Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value

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.

[1]  Constance F. Citro,et al.  The 2000 census, counting under adversity , 2004 .

[2]  Paul Beier,et al.  Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars , 1993 .

[3]  G A da Fonseca,et al.  Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. , 2001, Science.

[4]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Conservation Easements: Biodiversity Protection and Private Use , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  Human influence on California fire regimes. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[6]  Lucas N Joppa,et al.  On the protection of “protected areas” , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Robert M Ewers,et al.  Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  Li An,et al.  Temporal changes in giant panda habitat connectivity across boundaries of Wolong Nature Reserve, China. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[9]  Matthew V. Talluto,et al.  Historical change in coastal sage scrub in southern California, USA in relation to fire frequency and air pollution , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[10]  How will the changing industrial forest landscape affect forest sustainability , 2008 .

[11]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes , 2009 .

[12]  J. Liu,et al.  Ecological Degradation in Protected Areas: The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas , 2001, Science.

[13]  Douglas T. Bolger,et al.  EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND INVASION ON NATIVE ANT COMMUNITIES IN COASTAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , 1998 .

[14]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The Ecological Performance of Protected Areas , 2008 .

[15]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.

[16]  R. DeFries,et al.  INCREASING ISOLATION OF PROTECTED AREAS IN TROPICAL FORESTS OVER THE PAST TWENTY YEARS , 2005 .

[17]  B. Stein,et al.  Federal Lands and Endangered Species: The Role of Military and Other Federal Lands in Sustaining Biodiversity , 2008 .

[18]  N. Thompson Hobbs,et al.  Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat , 1997 .

[19]  G. Fuguitt The nonmetropolitan population turnaround. , 1985, Annual review of sociology.

[20]  S. N. Trigg,et al.  Lowland Forest Loss in Protected Areas of Indonesian Borneo , 2004, Science.

[21]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  The wildland-urban interface in the United States based on 125 million building locations. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[22]  R. G. Wright,et al.  NATURE RESERVES: DO THEY CAPTURE THE FULL RANGE OF AMERICA'S BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY? , 2001 .

[23]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[24]  M. Soulé,et al.  Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system , 1999, Nature.

[25]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  Patterns of houses and habitat loss from 1937 to 1999 in northern Wisconsin, USA. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  Assessing Fire Risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface , 2004, Journal of Forestry.

[27]  P. Nelson,et al.  Geographic perspective on amenity migration across the USA: national-, regional- and local-scale analysis. , 2006 .

[28]  Andrea Wright Parmenter,et al.  Ecological Causes and Consequences of Demographic Change in the New West , 2002 .

[29]  Andrew J. Hansen,et al.  Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone , 2006 .

[30]  Christopher A. Lepczyk,et al.  Associations of forest bird species richness with housing and landscape patterns across the USA. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[31]  Volker C. Radeloff,et al.  Rural and Suburban Sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and Its Relation to Forest Fragmentation , 2005 .

[32]  M. McKinney,et al.  Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization , 2006 .

[33]  Volker C. Radeloff,et al.  Characterizing dynamic spatial and temporal residential density patterns from 1940-1990 across the North Central United States , 2004 .