The Trade-off Between Housing Density and Sprawl Area: Minimizing Impacts to Carabid Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Gagné, Sara A.; Fahrig, Lenore

doi:10.5751/es-03635-150412

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings add support to the notion that compact development (land sparing) is less damaging for biodiversity than dispersed development (land sharing) when controlling for housing demand (Gagne & Fahrig ; Sushinsky et al . ; Soga et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Although only a few studies from around the world have predicted the fate of animals under compact versus dispersed urban growth (e.g. Gagne & Fahrig ; Sushinsky et al . ), these studies have found support for land sparing rather than land sharing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), these studies have found support for land sparing rather than land sharing. For instance, hypothetical scenarios have showed that forest‐dependent taxa that strongly decline with increasing housing density had the highest abundances and species richness in compact rather than dispersed scenarios of development (Gagne & Fahrig ,b). In addition, compact developments retain larger green space and are predicted to maintain larger distributions of urban‐sensitive birds than dispersed developments in Brisbane, Australia (Sushinsky et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compact development minimizes the impacts of urban growth on native mammals

Villaseñor

Tulloch

Driscoll

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Unprecedented global human population growth and rapid urbanization of rural and natural lands highlight the urgent need to integrate biodiversity conservation into planning for urban growth. A challenging question for applied ecologists to answer is: What pattern of urban growth meets future housing demand whilst minimizing impacts on biodiversity? We quantified the consequences for mammals of meeting future housing demand under different patterns of compact and dispersed urban growth in an urbanizing forested landscape in south‐eastern Australia. Using empirical data, we predicted impacts on mammals of urban growth scenarios that varied in housing density (compact versus dispersed) and location of development for four target numbers of new dwellings. We predicted that compact developments (i.e. high‐density housing) reduced up to 6% of the area of occupancy or abundance of five of the six mammal species examined. In contrast, dispersed developments (i.e. low‐density housing) led to increased mammal abundance overall, although results varied between species: as dwellings increased, the abundance or occurrence of two species increased (up to ∼100%), one species showed no change, and three species declined (up to ∼39%). Two ground‐dwelling mammal species (Antechinus stuartii and Rattus fuscipes) and a tree‐dwelling species (Petaurus australis) were predicted to decline considerably under dispersed rather than compact development. The strongest negative effect of dispersed development was for Petaurus australis (a species more abundant in forested interiors) which exhibited up to a 39% reduction in abundance due to forest loss and an extended negative edge effect from urban settlements into adjacent forests. Synthesis and applications. Our findings demonstrate that, when aiming to meet demand for housing, any form of compact development (i.e. high‐density housing) has fewer detrimental impacts on forest‐dwelling mammals than dispersed development (i.e. low‐density housing). This is because compact development concentrates the negative effects of housing into a small area whilst at the same time preserving large expanses of forests and the fauna they sustain. Landscape planning and urban growth policies must consider the trade‐off between the intensity of the threat and area of sprawl when aiming to reduce urbanization impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compact development minimizes the impacts of urban growth on native mammals

Villaseñor

Tulloch

Driscoll

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, managers need to prepare for the challenges of working with increasing numbers of neighbors in a landscape of forest with an understory of houses. Further research on the quality of natural habitat with an intermix of houses and on identifying thresholds of housing density beyond which land ceases to support biodiversity will be important to assist managers of the future [52], [53].Additionally, our results indicated that there are serious limitations to “one-size-fits-all” approaches to policy development and implementation. Our finding that regional differences were as strong as differences among policy scenarios has important implications for management of large networks of lands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…While we considered these to be relatively “natural”, this assumption may not always hold. Low levels of intensively used land can impact the quality of wildlife habitat in nearby areas [13], [52], [53].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and Future Land Use around a Nationwide Protected Area Network

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land-use change around protected areas can reduce their effective size and limit their ability to conserve biodiversity because land-use change alters ecological processes and the ability of organisms to move freely among protected areas. The goal of our analysis was to inform conservation planning efforts for a nationwide network of protected lands by predicting future land use change. We evaluated the relative effect of three economic policy scenarios on land use surrounding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuges. We predicted changes for three land-use classes (forest/range, crop/pasture, and urban) by 2051. Our results showed an increase in forest/range lands (by 1.9% to 4.7% depending on the scenario), a decrease in crop/pasture between 15.2% and 23.1%, and a substantial increase in urban land use between 28.5% and 57.0%. The magnitude of land-use change differed strongly among different USFWS administrative regions, with the most change in the Upper Midwestern US (approximately 30%), and the Southeastern and Northeastern US (25%), and the rest of the U.S. between 15 and 20%. Among our scenarios, changes in land use were similar, with the exception of our “restricted-urban-growth” scenario, which resulted in noticeably different rates of change. This demonstrates that it will likely be difficult to influence land-use change patterns with national policies and that understanding regional land-use dynamics is critical for effective management and planning of protected lands throughout the U.S.

show abstract

Land‐sharing vs. land‐sparing urban development modulate predator–prey interactions in Europe

Jokimäki

Suhonen

Benedetti

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban areas are expanding globally as a consequence of human population increases, with overall negative effects on biodiversity. To prevent the further loss of biodiversity, it is urgent to understand the mechanisms behind this loss to develop evidence‐based sustainable solutions to preserve biodiversity in urban landscapes. The two extreme urban development types along a continuum, land‐sparing (large, continuous green areas and high‐density housing) and land‐sharing (small, fragmented green areas and low‐density housing) have been the recent focus of debates regarding the pattern of urban development. However, in this context, there is no information on the mechanisms behind the observed biodiversity changes. One of the main mechanisms proposed to explain urban biodiversity loss is the alteration of predator–prey interactions. Using ground‐nesting birds as a model system and data from nine European cities, we experimentally tested the effects of these two extreme urban development types on artificial ground nest survival and whether nest survival correlates with the local abundance of ground‐nesting birds and their nest predators. Nest survival (n = 554) was lower in land‐sharing than in land‐sparing urban areas. Nest survival decreased with increasing numbers of local predators (cats and corvids) and with nest visibility. Correspondingly, relative abundance of ground‐nesting birds was greater in land‐sparing than in land‐sharing urban areas, though overall bird species richness was unaffected by the pattern of urban development. We provide the first evidence that predator–prey interactions differ between the two extreme urban development types. Changing interactions may explain the higher proportion of ground‐nesting birds in land‐sparing areas, and suggest a limitation of the land‐sharing model. Nest predator control and the provision of more green‐covered urban habitats may also improve conservation of sensitive birds in cities. Our findings provide information on how to further expand our cities without severe loss of urban‐sensitive species and give support for land‐sparing over land‐sharing urban development.

show abstract

The Trade-off Between Housing Density and Sprawl Area: Minimizing Impacts to Carabid Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Cited by 22 publications

References 33 publications

Compact development minimizes the impacts of urban growth on native mammals

Compact development minimizes the impacts of urban growth on native mammals

Current and Future Land Use around a Nationwide Protected Area Network

Land‐sharing vs. land‐sparing urban development modulate predator–prey interactions in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About