Predicting land use change: comparison of models based on landowner surveys and historical land cover trends

Pocewicz, Amy; Nielsen-Pincus, Max; Goldberg, Caren S.; Johnson, Melanie H.; Morgan, Penelope; Force, Jo Ellen; Waits, Lisette P.; Vierling, L. A.

doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9159-6

Cited by 65 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such "background" rates of loss can be estimated using a range of threat assessment approaches, e.g. (Pocewicz et al 2008). …”

Section: Methods For Quantifying the Amount Of Offset Neededmentioning

confidence: 99%

Final Technical Report

Fargione¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe United States has abundant wind resources, such that only about 3% of the resource would need to be developed to achieve the goal of producing 20% of electricity in the United States by 2030. Inappropriately sited wind development may result in conflicts with wildlife that can delay or derail development projects, increase projects costs, and may degrade important conservation values. The most cost-effective approach to reducing such conflicts is through landscape-scale siting early in project development. To support landscape scale siting that avoids sensitive areas for wildlife, we compiled a database on species distributions, wind resource, disturbed areas, and land ownership. This database can be viewed and obtained via http://wind.tnc.org/awwi. Wind project developers can use this web tool to identify potentially sensitive areas and areas that are already disturbed and are therefore likely to be less sensitive to additional impacts from wind development.The United States' goal of producing 20% of its electricity from wind energy by the year 2030 would require 241 GW of terrestrial nameplate capacity. We analyzed whether this goal could be met by using lands that are already disturbed, which would minimize impacts to wildlife. Our research shows that over 14 times the DOE goal could be produced on lands that are already disturbed (primarily cropland and oil and gas fields), after taking into account wind resource availability and areas that would be precluded from wind development because of existing urban development or because of development restrictions. This work was published in the peer reviewed science journal PLoS ONE (a free online journal) and can be viewed here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017566.Even projects that are sited appropriately may have some impacts on wildlife habitat that can be offset with offsite compensatory mitigation. We demonstrate one approach to mapping and quantifying mitigation costs, using the state of Kansas as a case study. Our approach considers a range of conservation targets (species and habitat) and calculates mitigation costs based on actual costs of the conservation actions (protection and restoration) that would be needed to fully offset impacts. This work was published in the peer reviewed science journal PLoS ONE (a free online journal) and can be viewed here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026698. SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTSWe compiled and analyzed data for use in wind energy development to avoid and mitigate impacts to wildlife. Below we present methods and results for each of three products that resulted from this overall effort. The first product is a publically available, online Landscape Assessment Tool for use in landscape-scale siting (referred to as Tier 1 assessment in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Land-Based Wind Siting Guidelines). The second product is an analysis, using data compiled and distributed in the Landscape Assessment To...

show abstract

“…Such "background" rates of loss can be estimated using a range of threat assessment approaches, e.g. (Pocewicz et al 2008). …”

Section: Methods For Quantifying the Amount Of Offset Neededmentioning

confidence: 99%

Final Technical Report

Fargione¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even where more nuanced objectives such as 'projection' are identified, scope for confusion in presentation and interpretation often persists (e.g. López et al 2001;Veldkamp and Lambin 2001;Wu et al 2006;Sohl et al 2007;Pocewicz et al 2008).…”

Section: Predictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A philosophical case for process-based modelling of land use change

Brown

Rounsevell

2016

Model. Earth Syst. Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modelling is used to describe, explore and predict changes in land use and other human systems. 'Top-down' and 'bottom-up' modelling approaches are both popular, and each has important philosophical implications that correspond closely to major debates in social science. We outline some key contributions to these debates and argue that social processes such as those underlying land use decisions are fundamentally determined by individual intentionality, interacting with social norms of language, culture and institutions, rather than by general and predictable 'laws'. Therefore, bottom-up models that reflect these processes offer far more informative accounts of system development. However, prediction remains outside the scope of either approach, and methods of validation based on tests of historical predictive ability risk over-fitting to trends and underestimating uncertainties. We explore the implications of these arguments for model design and use, and for general understanding of such fundamentally complex, spontaneously evolving systems.

show abstract

“…We compared growth patterns in two rural, growing counties of northern Idaho, USA under two alternative regulatory policy scenarios (an urban growth boundary policy, i.e., growth management, and an agricultural use zoning policy, i.e., farmland and open space protection), to those previously simulated for the same area by Pocewicz et al (2008; referred to as the baseline change scenario). Specifically, we used a stochastic, survey-based model (SBM) to predict rural residential development patterns and the effects of the two policy tools on land use at the landscape scale.…”

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%