Future Land-Use Land-Cover Scenarios for the Flint River Watershed in Northern Alabama Using the Prescott Spatial Growth Model

Wubishet Tadesse^1*, Stephanie Whitaker², William Crosson³, Constance Wilson⁴

¹Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A & M University, Huntsville, USA.
²Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, USA.
³National Space Science and Technology Center, Universities Space Research Association, Huntsville, USA.
⁴Department of Community and Regional Planning, Alabama A & M University, Huntsville, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/jgis.2015.74025                

Abstract

A changing mosaic of natural vegetation and human land uses has evolved within and around the Flint River Watershed (FRW) in Alabama and Tennessee over the past several decades. To determine the cause of change and linkage between human activities and environmental change can prove problematic. Subsequently, there is a need to produce projections of future environments based on planning instruments and socio-economic parameters. Scenarios of potential future land use land cover (LULC) change are required in order to better manage potential impacts on many environmental issues. This study creates future scenarios for the year 2030 from baseline land use of 2001, relative to three projected land use scenarios which include differences related to conservation, planning, and development. The future growth scenarios were created using the ArcGIS tool, Prescott Spatial Growth Model (PSGM). The model allows users to build different future growth scenarios based on socio-economic projections such as population, employment and other controlling factors. The simulation results indicate that LULC changes associated with future urbanization can increase by ~23% - 43% within the FRW, which will lead to significant environmental issues if not managed properly. The overall analysis and model results demonstrate the ability of future growth scenarios to explore and evaluate options for a future environment. Spatial modeling and analysis tools, such as PSGM, provide a powerful approach to evaluate potential impacts of LULC change in the future and should be used to manage urbanization in areas with more intense development.

Keywords

Prescott Spatial Growth Model, Land Use Land Cover

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. In: Houghton, J., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C., Eds., Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881.
[2]	Estes Jr., M.G., Crosson, W.L., Al-Hamdan, M.Z., Quattrochi, D.A. and Johnson III, H. (2010) Validation and Demonstration of the Prescott Spatial Growth Model in Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. Urban and Regional Information Systems Journal, 22, 5-21.
[3]	Planning Department of the City of Huntsville (PDCH 2011) Year 2030 Transportation Plan. Viewed 22 January 2011. http://www.hsvcity.com/Planning/mpo//docs/final2035plan.pdf
[4]	Digital Comprehensive Plan Modeling Suite (DCPMS 2006) for ArcGIS 9.x. Version 2.2, User Manual. Blue Line Consulting Group.
[5]	Kepner, W., Hernandez, M., Semmens, D. and Goodrich, D. (2008) The Use of Scenario Analysis to Assess Future Landscape Change on a Watershed Condition in the Pacific Northwest (USA). In: Petrosillo, I., Müller, F., Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Krauze, K., Victorov, S., Li, B.-L. and Kepner, W.G., Eds., Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security, Springer, Berlin, 237-261.
[6]	Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. EPA 231-R10-002.
[7]	Tennessee Valley Authority, Madison County Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Madison County Watershed Advisory Committee (2008) Flint River Watershed Management Plan. Revised May 2008.
[8]	U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Division. 14 May 2010.
[9]	Laymon, C. (2003) Environmental Assessment at County Scale. Viewed 10 October 2006. http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/land/ncrst/ca.html
[10]	Theobald, D., Spies, T., Kline, J., Maxwell, B., Hobbs, N. and Dale, V. (2005) Ecological Support for Rural Land-Use Planning. Ecological Applications, 15, 1906-1914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/03-5331
[11]	United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2010) Seamless Server Data Warehouse. http://seamless.usgs.gov/
[12]	Liu, Y., Gupta, E. and Wagener, T. (2008) Linking Science with Environmental Decision Making: Experiences from an Integrated Modeling Approach to Supporting Sustainable Water Resources Management. Environmental Modeling and Software, 23, 846-858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.10.007