Arkansas Soil Erosion and Conservation Methods in Ornamental Landscapes

This study will attempt to identify the best soil erosion mitigation methods for Arkansas ornamental landscape settings by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of known techniques. Since soil is not a renewable resource, we must apply conservation practices wherever possible, not just in agricultural settings. To determine the most effective erosion prevention techniques, this study will review soil studies conducted by the NRCS and NASA, as well as articles on best practices observed in ornamental landscape and agricultural industries. These are analyzed by comparing and contrasting techniques against known problems with Arkansas soil to determine which methods are most effective. Based on the available methods, the most effective erosion control method in ornamental landscapes is the use of groundcovers, which hold soil in place at a deeper level than a solution like mulch or landscape fabric. Groundcovers also aid in soil amendment by contributing to nitrogen fixation, water penetration, drainage, and increasing soil pore space. By contrast, solutions like landscape fabric and rock can cause irregularities in the soil’s surface, increasing likelihood of erosion, or compaction of pore space over time, decreasing the soil’s usability. The uses for groundcovers are like that of cover crops in agricultural settings. Using plants to hold soil in place promotes a healthy ecosystem and aids the Arkansas landscaper in soil amendments for rocky, clay soil. Use of groundcovers also aids the landscaper by reducing time and labor needs, because it reduces the need for heavy fertilizers, weeding, and herbicides. Key words: soil, horticulture, landscaping, conservation, sustainability, geology, flood, irrigatio

Effects of Impact Fees on Urban Form and Congestion in Florida

This study analyzes the effects of impact fees on urban form and congestion through econometric analysis. The results show that there is some evidence that impact fees might reduce congestion by creating disincentives to residential development and job creation. However, direct evidence of a negative effect of impact fees in development and job growth is not found. There is no evidence that the difference in impact fees between central cities and outer areas promotes a more compact urban form. Likewise, there is no evidence that more road impact fees decrease congestion through more investment in infrastructure. This finding might be because impact fees usually finance local roads but congestion is concentrated on freeways and arterials or because there is a spatial, temporal, or financial mismatch between the collection and investment of impact fees. There is a clear, significant, and substantial positive relationship between density and congestion; this relationship indicates a weak increase in transit use in denser environments or a potential increase in automotive travel through higher trip frequency. However, other urban form variables related to the distribution of that density have a negative effect on congestion, indicating that certain urban configurations could decrease congestion. Finally, changes in congestion are negatively correlated with the congestion levels at the beginning of the period; this finding suggests that congestion is increasing faster in those areas that used to be less congestedopen