Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 94, Issue 1–3, pp 129–146 | Cite as

Assessing Development Pressure in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: An Evaluation of Two Land-Use Change Models

  • Peter R. Claggett
  • Claire A. Jantz
  • Scott J. Goetz
  • Carin Bisland

Abstract

Natural resource lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are increasingly susceptible to conversion into developed land uses, particularly as the demand for residential development grows. We assessed development pressure in the Baltimore-Washington, DC region, one of the major urban and suburban centers in the watershed. We explored the utility of two modeling approaches for forecasting future development trends and patterns by comparing results from a cellular automata model, SLEUTH (slope, land use, excluded land, urban extent, transportation), and a supply/demand/allocation model, the Western Futures Model. SLEUTH can be classified as a land-cover change model and produces projections on the basis of historic trends of changes in the extent and patterns of developed land and future land protection scenarios. The Western Futures Model derives forecasts from historic trends in housing units, a U.S. Census variable, and exogenously supplied future population projections. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and combining the two has advantages and limitations.

land conservation land-use change predictive modeling urban sprawl vulnerability assessment Mid-Atlantic Chesapeake Bay 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bockstael, N.: (1996) 'Modeling Economics and Ecology: the Importance of a Spatial Perspective', Amer. J. Ag.Econo. 78 (5), 1168-1180.Google Scholar
  2. Boesch, D.F. and Greer, J.: 2003, 'Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century', Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Edgewater, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Candau J.: 2002, 'Temporal Calibration Sensitivity of the SLEUTH Urban Growth Model', Masters Thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Chesapeake Executive Council: “Chesapeake 2000” (2000). 18 June 2003. <http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm>Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, K.C., Hoppen, S., and Gaydos, L.: 1997, 'A Self-Modifying Cellular Automaton Model of Historical Urbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area', Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 24, 47-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, K.C. and Gaydos, L.J.: 1998, 'Loose-Coupling a Cellular Automaton Model and GIS: Long-Term Urban Growth Prediction for San Francisco and Washington-Baltimore', Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 12, 699-714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., and Chen, D.: “Measuring Sprawl and its Impact”. (2002). 18 June 2003. <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDF>Google Scholar
  8. Hardie, I., Parks, P., Gottleib, P. and Wear, D.: 2000, 'Responsiveness of Rural and Urban Land Uses to Land Rent Determinants in the U.S. South', Land Econ. 76 (4), 659-673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herold, M., Goldstein, N.C. and Clarke, K.C.: 2003, 'The Spatiotemporal Form of Urban Growth: Measurement, Analysis and Modeling', Remote Sens. Environ. 86, 286-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, L.E., Bird, S.L., Matheny, R.W., O'Neill, R.V., White, D., Boesch, K.C. and Koviach, J.L.: 2004, 'A Regional Approach to Projecting Land-Use Change and Resulting Ecological Vulnerability', Environ. Monit. Assess. 94, 231-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jantz, C.A., Goetz, S.J. and Shelley, M.K.: in press, '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: Plann. Des. in press.Google Scholar
  12. Jenks, G.F. and Coulson, M.R.: 1963, 'Class Intervals for Statistical Maps', International Yearbook Cartography. 3, 119-134.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., Tankersley, R.D., O'Neill, R.V., Chaloud, D.J., Smith, E.R. and Neale, A.C.: 1997, 'An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas', EPA/600/R-97/130 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Lucy, W.H. and Phillips, D.L.: 2001, 'Suburbs and the Census: Patterns of Growth and Decline', The Brookings Institution Survey Series, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. McCauley, S. and Goetz, S.J.: 2003, 'Mapping Residential Density Patterns Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data and a Decision-Tree Classifier', Int. J. Remote Sens. 24 (00), 1-19.Google Scholar
  16. SAIC: 2002, 'Methods for Vulnerability Assessment', December 3, 2002 memorandum from M. O'Kicki and R. Fetter to C. Bisland, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Silva, E.A. and Clarke, K.C.: 2002, 'Calibration of the SLEUTH Urban Growth Model for Lisbon and Porto, Spain', Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 26, 525-552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, A. J., Goetz, S.J., Prince, S.D., Wright, R., Melchoir, B., Mazzacato, E.M. and Jantz, C.A.: forthcoming, 'Estimation of Sub-Pixel Impervious Surface Area Using A Decision Tree Approach, Ikonos and Landsat Imagery', Remote Sens. Environ. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. Theobald, D.: “Technical Description of Mapping Historical, Current, and Future Housing Densities in the U.S. Using Census Block-Groups”. (2001a). 10 April 2003. <http:// ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/davet/pubs/block-group-readme.htm>Google Scholar
  20. Theobald, D.: 2001b, 'Land-Use Dynamics Beyond The Urban Fringe', Geogr. Rev. 91 (3), 544-564.Google Scholar
  21. Theobald D.: Personal Communication, 30 June 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Theobald, D.: in press, 'Targeting Conservation Action Through Assessment of Protection and Exurban Threats', Conserv. Biol. in press.Google Scholar
  23. The Urban Institute: 2002, 'Census CD: Neighborhood Change Data Base: 1970-2000 Tract Data', prepared in collaboration with GeoLytics, Inc., Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. metadata.html>Google Scholar
  25. USEPA: 2001a, 'What is the State of the Environment in the Mid-Atlantic Region', EPA/903/F-01/ 003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. USEPA: 2001b, 'A Summary of Models for Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Community Growth and Change', Review Draft EPA/600/R-00/098, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  27. USEPA: 2000, 'Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community Growth and Change on Land-Use Patterns', EPA/600/R-00/098, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  28. USGS: “Project Gigalopolis: Urban and Land Cover Modeling” (2002). 18 June 2003. <http:// www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/gig/index.html>Google Scholar
  29. Varlyguin, D., Wright R., Goetz, S.J., and Prince, S.D.: 2001, 'Advances in Land Cover Classification for Applications Research: A Case Study from the Mid-Atlantic RESAC', In American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Yang, X and Lo, C.P.: 2003, 'Modeling Urban Growth and Landscape Changes in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area', Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 17, 463-488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter R. Claggett
  • Claire A. Jantz
  • Scott J. Goetz
  • Carin Bisland

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations