planning for landscape resiliency: coupling urban growth
TRANSCRIPT
Planning for Landscape Resiliency: Coupling
Urban Growth Simulations with
Landscape Connectivity Models
Ryan M. Perkl, Ph.D.Planning Degree Program
School of Landscape Architecture & PlanningThe University of Arizona
Collaborators:Laura Norma, Mark Feller, David Mitchell, Garrett Smith
1
Geodesign in the Real World
• We set out to identify possible connectivity related threats amongst the two districts of the park and surrounding landscape.
• Our study was completed as part of a Desert Southwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (DSCESU) Cooperative Agreement
Projecting ChangePresent DaySLEUTH Projected 2050
Addressing Impacts Proactively
• What impacts might we expect?
• Where are they likely to occur?
• What can we do to address them?
Protected Areas
Landscape Integrity
High
Low
SLEUTH Projected 2050
Present Day
Structural Connectivity
Lost(Most Threatened)
Replaces what was Lost Unchanged(Least Threatened)
Corridor:Category Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Baseline 969 8.9% 10,978 14.0% 9,859 13.3% 13,658 19.2% 2,626 20.5% 78,028 42.5% 6,656 38.0% 2,341 18.9%
Projected 815 7.5% 67,173 86.0% 63,998 86.7% 57,328 80.8% 2,725 21.3% 7,692 41.9% 7,475 42.7% 2,534 20.4%
Agreement 9,051 83.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7,448 58.2% 2,870 15.6% 3,390 19.4% 7,541 60.7%
Corridor:Category Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Baseline 997 8.8% 325 3.1% 559 4.5% 305 2.9% 711 4.2% 4,155 22.9% 6,880 23.3% 9,311 34.8%
Projected 259 2.3% 585 5.6% 1,871 15.2% 233 2.2% 3,825 22.6% 7,760 42.8% 10,685 36.1% 15,616 58.4%
Agreement 10,040 88.9% 9,622 91.4% 9,909 80.3% 9,987 94.9% 12,408 73.2% 6,226 34.3% 11,992 40.6% 1,826 6.8%
Area
Area
16_CNFS_CNFE10_MS_C 11_SNPE_MS 12_CNFN_MS 13_CNFN_C 14_CNFN_CNFE 15_CNFE _C
06_CNFSW_SNPE 07_LC_SNPE 08_CNFS_CNF
09_CNF_C
01_IFNM_SNPW 02_IFNM_PR 03_SNPW_PR 04_TMP_SNPE 05_PR_SNPE
Black Bear Connectivity
Desert Tortoise Connectivity
Focal Species ConnectivityBlack Bear
Desert TortoiseMule Deer
Mountain Lion Badger
Gila Monster
Composite Analysis
Total Network Congruency
Functional Impact: Agreement DisagreementDesert Tortoise 53.0% 47.0%Badger 55.3% 44.7%Mule Deer 56.0% 44.0%Gila Monster 70.0% 30.0%Mountain Lion 71.7% 28.3%Black Bear 74.7% 25.3%
All Species All Connections: Agreement Disagreement62% 38%
Landscape Structure Impact: Agreement Disagreement20% 80%
Data Driven Scenario Simulation
15
Design Scenario Impact Evaluation
16
Bad
Better
Best
16
Thank You
Ryan M. Perkl, Ph.D.Planning Program
School of Landscape Architecture & PlanningThe University of [email protected]
Laura Norma, Mark Feller, David Mitchell, Natalie Wilson, Garrett Smith &
Natasha Kline, Becky MacEwen, Scott Stonum, Don Swann&
Samuel Chambers, Robbie Aaron, Kathryn Bannister, Kyle Benne, Timothy Donovan, Steven Gaiang, Nicholas Lieberman, Ben Madeo, Matthiue Laurent,
Nick Sakellar, Samuel Sandford and Elizabeth Vanderleeuw.
Funding:The Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Award Number DE-OE0000422The Western Governors’ Association
Contract Number 30-233-AZThe Arizona Department of Game and Fish
Award Number AGFD 12-00001454CESU Master Agreement Number HI200100001Cooperative Agreement Number P13AC00690
17