Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 1045–1061 | Cite as

Modeling exurban development near Washington, DC, USA: comparison of a pattern-based model and a spatially-explicit econometric model

  • Marcela Suarez-Rubio
  • Todd R. Lookingbill
  • Lisa A. Wainger
Research Article

Abstract

The development of private rural lands can significantly fragment landscapes, with potentially negative consequences on ecosystem services. Models of land-use trends beyond the urban fringe are therefore useful for developing policy to manage these environmental effects. However, land-use change models have been primarily applied in urban environments, and it is unclear whether they can adequately predict exurban growth. This study compared the ability of two urban growth models to project exurban development in north-central Virginia and western Maryland over a 24-year period. Pattern-based urban growth models (such as SLEUTH) are widely used, but largely mimic patterns that emerge from historic conditions rather than allowing landowner decision-making to project change. In contrast, spatially-explicit econometric models (such as the complementary log–log hazard assessed in this study) model landowner choices as profit-maximizing behavior subject to market and regulatory constraints. We evaluated the two raster-based models by comparing model predictions to observed exurban conversion at pixel and county scales. The SLEUTH model was more successful at matching the total amount of new growth at the county scale than it was at the pixel scale, suggesting its most appropriate use in exurban areas is as a blunt instrument to forewarn potential coarse-scale losses of natural resources. The econometric model performed significantly better than SLEUTH at both scales, although it was not completely successful in fulfilling its promise of projecting changes that were sensitive to policy. The lack of significance of some policy variables may have resulted from insufficient variation in drivers over our study area or time period, but also suggests that drivers of land use change in exurban environments may differ from those identified for urban areas.

Keywords

Land-use change Low-density residential development Hazard model Natural amenities SLEUTH Urban-fringe 

References

  1. Adams JB, Smith MO, Johnson PE (1986) Spectral mixture modeling: a new analysis of rock and soil types at the Viking Lander 1 site. J Geophys Res 91:8098–8112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM et al (2002) A review and assessment of land-use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, General Technical Report NE-297Google Scholar
  3. Allison PD (1995) Survival analysis using SAS: a practical guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison PD (1999) Logistic regression using the SAS system: theory and application. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell KP, Irwin EG (2002) Spatially explicit micro-level modelling of land use change at the rural-urban interface. Agr Econ 27:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berling-Wolff S, Wu J (2004) Modeling urban landscape dynamics: a review. Ecol Res 9:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berube A, Singer A, Wilson JH et al (2006) Finding exurbia: America’s fast-growing communities at the metropolitan fringe. The Brookings Institution, Living Cities Census Series 1–47Google Scholar
  8. Bockstael NE, Irwin EG (2003) Public policy and the changing landscape. Estuaries 26:210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosch DJ, Lohani VK, Asce AM et al (2003) Hydrological and fiscal impacts of residential development: Virginia case study. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 129:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown DG, Johnson KM, Oveland TR et al (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesapeake Bay Program (2009) Resource lands assessment. Available from http://www.chesapeakebay.net/resourcelandsassessment.aspx?menuitem=19096. Accessed Aug 2010
  12. Childs C (2004) Interpolating surfaces in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. ArcUser July-September:32-35Google Scholar
  13. Chomitz KM, Gray DA (1996) Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize. World Bank Econ Rev 10:487–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KC, Gaydos LJ, Hoppen S (1997) A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area. Environ Plann B 24:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conservation Biology Institute (2010) Protected areas: Maryland and Virginia, USA. Corvallis, Oregon. Available from http://databasin.org/protected-center. Accessed Aug 2010
  16. Cox RD (1972) Regression models and life tables. JR Stat Soc B 34:187–220Google Scholar
  17. Dietzel C, Clarke K (2007) Toward optimal calibration of the SLEUTH land use change model. Trans GIS 11:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fang S, Gertner GZ, Sun Z et al (2005) The impact of interactions in spatial simulation of the dynamics of urban sprawl. Landsc Urban Plan 73:294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fragkias M, Seto KC (2007) Modeling urban growth in data-sparse environments: a new approach. Environ Plann B 34:858–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geertman S, Hagoort M, Ottens H (2007) Spatial-temporal specific neighbourhood rules for cellular automata land-use modeling. Int J Geogr Inf Sc 21:547–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol Econ 23:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalez-Abraham CE, Radeloff VC, Hawbaker TJ et al (2007) Patterns of houses and habitat loss from 1937 to 1999 in northern Wisconsin, USA. Ecol Appl 17:2011–2023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodman L, Kruskal WH (1954) Measures for association for cross-classification I. J Am Stat Assoc 49:732–764Google Scholar
  24. Goodman L, Kruskal WH (1959) Measures for association for cross-classification II. J Am Stat Assoc 54:123–163Google Scholar
  25. Goodman L, Kruskal WH (1963) Measures for association for cross-classification III. J Am Stat Assoc 58:310–364Google Scholar
  26. Gude PH, Hansen AJ, Rasker R et al (2006) Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landsc Urban Plan 77:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B et al (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. Bioscience 52:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM et al (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herold M, Goldstein NC, Clarke KC (2003) The spatiotemporal form of urban growth: measurement, analysis and modeling. Remote Sens Environ 86:286–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Homer C, Huang C, Yang L et al (2004) Development of a 2001 National land-cover database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Rem S 70:829–840Google Scholar
  31. Huston MA (2005) The three phases of land-use change: implications for biodiversity. Ecol Appl 15:1864–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iovanna R, Vance C (2004) Pixels in place of parcels: modeling urban growth using information derived from satellite imagery. In: Workshop on valuation of ecological benefits: improving the science behind policy decisions, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Iovanna R, Vance C (2007) Modeling of continuous-time land cover change using satellite imagery: an application from North Carolina. J Land Use Sci 2:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. Am J Agr Econ 83:698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2002) Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns. J Econ Geogr 2:31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agr Ecosys Environ 85:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Irwin EG, Isserman AM, Kilkenny M et al (2010) A century of research on rural development and regional issues. Amer J Agr Econ 92:522–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jantz CA, Goetz SJ, Shelley MK (2003) Using the SLEUTH urban growth model to simulate the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area. Environ Plann B 31:251–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jantz CA, Goetz SJ, Jantz PA et al (2005) Resource land loss and forest vulnerability in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In: Bettinger P, Hyldahl PC, Danskin SD et al (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference, Athens, GA December 2004, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, pp 84–95Google Scholar
  40. Jantz CA, Goetz SJ, Donato D et al (2010) Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using SLEUTH cellular urban model. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2001) Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona: Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecol 16:611–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kline JD, Moses A, Alig RJ (2001) Integrating urbanization into landscape-level ecological assessments. Ecosystems 4:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lane BW (2010) The relationship between recent gasoline price fluctuations and transit ridership in major US cities. J Trans Geogr 18:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larsen SC, Foulkes M, Sorenson CJ et al (2011) Environmental learning and the social construction of an exurban landscape in Fremont County, Colorado. Geoforum 42:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luo J, Wei YHD (2009) Modeling spatial variations of urban growth patterns in Chinese cities: the case of Nanjing. Landsc Urban Plann 91:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahiny AS, Gholamalifard M (2007) Dynamic spatial modeling of urban growth through cellular automata in a GIS environment. Int J Environ Res 1:272–279Google Scholar
  47. Maryland Department of Planning (2008) MdProperty View (a digital product). Available from http://www.mdp.state.md.us/data/index.htm. Accessed June 2009
  48. McCauley S, Goetz SJ (2004) Mapping residential density patterns using multi-temporal Landsat data and a decision-tree classifier. Int J Remote Sens 25:1077–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McKenzie P, Cooper A, McCann T et al (2011) The ecological impact of rural building on habitats in an agricultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 101:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parks PJ, Schorr JP (1997) Sustaining open space benefits in the Northeast: an evaluation of the conservation reserve program. J Environ Econ Manage 32:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfaff ASP (1999) What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? J Environ Econ Manage 37:26–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pocewicz A, Nielsen-Pincus M, Goldberg CS et al (2008) Predicting land use change: comparison of models based on landowner surveys and historical land cover trends. Landscape Ecol 23:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pontius RG, Schneider LC (2001) Land-cover change model validation by an ROC method for the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the US Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 19:793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rasker R, Hansen AJ (2000) Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone region. Hum Ecol Rev 7:30–40Google Scholar
  56. Seto KC, Kaufmann RK (2003) Modeling the drivers of urban land use change in the Pearl River delta, China: integrating remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Land Econ 79:106–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sibson R (1981) Interpolating multivariate data. In: Barnett V (ed) A brief description of natural neighbor interpolation. Wiley, New York, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  58. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N et al (2005) ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 21:3940–3941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soille P (2003) Morphological image analysis: principles and applications (2nd ed) Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. Suarez-Rubio M, Lookingbill TR, Elmore AJ (2012) Exurban development derived from Landsat from 1986 to 2009 surrounding the District of Columbia, USA. Remote Sens Environ 124:360–370Google Scholar
  61. Syphard AD, Clarke KC, Franklin J, Regan HM, Mcginnis M (2012) Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data. J Environ Manage 91:1882–1893Google Scholar
  62. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. US Census Bureau (2010) State and County quick facts. Available from http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed June 2010
  64. USDA (2002) The census of agriculture. Available from www.agcensus.usda.gov. Accessed July 2010
  65. US Geological Survey (2010) Earth resources observation and science (EROS) center. Available from http://eros.usgs.gov/#/Guides/dem. Accessed Jan 2010
  66. US Energy Information Administration (2010) Weekly United States spot price FOB weighted by estimated import volume (dollars per barrel). Available from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTOTUSA&f=W. Accessed Aug 2010
  67. US Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Geospatial data access project. Available from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html. Accessed July 2010
  68. USGS/EPA (1999) National hydrography dataset. Available from http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. Accessed July 2010
  69. Vance C, Geoghegan J (2002) Temporal and spatial modelling of tropical deforestation: a survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data. Agr Econ 27:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vance C, Iovanna R (2006) Analyzing spatial hierarchies in remotely sensed data: insights from a multilevel model of tropical deforestation. Land Use Policy 23:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Predicting land-use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vogt P, Riitters K, Estreguil C et al (2007) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landscape Ecol 22:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wade AA, Theobald DM (2009) Residential development encroachment on US protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:151–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wainger LA, Rayburn J, Price EL (2007) Review of land use change models: applicability to projections of future energy demand in the Southeast United States. UMCES (CBL) Ref. No. 07-187Google Scholar
  75. Ward D, Phinn SR, Murray AT (2000) Monitoring growth in rapidly urbanizing areas using remotely sensed data. Prof Geogr 52:371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wear DN, Bolstad P (1998) Land-use changes in southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems 1:575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weldon Cooper Center (2010) Final 2008 and provisional 2009 population estimates for Virginia Counties and cities. Available from http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/data. Accessed June 2010
  78. White R, Engelen G, Uljee I (1997) The use of constrained cellular automata for high-resolution modelling of urban land-use dynamics. Environ Plann B 24:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Xian G, Crane M (2005) Assessments of urban growth in the Tampa Bay watershed using remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ 97:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcela Suarez-Rubio
    • 1
    • 4
  • Todd R. Lookingbill
    • 2
  • Lisa A. Wainger
    • 3
  1. 1.Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceFrostburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Zoology, Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity ResearchUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations