Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2175–2186 | Cite as

Past and predicted future effects of housing growth on open space conservation opportunity areas and habitat connectivity around National Wildlife Refuges

  • Christopher M. Hamilton
  • Matthias Baumann
  • Anna M. Pidgeon
  • David P. Helmers
  • Wayne E. Thogmartin
  • Patricia J. Heglund
  • Volker C. Radeloff
Research Article



Housing growth can alter suitability of matrix habitats around protected areas, strongly affecting movements of organisms and, consequently, threatening connectivity of protected area networks.


Our goal was to quantify distribution and growth of housing around the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System. This is important information for conservation planning, particularly given promotion of habitat connectivity as a climate change adaptation measure.


We quantified housing growth from 1940 to 2000 and projected future growth to 2030 within three distances from refuges, identifying very low housing density open space, “opportunity areas” (contiguous areas with <6.17 houses/km2), both nationally and by USFWS administrative region. Additionally, we quantified number and area of habitat corridors within these opportunity areas in 2000.


Our results indicated that the number and area of open space opportunity areas generally decreased with increasing distance from refuges and with the passage of time. Furthermore, total area in habitat corridors was much lower than in opportunity areas. In addition, the number of corridors sometimes exceeded number of opportunity areas as a result of habitat fragmentation, indicating corridors are likely vulnerable to land use change. Finally, regional differences were strong and indicated some refuges may have experienced so much housing growth already that they are effectively too isolated to adapt to climate change, while others may require extensive habitat restoration work.


Wildlife refuges are increasingly isolated by residential housing development, potentially constraining the movement of wildlife and, therefore, their ability to adapt to a changing climate.


Connectivity Corridors Climate change adaptation Exurban growth Housing growth 

Supplementary material

10980_2016_392_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Blair R (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter S, Bennett E, Peterson G (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(1):29Google Scholar
  4. Carr LW, Fahrig L (2001) Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv Biol 15:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dale V, Archer S, Chang M, Ojima D (2005) Ecological impacts and mitigation strategies for rural land management. Ecol Appl 15:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv 141:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahrig L, Rytwinski T (2009) Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14(1):21Google Scholar
  8. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flather CH, Knowles MS, Kendall IA (1998) Threatened and endangered species geography. Bioscience 48:365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friesen LE, Eagles PFJ, MacKay RJ (1995) Effects of residential development on forest dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conserv Biol 9:1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 National land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864Google Scholar
  12. Gagne SA, Fahrig L (2010a) The trade-off between housing density and sprawl area: minimising impacts to forest breeding birds. Basic Appl Ecol 11:723–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagne SA, Fahrig L (2010b) The trade-off between housing density and sprawl area: minimizing impacts to Carabid Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ecol Soc 15(4):12Google Scholar
  14. Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Cantú-Salazar L, Cruz-Piñón G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gavier-Pizarro GI, Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Huebner CD, Keuler NS (2010) Rural housing is related to plant invasions in forests of southern Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecol 25:1505–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith B, Scott JM, Adamcik R, Ashe D, Czech B, Fischman R, Gonzalez P, Lawler J, McGuire AD, Pidgorna A (2009) Climate change adaptation for the US National Wildlife Refuge System. Environ Manag 44:1043–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton CM, Martinuzzi S, Plantinga AJ, Radeloff VC, Lewis DJ, Thogmartin WE, Heglund PJ, Pidgeon AM (2013) Current and future land use around a nationwide protected area network. PLoS One 8(1):e55737CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC (2009) Housing growth, forests, and public lands in Northern Wisconsin from 1940 to 2000. J Environ Manag 90:2690–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Winkler R, Radeloff VC, Voss PR (2004) Characterizing spatial and temporal residential density patterns across the U.S. Midwest, 1940–1990. Landsc Urban Plan 69:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen AJ, DeFries R (2007) Land use change around nature reserves: implications for sustaining biodiversity. Ecol Appl 17:972–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones K (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC (2004) Roads and landscape pattern in northern Wisconsin based on a comparison of four road data sources. Conserv Biol 18:1233–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC, Clayton MK, Hammer RB, Gonzalez-Abraham CE (2006) Road development, housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northern Wisconsin: 1937–1999. Ecol Appl 16:1222–1237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL (2008) On the protection of “protected areas”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6673–6678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Leinwand IIF, Theobald DM, Mitchell J, Knight RL (2010) Landscape dynamics at the public-private interface: a case study in Colorado. Landsc Urban Plan 97:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (1993) Ecological principles for the design of wildlife corridors. Conserv Biol 7:627–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouvang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Merenlender AM, Reed SE, Heise KL (2009) Exurban development influences woodland bird composition. Landsc Urban Plan 92:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meretsky VJ, Fischman RL, Karr JR, Ashe DM, Scott JM, Noss RF, Schroeder RL (2006) New directions in conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Bioscience 56:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller JR, Wiens JA, Hobbs NT, Theobald DM (2003) Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecol Appl 13:1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nusser SM, Goebel JJ (1997) The National Resources Inventory: a long-term multi-resource monitoring programme. Environ Ecol Stat 4:181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patrick DA, Gibbs JP (2010) Population structure and movements of freshwater turtles across a road-density gradient. Landscape Ecol 25:791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Flather CH, Lepczyk CA, Clayton MK, Hawbaker TJ, Hammer RB (2007) Associations of forest bird species richness with housing and landscape patterns across the USA. Ecol Appl 17:1989–2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Predick KI, Turner MG (2008) Landscape configuration and flood frequency influence invasive shrubs in floodplain forests of the Wisconsin River (USA). J Ecol 96:91–102Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Voss PR, Hagen AE, Field DR, Mladenoff DJ (2001) Human demographic trends and landscape level forest management in the northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. For Sci 47:229–241Google Scholar
  37. Radeloff VC, Nelson E, Plantinga AJ, Lewis DJ, Helmers D, Lawler JJ, Withey JC, Beaudry F, Martinuzzi S, Butsic V, Lonsdorf E, White D, Polasky S (2012) Economic-based projections of future land use in the conterminous United States under alternative policy scenarios. Ecol Appl 22:1036–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Hawbaker TJ, Gimmi U, Pidgeon AM, Flather CH, Hammer RB, Helmers DP (2010) Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:940–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rothley K (2005) Finding and filling the “cracks” in resistance surfaces for least-cost modeling. Ecol Soc 10(1):4Google Scholar
  40. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Biodiversity—global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Scott JM, Loveland T, Gergely K, Strittholt J, Staus N (2004) National Wildlife Refuge System: ecological context and integrity. Nat Res J 44:1041–1066Google Scholar
  43. Sohl TL, Loveland TR, Sleeter BM, Sayler KL, Barnes CA (2010) Addressing foundational elements of regional land-use change forecasting. Landscape Ecol 25:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutherland GD, Harestad AS, Price K, Lertzman KP (2000) Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv Ecol 4(1):16Google Scholar
  45. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Vuuren DP, Sala OE, Pereira HM (2006) The future of vascular plant diversity under four global scenarios. Ecol Soc 11(2):25Google Scholar
  47. Veloz S, Williams JW, Lorenz D, Notaro M, Vavrus S, Vimont DJ (2011) Identifying climatic analogs for Wisconsin under 21st-century climate-change scenarios. Clim Change 112:1037–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wade AA, Theobald DM (2010) Residential development encroachment on US protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:151–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiens JA (2009) Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecol 24:1053–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilcove DS (1985) Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams JW, Ordonez A, Notaro M, Veloz SAM, Vimont DJ (2012) Environmental and economic research and development program climatic analogs, climate velocity, and potential shifts in vegetation structure and biomass for Wisconsin under 21st-century climate-change scenarios Final Report. MadisonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht(outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Conservation Service – OregonPortlandUSA
  2. 2.SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterUnited States Geological SurveyLa CrosseUSA
  4. 4.United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceLa CrosseUSA
  5. 5.Geography DepartmentHumboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations