Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data

Alexandra D. Syphard, Keith C. Clarke, Janet Franklin, Helen M. Regan, Mark Mcginnis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The conversion of natural habitat to urban settlements is a primary driver of biodiversity loss, and species' persistence is threatened by the extent, location, and spatial pattern of development. Urban growth models are widely used to anticipate future development and to inform conservation management, but the source of spatial input to these models may contribute to uncertainty in their predictions. We compared two sources of historic urban maps, used as input for model calibration, to determine how differences in definition and scale of urban extent affect the resulting spatial predictions from a widely used urban growth model for San Diego County, CA under three conservation scenarios. The results showed that rate, extent, and spatial pattern of predicted urban development, and associated habitat loss, may vary substantially depending on the source of input data, regardless of how much land is excluded from development. Although the datasets we compared both represented urban land, different types of land use/land cover included in the definition of urban land and different minimum mapping units contributed to the discrepancies. Varying temporal resolution of the input datasets also contributed to differences in projected rates of development. Differential predicted impacts to vegetation types illustrate how the choice of spatial input data may lead to different conclusions relative to conservation. Although the study cannot reveal whether one dataset is better than another, modelers should carefully consider that geographical reality can be represented differently, and should carefully choose the definition and scale of their data to fit their research objectives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1882-1893
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Environmental Management
Volume92
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Urban growth
urban growth
habitat loss
habitat fragmentation
Conservation
Biodiversity
conservation management
prediction
Land use
vegetation type
urban development
land cover
persistence
Calibration
biodiversity
calibration
land use
forecast
habitat
land

Keywords

  • Conservation
  • Land use/land cover
  • Landscape metrics
  • Southern California
  • Spatial pattern
  • Urban growth model

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Engineering
  • Waste Management and Disposal
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data. / Syphard, Alexandra D.; Clarke, Keith C.; Franklin, Janet; Regan, Helen M.; Mcginnis, Mark.

In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 92, No. 7, 07.2011, p. 1882-1893.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Syphard, Alexandra D. ; Clarke, Keith C. ; Franklin, Janet ; Regan, Helen M. ; Mcginnis, Mark. / Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 2011 ; Vol. 92, No. 7. pp. 1882-1893.
@article{ace804a9e515442e9483d9882ada93ff,
title = "Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data",
abstract = "The conversion of natural habitat to urban settlements is a primary driver of biodiversity loss, and species' persistence is threatened by the extent, location, and spatial pattern of development. Urban growth models are widely used to anticipate future development and to inform conservation management, but the source of spatial input to these models may contribute to uncertainty in their predictions. We compared two sources of historic urban maps, used as input for model calibration, to determine how differences in definition and scale of urban extent affect the resulting spatial predictions from a widely used urban growth model for San Diego County, CA under three conservation scenarios. The results showed that rate, extent, and spatial pattern of predicted urban development, and associated habitat loss, may vary substantially depending on the source of input data, regardless of how much land is excluded from development. Although the datasets we compared both represented urban land, different types of land use/land cover included in the definition of urban land and different minimum mapping units contributed to the discrepancies. Varying temporal resolution of the input datasets also contributed to differences in projected rates of development. Differential predicted impacts to vegetation types illustrate how the choice of spatial input data may lead to different conclusions relative to conservation. Although the study cannot reveal whether one dataset is better than another, modelers should carefully consider that geographical reality can be represented differently, and should carefully choose the definition and scale of their data to fit their research objectives.",
keywords = "Conservation, Land use/land cover, Landscape metrics, Southern California, Spatial pattern, Urban growth model",
author = "Syphard, {Alexandra D.} and Clarke, {Keith C.} and Janet Franklin and Regan, {Helen M.} and Mark Mcginnis",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "1882--1893",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "0301-4797",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data

AU - Syphard, Alexandra D.

AU - Clarke, Keith C.

AU - Franklin, Janet

AU - Regan, Helen M.

AU - Mcginnis, Mark

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - The conversion of natural habitat to urban settlements is a primary driver of biodiversity loss, and species' persistence is threatened by the extent, location, and spatial pattern of development. Urban growth models are widely used to anticipate future development and to inform conservation management, but the source of spatial input to these models may contribute to uncertainty in their predictions. We compared two sources of historic urban maps, used as input for model calibration, to determine how differences in definition and scale of urban extent affect the resulting spatial predictions from a widely used urban growth model for San Diego County, CA under three conservation scenarios. The results showed that rate, extent, and spatial pattern of predicted urban development, and associated habitat loss, may vary substantially depending on the source of input data, regardless of how much land is excluded from development. Although the datasets we compared both represented urban land, different types of land use/land cover included in the definition of urban land and different minimum mapping units contributed to the discrepancies. Varying temporal resolution of the input datasets also contributed to differences in projected rates of development. Differential predicted impacts to vegetation types illustrate how the choice of spatial input data may lead to different conclusions relative to conservation. Although the study cannot reveal whether one dataset is better than another, modelers should carefully consider that geographical reality can be represented differently, and should carefully choose the definition and scale of their data to fit their research objectives.

AB - The conversion of natural habitat to urban settlements is a primary driver of biodiversity loss, and species' persistence is threatened by the extent, location, and spatial pattern of development. Urban growth models are widely used to anticipate future development and to inform conservation management, but the source of spatial input to these models may contribute to uncertainty in their predictions. We compared two sources of historic urban maps, used as input for model calibration, to determine how differences in definition and scale of urban extent affect the resulting spatial predictions from a widely used urban growth model for San Diego County, CA under three conservation scenarios. The results showed that rate, extent, and spatial pattern of predicted urban development, and associated habitat loss, may vary substantially depending on the source of input data, regardless of how much land is excluded from development. Although the datasets we compared both represented urban land, different types of land use/land cover included in the definition of urban land and different minimum mapping units contributed to the discrepancies. Varying temporal resolution of the input datasets also contributed to differences in projected rates of development. Differential predicted impacts to vegetation types illustrate how the choice of spatial input data may lead to different conclusions relative to conservation. Although the study cannot reveal whether one dataset is better than another, modelers should carefully consider that geographical reality can be represented differently, and should carefully choose the definition and scale of their data to fit their research objectives.

KW - Conservation

KW - Land use/land cover

KW - Landscape metrics

KW - Southern California

KW - Spatial pattern

KW - Urban growth model

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955605756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955605756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.014

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 21477919

AN - SCOPUS:79955605756

VL - 92

SP - 1882

EP - 1893

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

IS - 7

ER -