Landscape patterns of development under two alternative scenarios: Implications for conservation

The spatial pattern of urban development has important ecological and conservation implications. Urban sprawl, characterized by scattered and low-density urban development, is commonly criticized for its negative ecological impact. In response, growth management policies have been proposed in order to promote compact development, which is generally considered more favorable from an ecological perspective. Spatial simulations of land cover change are useful for comparing urban development scenarios and their potential effects. One aspect that has not received much attention is how the rate of development may affect differences between compact development and urban sprawl in terms of their potential impact to biodiversity conservation at the landscape scale. Our goal in this study was to compare the spatial pattern and landscape-scale conservation and ecological implications of sprawling development (expected under unregulated development) versus compact development (promoted by growth management policies) at different development rates. We focused on Israel's Mediterranean region—a region characterized by high human population density and heterogeneous land cover. Using a cellular automata model, DINAMICA-EGO, we calibrated and validated an urban development model for the period between 1998 and 2007. Using this period as a reference, we simulated two scenarios 20 years into the future: unregulated (resulting in a more sprawling development pattern) versus regulated development (resulting in a more compact development pattern). For each scenario we analyzed a range of development rates, and compared built-up area patterns, and several landscape-level attributes of natural habitats, conservation priority areas, and protected areas. We found that at development rates comparable to those observed during 1998–2007, there was no major difference between the two scenarios. At higher development rates, some differences between the scenarios emerged: natural core areas were more fragmented and smaller in their extent, and a higher proportion of conservation priority areas were expected to undergo development in the unregulated scenario. Overall, the regulated scenario was more favorable for conservation. Since the regulated and unregulated scenarios exhibited only minor differences in lower development rates, modifications to policy measures included in the regulated scenario should be considered in order improve its effectiveness.