1 / 29

Quantifying the Ecological Footprint

Quantifying the Ecological Footprint. Quantifying the Ecological Footprint of Suburban/Exurban Land Use Change (by Richard G. Lathrop, John E. Hasse 2004). Of Suburban/Exurban Land Use Change. Richard G. Lathrop and John A. Bognar. Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing

nanda
Download Presentation

Quantifying the Ecological Footprint

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quantifying the Ecological Footprint Quantifying the Ecological Footprint of Suburban/Exurban Land Use Change (by Richard G. Lathrop, John E. Hasse 2004) Of Suburban/Exurban Land Use Change Richard G. Lathrop and John A. Bognar Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA), Rutgers University New Brunswick, new Jersey John E. Hasse Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey

  2. Urban Areas in the United States’ Mid-Atlantic Region

  3. New Jersey – the most densely developed state in the nation New Jersey – the most densely developed state in the nation NRCS NRI (2000)

  4. Human land use is the major force driving landscape change Human land use is the major force driving landscape change, affecting our natural resources and environment.

  5. New Jersey land cover change animated map

  6. Landscape Level Indicators of Environmental Change An active area of research is the development of quantitative measures to evaluate the success or failure of land management and environmental protection policies at the scale of watersheds or landscape regions. Natural resources of critical priority: • all vs. interior forest loss • all vs. prime farmland loss • natural wetland loss

  7. Ecological Footprint of a Housing Unit: What is the overall as well as the per capita impact of existing patterns of development on some of New Jersey’s most highly valued land resources? Big Foot Sprawl or Little Foot Smart Growth? For more info on 1986-1995 change analysis see – Hasse & Lathrop. 2003. Applied Geography 23:159-175

  8. 1986-1995 land use change data NJ Landscape Change Analysis Program 1986-1995 Land Use Change Data source: NJ DEP land use/land cover data based on visual interpretation of 1m scale CIR digital orthophotography 1986 1995

  9. 1995-2000 land use change data Land Use Change 1995-2000 Update Image Source: 10m SPOT Pan USA Select 2000

  10. LU change ’95 to ’00 mapping technique Land Use Change 1995-2000 Update Mapping technique: - Overlay 1995 NJDEP LU/LC data - On-screen digitize urban and transitional land use change polygons. MMU = 1 acre.

  11. Comparison of 1-meter resolution digital orthophoto versus 10-meter resolution SPOT Pan satellite image Comparison of 1m DOQ vs. 10 m SPOT PAN Stratified random selection of 62 photo plots 1m B&W DVRPC DOQ Key: Yellow 1995 Blue 2000 10m Pan SPOT

  12. Comparison of land use between reference imagery and SPOT: urban and transitional Total change: SPOT = 1983ac DOQ = 1895ac  Within 5%

  13. Land use change rates Land Use Change Rate 1986-1995 1995-2000 To Urban ha/yr(ac/yr) 6,750 (16,650) 5,900 (14,650) To Barren ha/yr(ac/yr) 1,275 (3,150 ) 1,700 (4,150)

  14. NJ population change NJ Population Change 1995-2000 1986-1995

  15. 1986-1995 urban land use change: urban growth vs. population change 1986-1995 Urban Land Use Change Urban Growth vs. population change High per capita land consumption in exurban areas From Hasse & Lathrop, 2003

  16. 1995-2000 urban land use change: urban growth vs. population change 1995-2000 Urban Land Use Change Urban Growth vs. population change

  17. New Jersey: The Forest State? Over 45% of New Jersey is in forest Forest Loss to Development 1986-1995 3,490 ha/yr 1995-2000 3,880 ha/yr

  18. 1986-1995 interior forest change: % change vs. per capita change 1986-1995 Interior Forest Change % change vs. per capita change Approximately 24% of the forest loss was classed as interior forest (>100m from edge)

  19. 1995-2000 interior forest change: % change vs. per capita change 1995-2000 Interior Forest Change % change vs. per capita change Approximately 21% of the forest loss was classed as interior forest (>100m from edge)

  20. New Jersey: The Garden State Agriculture is still a major industry and preservation of remaining farmlands is a major state initiative Farmland Loss to Development 1986-1995 3,020 ha/yr 1995-2000 2,100 ha/yr

  21. 1986-1995 prime farmland loss: % loss vs. per capita loss 1986-1995 Prime Farmland Loss % loss vs. per capita loss 60% of the farmland lost to urban development between 1986 and 1995 was considered prime farmland soils

  22. 1995-2000 prime farmland loss: % loss vs. per capita loss 1995-2000 Prime Farmland Loss % loss vs. per capita loss 58% of the farmland lost to urban development between 1995 and 2000 was considered prime farmland soils

  23. Farmland preservation: will it succeed….? Farmland Preservation: Will it succeed in preserving large contiguous areas of farmland to maintain a viable agricultural landscape? 40,000 acres (16,200 ha) preserved during 1995-2000

  24. New Jersey: The Wetland State? Nearly 20% of New Jersey is wetlands Wetlands Loss to Development 1986-1995 860 ha/yr 1995-2000 410 ha/yr

  25. 1986-1995 natural wetlands change: % loss vs. per capita loss 1986-1995 Natural Wetlands change % loss vs. per capita loss

  26. 1995-2000 natural wetlands change: % loss vs. per capita loss 1995-2000 Natural Wetlands change % loss vs. per capita loss

  27. Conclusions • Rapid landscape change in NJ due to urban growth • SPOT Pan provided a cost and time effective means of updating land use • Landscape indicators provide a useful measure to assess and communicate ecological costs of change • Rate of forest loss increased, farmland & wetlands loss decrease. % loss of interior forest and prime farm soils steady • Existing land use planning techniques (i.e., large lot zoning) leading to higher rates of per capita land consumption in exurban municipalities. • Big Foot is alive & well and living in New Jersey

  28. CRSSA would like to acknowledge the following organizations…

  29. WWW

More Related