Search

Residential development is one of the most intensive and widespread land uses in the United States, with substantial environmental impacts, including changes in forest cover. However, the relationships between forest cover and residential development are complex. Contemporary forest cover reflects multiple factors, including housing density, time since development, historical land cover, and land management since development. We investigated how forest cover varies with housing density, housing age, and household income over a range of development intensities, in six ecoregions within New York State, Wisconsin, and Colorado. We find areas with residential development do retain important forest resources: across landscapes they are typically more forested than areas that remain undeveloped. However, forest cover consistently had a negative, inverse relationship with housing density, across study areas. Relationships between forest cover and housing age and household income were less common and often restricted to only portions of a given region, according to geographically weighted regression analyses. A better understanding of how forest cover varies with residential development, outside of the typically studied urban areas, will be essential to maintaining ecosystem function and services in residential landscapes., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Public lands are typically established in recognition of their unique ecological value, yet both ecological and social values of public lands change over time, along with human distribution and land use. These transformations are evident even in developed countries with long histories of public land management, such as the United States. The 20th Century saw dramatic changes in the American population, in distribution and in racial and ethnic diversity, leading to new challenges and new roles for public lands. Our goal with this paper is to review changing demographics and implications for terrestrial protected areas in the U.S. We overview the fundamentals of population change and data, review past trends in population change and housing growth and their impacts on public lands, and then analyze the most recent decade of demographic change (2000-2010) relative to public lands. Discussions of demographic change and public lands commonly focus on the rural West, but we show that the South is also experiencing substantial change in rural areas with public lands, including Hispanic population growth. We identify those places, rural and urban, where demographic change (2000-2010), including diversification and housing growth, coincide with public lands. Understanding the current trends and long-term demographic context for recent changes in populations can help land managers and conservation scientists mitigate the effects of residential development near public lands, serve a more diverse population, and anticipate future population changes., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Protected areas are crucial for biodiversity conservation because they provide safe havens for species threatened by land-use change and resulting habitat loss. However, protected areas are only effective when they stop habitat loss within their boundaries, and are connected via corridors to other wild areas. The effectiveness of protected areas is threatened by development; however, the extent of this threat is unknown. We compiled spatially-detailed housing growth data from 1940 to 2030, and quantified growth for each wilderness area, national park, and national forest in the conterminous United States. Our findings show that housing development in the United States may severely limit the ability of protected areas to function as a modern "Noah's Ark." Between 1940 and 2000, 28 million housing units were built within 50 km of protected areas, and 940,000 were built within national forests. Housing growth rates during the 1990s within 1 km of protected areas (20% per decade) outpaced the national average (13%). If long-term trends continue, another 17 million housing units will be built within 50 km of protected areas by 2030 (1 million within 1 km), greatly diminishing their conservation value. US protected areas are increasingly isolated, housing development in their surroundings is decreasing their effective size, and national forests are even threatened by habitat loss within their administrative boundaries. Protected areas in the United States are thus threatened similarly to those in developing countries. However, housing growth poses the main threat to protected areas in the United States whereas deforestation is the main threat in developing countries.

Rural, forested areas throughout the United States are experiencing strong housing growth with potentially detrimental impacts on the environment. In this paper, we quantify housing growth in Northern Wisconsin over the last sixty years to determine if growth rates were higher near public lands, which may represent an important recreational amenity. We used data from the U.S. Census to produce decadal housing density estimates, "backcasts," from 1940 to 2000 for northern Wisconsin to examine "rural sprawl" in northern Wisconsin and its relationship to forested areas and public lands. We integrated housing density estimates with the 1992/1993 National Land Cover Dataset to examine the relationship between rural sprawl and land cover, especially forests. Between 1940 and 2000, private land with <2 housing units/km(2) decreased from 47% to 21% of the total landscape. Most importantly, housing growth was concentrated along the boundaries of public lands. In 14 of the 19 counties that we studied, housing growth rates within 1 km of a public land boundary exceeded growth rates in the remainder of the county, and three of the five counties that did not exhibit this pattern, were the ones with the least amount of public land. Future growth can be expected in areas with abundant natural amenities, highlighting the critical need for additional research and effective natural resource management and regional planning to address these challenges.

In the United States, housing density has substantially increased in and adjacent to forests. Our goal in this study was to identify how housing density and human populations are associated with avian diversity. We compared these associations to those between landscape pattern and avian diversity, and we examined how these associations vary across the conterminous forested United States. Using data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, the U.S. Census, and the National Land Cover Database, we focused on forest and woodland bird communities and conducted our analysis at multiple levels of model specificity, first using a coarse-thematic resolution (basic models), then using a larger number of fine-thematic resolution variables (refined models). We found that housing development was associated with forest bird species richness in all forested ecoregions of the conterminous United States. However, there were important differences among ecoregions. In the basic models, housing density accounted for < 5% of variance in avian species richness. In refined models, 85% of models included housing density and/or residential land cover as significant variables. The strongest guild response was demonstrated in the Adirondack-New England ecoregion, where 29% of variation in richness of the permanent resident guild was associated with housing density. Model improvements due to regional stratification were most pronounced for cavity nesters and short-distance migrants, suggesting that these guilds may be especially sensitive to regional processes. The varying patterns of association between avian richness and attributes associated with landscape structure suggested that landscape context was an important mediating factor affecting how biodiversity responds to landscape changes. Our analysis suggested that simple, broadly applicable, land use recommendations cannot be derived from our results. Rather, anticipating future avian response to land use intensification (or reversion to native vegetation) has to be conditioned on the current landscape context and the species group of interest. Our results show that housing density and residential land cover were significant predictors of forest bird species richness, and their prediction strengths are likely to increase as development continues.

Rural America is witnessing widespread housing development, which is to the detriment of the environment. It has been suggested to cluster houses so that their disturbance zones overlap and thus cause less habitat loss than is the case for dispersed development. Clustering houses makes intuitive sense, but few empirical studies have quantified the spatial pattern of houses in real landscapes, assessed changes in their patterns over time, and quantified the resulting habitat loss. We addressed three basic questions: (1) What are the spatial patterns of houses and how do they change over time; (2) How much habitat is lost due to houses, and how is this affected by spatial pattern of houses; and (3) What type of habitat is most affected by housing development. We mapped 27 419 houses from aerial photos for five time periods in 17 townships in northern Wisconsin and calculated the terrestrial land area remaining after buffering each house using 100- and 500-m disturbance zones. The number of houses increased by 353% between 1937 and 1999. Ripley's K test showed that houses were significantly clustered at all time periods and at all scales. Due to the clustering, the rate at which habitat was lost (176% and 55% for 100- and 500-m buffers, respectively) was substantially lower than housing growth rates, and most land area was undisturbed (95% and 61% for 100-m and 500-m buffers, respectively). Houses were strongly clustered within 100 m of lakes. Habitat loss was lowest in wetlands but reached up to 60% in deciduous forests. Our results are encouraging in that clustered development is common in northern Wisconsin, and habitat loss is thus limited. However, the concentration of development along lakeshores causes concern, because these may be critical habitats for many species. Conservation goals can only be met if policies promote clustered development and simultaneously steer development away from sensitive ecosystems.