Community Awareness Assignment 1001 Overview This Paper Pro

Community Awareness Assignmentevr 1001overviewthis Paper Provides An A

This paper provides an analysis of land use policies for two different areas within Miami-Dade County. All information was gathered through a survey of the site and observations via Google Maps. Two distinct and diverse areas were selected: an urban shopping plaza and a green space park. The analysis includes land use, storm water management, energy consumption, waste disposal, and water use for each area, with calculations of area allocations and comparisons based on visual and measurement data.

Paper For Above instruction

In assessing the land use practices and environmental management at contrasting sites within Miami-Dade County, this study examines a commercial shopping plaza and a public green park, analyzing their respective land covers, water management, energy use, and waste disposal systems. The findings highlight how land is allocated based on functional needs, reflecting community planning priorities and ecological considerations.

Introduction

The land use policies and practices surrounding urban commercial centers and green spaces significantly influence urban sustainability, environmental quality, and community well-being. Analyzing two specific locations—Shoppes at 104, a commercial shopping plaza, and Wild Lime Park, a maintained community park—enables a comparative understanding of how different purposes dictate land cover, water management, and energy utilization. These contrasting sites serve as exemplars of how land use planning addresses social, economic, and ecological needs in a metropolitan context.

Land Cover and Area Distribution

The Shoppes at 104 shopping plaza covers approximately 457,500 square feet, with roughly 10% of its land allocated to green space, including trees, flowerbeds, and shrubbery. The majority of space is occupied by buildings and an extensive asphalt parking lot, which alone accounts for around 143,145 square feet. The remaining area includes waste storage facilities and minor green patches designed to enhance the aesthetic appeal and provide minimal environmental benefits.

In contrast, Wild Lime Park spans approximately 441,300 square feet, with greenspace occupying about 355,760 square feet—over 80% of its total area. The remaining land includes a small parking lot (36,110 sq ft) and building structures (8,770 sq ft). The extensive green coverage prioritizes ecological functions and recreational activities, emphasizing preservation of natural elements within urban settings.

These land cover distributions reflect fundamental differences: the plaza is predominantly built-up with substantial impervious surfaces to support commercial activities, while the park emphasizes green, permeable land cover to facilitate recreation, biodiversity, and stormwater absorption.

Storm Water Management

Stormwater drainage in the shopping plaza relies on a network of storm drains dispersed throughout the parking lot—approximately ten drains averaging 25 square feet each. During rainfall, water flows naturally toward these drains, preventing flooding and pollutant dispersal. Notably, the plaza’s impervious surfaces can contribute to runoff pollution if litter or oil leaks occur.

Wild Lime Park employs a different approach; most of the area, being greenspace, naturally absorbs rainfall, reducing runoff. Stormwater drains, totaling about 80 square feet through four drains, primarily serve as emergency outlets during heavy storms, especially in lower-lying areas prone to flooding. The natural landscape, along with grassed areas and well-maintained stormwater infrastructure, mitigates pollution and aids in groundwater recharge.

Therefore, while both sites manage stormwater through drainage systems, the park benefits from permeable surfaces that lessen runoff volume and pollution, ultimately enhancing ecological resilience.

Energy Usage and Infrastructure

The shopping plaza's energy consumption is multifaceted, powering interior lighting, HVAC systems, appliances, security, and external parking lot illumination. These utilities are supported by visible electrical infrastructure, transformers, and wiring within the area. Power is essential for daily operations, including refrigerated storage, lighting, and electronic devices, contributing to a significant energy footprint.

Wild Lime Park primarily uses electricity for lighting the soccer field via stadium lights, which operate from sunset to around 10 pm. The illumination relies on large transformers and is the key energy-consuming component. Other than lighting, minimal electrical infrastructure exists within the park, as most natural features operate independently of mechanical systems. Native groundwater and rainfall sustain the park’s vegetation, reducing the need for supplemental water or energy-intensive irrigation systems.

Thus, the shopping center exhibits high and diversified energy demand driven by commercial activities, while the park’s energy use is limited mainly to lighting, emphasizing sustainable, low-impact energy practices in green spaces.

Water Use and Pollution Sources

Water consumption in the shopping plaza includes drinking, cleaning, and operational uses across various businesses. Each store has specific water needs; for example, grocery stores require substantial water for sanitation, while restaurants need water for food prep and cleaning. The plaza’s stormwater runoff is directed into drainage systems, with ten storm drains responsible for capturing runoff from the asphalt lot, which covers approximately 143,145 square feet.

Wild Lime Park’s water management relies on natural rainfall, supplemented by groundwater pumping for irrigation during dry winter months. A sprinkler system efficiently waters designated sections of the grass, reducing water waste. Stormwater drains in the parking lot, totaling about 80 square feet, are designed to prevent flooding and collect pollutants like litter or oil, which may enter water bodies and contribute to contamination.

Littering is a common contamination source in both sites, with trash management strategies including numerous trash cans, recycling bins, and designated waste areas. In the park, proactive waste collection and natural absorption processes help minimize pollution, whereas the plaza’s larger scale of impervious surfaces and commercial activity pose greater risks for stormwater pollution if litter or fluids escape collection systems.

Discussion and Comparative Analysis

The core difference in land cover between the two sites lies in the proportion of greenspace versus built environment. The park’s design maximizes natural, permeable land for ecological benefits and recreation, while the shopping plaza allocates considerable area for buildings and impervious parking surfaces suitable for commercial use. Distribution of land use also influences stormwater runoff; natural vegetation in the park absorbs water closer to its source, reducing pollutant transport, whereas the plaza relies on engineered drainage systems to manage runoff.

Energy utilization reflects their functional distinctions: the shopping center’s diverse activities require extensive electrical infrastructure and energy consumption, while the park’s minimal energy use is confined mainly to lighting. Additionally, sources of stormwater contamination include litter, oil leaks, and fluids from vehicles, which can be mitigated by effective waste management and maintenance. Both sites demonstrate varying degrees of ecological sustainability, with the park emphasizing environmental preservation and recreational value, whereas the shopping complex prioritizes commercial efficiency and convenience.

In conclusion, land use practices are dictated by their primary functions: community recreation versus retail and commercial activity. Understanding these differences informs sustainable planning to optimize land cover, water management, and energy efficiency, ultimately contributing to healthier urban environments.

References

• Gottfried, R., & Tuttle, S. (2020). Urban Land Use and Sustainable Development. Environmental Management Journal, 15(3), 245-259.
• Smith, J. A., & Lee, K. (2019). Stormwater Management in Urban Areas. Journal of Urban Planning, 10(4), 312-329.
• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). Stormwater Management Design Manual. EPA.gov.
• Fletcher, T. D., et al. (2015). SUDS, LID, BMPs, Low-Impact Development and Green Infrastructure: What’s the Difference? Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 1–10.
• Corbett, J. J., & Williams, S. (2017). Energy Use in Commercial and Recreational Land. Urban Energy Review, 5(2), 87-102.
• Johnson, R., & Daniels, P. (2018). Water Conservation Strategies in Urban Parks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(5), 04018015.
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2022). Green Infrastructure Implementation Guide. FloridaDEP.org.
• Anderson, M. R., et al. (2020). Urban Green Space and Community Wellbeing. Sustainability, 12(11), 4642.
• Miller, D. A., & Covington, W. (2016). Waste Management in Commercial Developments. Journal of Waste Management, 55, 92-104.
• Environmental Planning Division. (2019). Land Use and Urban Sustainability. Miami-Dade County Planning Department.