Abstract
We made use of land cover maps, and land use change associated with urbanization, to provide estimates of the loss of natural resource lands (forest, agriculture, and wetland areas) across the 168,000 km2 Chesapeake Bay watershed. We conducted extensive accuracy assessments of the satellite-derived maps, most of which were produced by us using widely available multitemporal Landsat imagery. The change in urbanization was derived from impervious surface area maps (the built environment) for 1990 and 2000, from which we estimated the loss of resource lands that occurred during this decade. Within the watershed, we observed a 61% increase in developed land (from 5,177 to 8,363 km2). Most of this new development (64%) occurred on agricultural and grasslands, whereas 33% occurred on forested land. Some smaller municipalities lost as much as 17% of their forest lands and 36% of their agricultural lands to development, although in the outlying counties losses ranged from 0% to 1.4% for forests and 0% to 2.6% for agriculture. Fast-growing urban areas surrounded by forested land experienced the most loss of forest to impervious surfaces. These estimates could be used for the monitoring of the impacts of development across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the approach has utility for other regions nationwide. In turn, the results and the approach can help jurisdictions set goals for resource land protection and acquisition that are consistent with regional restoration goals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Benitez J. A., Fisher T. 2004, Historical land-cover conversion (1665–1820) in the Choptank watershed, eastern United States Ecosystems 7:219–232
Bockstael N. E., Costanza R., Strand I., Boynton W., Bell K., Wainger L. A. 1995. Ecological economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems Ecological Economics 14:143–159
Brown de Colstoun E. C., Story M. H., Thompson C., Commisso K., Smith T. G., Irons J. R. 2003. National park vegetation mapping using multi-temporal Landsat 7 data and a decision tree classifier Remote Sensing of Environment 85:316–327
Brown D. G., Duh J.-D., Drzyzga S. A. 2000. Estimating error in analysis of forest fragmentation change using North American Landscape Characterization (NALC) data Remote Sensing of Environment 71:106
CBP. 2000. Chesapeake 2000. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm. Accessed February 2005
CBP. 2005a. Resource lands assessment. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/rla.htm. Accessed March 2005
CBP. 2005b. Chesapeake Bay watershed development trends. Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfin?sid=197&subjectarea=INDICATORS. Accessed March 2005
Costanza R. 2003. Social goals and the valuation of natural capital Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 86:19–28
Crist E. P., Cicone R. C. 1984. Application of the tassled cap concept to simulated Thematic Mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50:343–352
Dobson, J. E., E. A. Bright, R. L. Ferguson, D.W, Field, L. L. Wood, K. D. Haddad, et al. 1995. NOAA coastal change analysis program (C-CAP): guidance for regional implementation. Technical Report NMFS 123. National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program, Beaufort, NC. Available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/pdf/protocol.pdf. Accessed: July 2005
Friedl M. A., Brodle C. E. (1997). Decision tree classification of land cover from remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment 61:399–409
Flanagan, M., and D. L. Civco. 2001. Subpixel impervious surface mapping. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ASPRS Annual Convention, St. Louis, MO, April 23 to 27, 2001. CD-ROM. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD
Goetz S. J., Wright R., Smith A. J., Zinecker E., Schaub E., 2003. Ikonos imagery for resource management: tree cover, impervious surfaces and riparian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region Remote Sensing of Environment 80:195–208
Goetz S. J., C. A. Jantz, S. D. Prince, A. J. Smith, R. Wright, D. Varlyguin. 2004a. Integrated analysis of ecosystem interactions with land use change: the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In: R.S. DeFries, G. P. Asner, R A. Houghton (eds.) Ecosystems and land use change American Geophysical Union, Washington DC. Pages 263–275
Goetz S. J., Varlyguin D., Smith A. J., Wright R. K., Prince S. D, Mazzacato M. E., et al. 2004b. Application of multitemporal Landsat data to map and monitor land cover and land use change in the Chesapeake Bay watershed In: P. Smits, L. Bruzzone (eds.), Analysis of Multi-temporal remote sensing image. World Scientific Publishers, Singapore. pages 223–232
Hansen M., Dubayah R., DeFries R. 1996. Classification trees: an alternative traditional land cover classifiers International Journal of Remote Sensing 17: 1075–1081
Homer C. G., C. Huang, L. Yang, and B. Wylie (2002) Development of a circa 2000 landcover database for the United States American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Conference proceedings Washington, DC. 13 pages. Available on ASPRS CD-ROM and at available at: http://www.landcover.usgs.gov/publications.asp. Accessed: July 2005
Horton T. 2003. Turning the tide: saving the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis, MD
Ji M. H., J. R. Jensen. 1999. Effectiveness of subpixel analysis in detecting and quantifying urban imperviousness from Landsat thematic mapper imagery. Geocarto International 14:31–39
Phinn S., M. Stanford, P. Scarth, A. T. Murray, P. T. Shyy 2002 Monitoring the composition of urban environments based on the vegetation-impervious surface-soil (VIS) model by subpixel analysis techniques International Journal of Remote Sensing 23:4131–4153
Riitters K. H., J. D. Wickham, R. V. Oneill, K. B. Jones, E. R. Smith, J. W. Goulston, et al. 2002. Fragmentation of continental United States forests Ecosystems 5:815–822
Rogan J., J. Franklin, D.A. Robert 2002. A comparison of methods for monitoring multitemporal vegetation change using Thematic Mapper imagery Remote Sensing of Environment 80:143–156
Roth, N., D. Strebel, J. Kou, and T. Krebs. 1999. An assessment of land cover data used in the mid-Atlantic landscape atlas. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Team by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD
Roth N. E., M. T. Southerland, G. M. Rogers, J. H. Vølstad 2004. Maryland biological stream survey 2000–2004. Volume III: Ecological Assessment of watersheds sampled in 2002, pp. 318. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss/Accessed: July 2005
Schueler T. R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness Watershed Protection Techniques 1:100–111
Snyder, M., S. J. Goetz, and R. Wright. 2005. Stream health rankings predicted by satellite-derived land cover metrics: impervious area, forest buffers and landscape configuration, Journal of the American Water Resources Association:659–677
Tatem A. J., S. I. Hay 2004. Measuring urbanization pattern and extent for malaria research: a review of remote sensing approaches Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 81:363–376
Vogelmann J. E., T. Sohl, S. M. Howard. 1998. Regional characterization of land cover using multiple sources of data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 64:45–57
Yang L., G. Xian, J. M. Klaver, B. Deal. 2003a. Urban land cover change detection through sub-pixel imperviousness mapping using remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 69:1003–1010
Yang L., C. Huang, C. G. Homer, B. K. Wylie, M. J. Coan. 2003b. An approach for mapping large-area impervious surfaces: synergistic use of Landsat-7 ETM+ and high spatial resolution imagery. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 29:230–240
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by NASA Grants No. NAG513397 and NAG1303031 and the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to S.J.G. We appreciate the input of Carin Bisland (United States Environmental Protection Agency), Peter Claggett and John Jones (USGS), Steve Prince, Robb Wright, Drew Smith, Dmitry Varlyguin, Brian Melchior and Maria Mazzacato (University of Maryland), Christine Conn (Maryland Department of Natural Resources) and Greg Fiske (Woods Hole Research Center Woods Hole, MA). We thank the anonymous reviewers and the journal Editor for their constructive comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jantz, P., Goetz, S. & Jantz, C. Urbanization and the Loss of Resource Lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 36, 808–825 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0315-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0315-3