of raster-based software would have
made this suitability analysis much easier, however,
depending on the scale of the individual cell values,
the analysis may have been less precise.
On an organizational level, the use of GIS technol-
ogy brings people together, including planners, scien-
tists, engineers, and landscape architects. The high
level of cooperation and involvement creates a broad-
based approach to multi-objective greenway suitabil-
ity analysis. The employment of such a system helps
to provide objective analysis which can be used to
substantiate or alter the greenway planning process.
103
As a result, these data can be used to help people make
better, more informed decisions, thus providing a
more healthy quality of life for the community and
surrounding natural environment.
6. Conclusions
This project was conducted to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of using GIS and suitability analysis for
multi-objective greenway suitability analysis. The
method involved the identi®cation and ranking of
greenway suitability functions, factors, and capabil-
ities. The result of implementing the proposed method
was a map which categorized and illustrated the
different levels of greenway suitability throughout
the given study area. This suitability map provided
helpful knowledge on the interaction of environmental
factors and their relation to the built environment
within the study area. Suitability analysis is a useful
104 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Fig. 6. Final multi-objective greenway suitability for Prescott Valley, AZ, USA.
tool for greenway planning. Continued development
and re®nement of suitability analysis, especially with
GIS technology, can enable landscape planners to help
local of®cials and citizens to create greenways in their
communities.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the suggestions by John Meunier,
Kim Shetter and Jon Rodick on a previous draft of this
paper. We thank Chris Duplissa for her work on word-
processing the manuscript and her help in preparing it
for submission.
References
Ahern, Jack, 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape
and Urban Planning 33, 131±155.
Anderson, C.A., Creasey, S.C., 1958. Geological Map of Yavapai
County, Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Mines. Tuscon, AZ.
Banai-Kashani, R., 1989. A new method for site suitability
analysis: The analytic hierarchy process. Environ. Manage.
13, 685±693.
Collins, Michael G., 1996. An integrative approach to multi-
objective greenway suitability analysis, Master of Environ-
mental Planning Thesis, School of Planning and Landscape
Architecture, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Cook, Edward A., 1991. Urban landscape networks: An ecological
planning framework. Landscape Res. 16(3), 7±15.
Fabos, Julius Gy., Ahern, Jack, 1995. Greenways (special issue).
Landscape and Urban Planning 33, 1±480.
Forman, R.T., 1983. Corridors in a landscape: Their ecological
structure and function. Ekologiya 2, 375±385.
Forman, R.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New
York.
Forman, R.T., 1995. Land Mosaics. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Fry, J.M., Steiner, Frederick R., Green, Douglas M., 1994. Riparian
evaluation and site assessment in Arizona. Landscape and
Urban Planning 28, 179±199.
 W. Miller et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 91±105
Hepner, G.F., 1984. Use of value functions as a possible suitability
scaling procedure in automated composite mapping. Profes-
sional Geographer 36, 468±472.
Hills, G.A., 1961. The ecological basis for natural resource
management. In: The Ecological Basis for Landuse Planning.
Ontario Department of Lands and Forests Research Branch,
Ontario, Canada.
Hopkins, L.D., 1977. Methods for generating land suitability maps:
A comparative evaluation. J. Am. Institute of Planners 20,
387±401.
Hopkins, L.D., 1980. Landscape suitability analysis: Methods and
interpretation. Landscape Res. 5, 8±10.
Linden, Gerard. 1984. The incorporation of environmental
considerations in the generation and selection of alternative
highway locations. In: Brandt, J., Agger, P. (Eds.), Methodol-
ogy in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning, Theme
III: Methodology of Data Analysis. The International Associa-
tion of Landscape Ecology (IALE), Roskilde, Denmark.
Little, C.E., 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins University Press, MD.
McHarg, I., 1969. Design with Nature. The Natural History Press,
Garden City, New York.
McHarg, I., 1996. A Quest for Life. Wiley, New York.
Murray, T., Rogers, P., Sinton, D., Steinitz, C., Toth, R., Way, D.,
1971. Honey Hill: A Systems Analysis for Planning the
Multiple Use of Controlled Water Areas, (2 vols. Report nos.
AD 736 343 and AD 736 344.) National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Ockenfels, R.A., Ticer, C.L., Alexander, A., Wennerlund, J.A., 1996.
A landscape-level pronghorn habitat evaluation model for
Arizona. Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. Tech. Rep. 19, Phoenix, p. 50.
O'Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D. (Eds.), 1992. Pronghorn management
guides. Pronghron Antelope workshop, Rock Springs, WY, p. 101.
105
Pease, James R., Coughlin, Robert E., 1996. Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural
Lands (2nd edn). Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeney, IO.
Perry, E.C., Miller, W.H., 1995. A habitat model for pronghorn
antelope in North Central Arizona utilizing GIS and remote
sensing techniques. GIS/LIS Proceedings 1995, vol. 1. Nash-
ville, Tennessee.
Searns, R.M., 1995. Methods on landscape analysis. Landscape and
Urban Planning 33, 65±80.
Smith, D.S., Hellmund, P.C. (Eds.), 1993. Ecology of Greenways.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Star, J., Estes, J., 1990. Geographic Information Systems an
Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Steiner, F., 1983. Resource suitability: Methods for analyses.
Environ. Manage. 11, 379±388.
Steiner, F., 1991. The Living Landscape, An Ecological Approach
to Landscape Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Steinitz, C., Parker, P., Jordan, L., 1976. Hand drawn overlays:
Their history and prospective uses. Landscape Architecture 9,
444±455.
Thrall, G.I., Swanson, B., Nozzi, D., 1988. Green-space acquisition
ranking program (GARP): A computer-assisted decision
strategy. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 12,
161±184.
Town of Prescott Valley, 1994. General Plan 2000. Planning and
Engineering Department.
Whitley, D., 1993. A GIS-Based Land Use Suitability Model for
the City of Concord, North Carolina. University of North
Carolina, Charlotte, NC.
Whitley, D., Xiang, W., 1993. A GIS based method for integrating
expert knowledge into land suitability analysis. URISA
Proceedings 2(4), 24±37.