Session: The Wildland-Urban Interface

April 2, 10:15 AM

Edward A. Macie
USDA Forest Service

Other papers from this session:

The Wildland-Urban Interface: Urban Influences on Forest Ecosystems

The Wildland-Urban Interface: An Introduction

The papers titled “The Wildland-Urban Interface: An Introduction” and “Urban Influences on Natural Resources”, also presented in this proceeding, provide an overview of wildland-urban interface issues and a description of how humans influence ecosystem goods and services and natural resource management. This paper discusses resource-related policy issues, identifies scientific uncertainties, and describes an ecological framework for planning and policy in the wildland-urban interface.

In a USDA Forest Service assessment of the wildland-urban interface title, “Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment” (Macie and Hermansen 2002) four major themes emerged. The first theme is that interface issues are about people and their relationship with and affect on natural resource. Changes in public attitudes, values, and perceptions with respect to land use can be attributed to a populace that is moving, aging and becoming more culturally and ethnically diverse. The second theme is that public policy plays an important role in both creating and solving interface issues The third theme is that interface issues are interdisciplinary in nature. And finally the fourth theme is that interface issues involve multiple ownerships, jurisdictions, and scales. The relationship of each of these themes to land use planning and policy issues and associated challenges will be discussed throughout this paper.

Along a gradient from the city center out towards rural areas, public attitudes, values and perceptions change. As more urbanites move to the urban fringe and as the landscape itself transitions from rural to more urban and built land uses, the public’s value system begins to shift. Because of different values along this gradient, conflicts emerge over how best to use the land. Natural resources become valued more for the ecological services that they provide than for traditional forest products, such as timber. This transition is reflected in local policy, particularly through tree ordinances. For example, citizens opposed to activities that could result in deforestation, such as land development for urban uses, may push for conservation regulations that may inadvertently interfere with traditional forest management practices.

Public attitudes and perceptions can also influence how the land is used and managed. For example, landowners in the interface are increasingly “posting” their properties for liability reasons, decreasing recreation opportunities on private lands. This results in greater recreation pressures on the limited public land in the South. Different ethnic and cultural groups have different recreation needs and expectations, which natural resource managers must consider when planning recreation sites.

The first two themes are closely related because public policy is driven and shaped by people’s attitudes values and perceptions. Policy-related issues in the interface are complicated by the diversity of landowner objectives, by property rights issues, and by land use impacts across property boundaries.

One way that public policies affect the interface is by influencing land use change. It is not uncommon for some policies (at all levels – federal, state, regional, and local) to be supportive and even encourage horizontal forms of land development, greatly affecting natural resources in the process. At the same time these policies may attempt to conserve and protect natural resources (e.g. Clean Air Act) and promote forest management practices. Several examples of this conflict in policies exist. One example is transportation and economic development policy that encourages low density, horizontal development, while at the same time looking to invest in land conservation practices. Another is the establishment of tree protection ordinances that conflict with traditional forest management practices.

Any one wildland-urban interface issues cannot be addressed in isolation. When addressing resource management issues in the interface, planning and policy, economics, social dimensions and demographics must also be considered. Several examples illustrate this point. The push to diversify the southern economy helped create a climate conducive to migration to the South. As more diverse employment opportunities increase in both urban and rural areas, there has been a corresponding increase in urban sprawl. Local policy may help to fuel this migration by providing incentives for economic development and exploitation of the interstate highway system.
Another example is related to the many direct and indirect effects of urbanization on forest ecosystems. Changes significantly affect forest health and modify ecosystem goods and services. These changes also create environmental risks such as the increased potential for flooding, catastrophic wildfires, decreases in air and water quality, and increases in risks to human health, such as respiratory disease and skin cancer.

Interface issues, therefore, must be addressed simultaneously by a variety of disciplines. This requires the collaboration of a diverse group of professionals including planners, forest ecologists, economists, policymakers and others that influence the interface.

Working across ownership boundaries and a broad range of management scales is one of the greatest challenges in the wildland-urban interface. The Southern landscape is comprised of a mosaic of ownerships, including private non-industrial, forest-industry, institutional, commercial, and public land ownerships. As more and more landowners subdivide their lands (out of necessity or for economic gain), the average size of landownership has decreased and the number of private landowners has increased. These new neighbors often have different management objectives than their predecessors, creating different and often-conflicting management practices and policies side by side. For example, a landowner who manages the land for restoration of the longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem could have an absentee neighbor on one side that has let nature take its course. The neighbor on the other side could have speculative-land development intentions for their land. These management changes across property boundaries can disrupt ecosystem processes and complicate forestry operations that might otherwise cross those boundaries for ecological or economic reasons.

Multiple jurisdictions and scales within a region can also complicate efforts to manage and conserve natural resources. As many metropolitan regions grow they engulf adjacent towns and communities. For example, the 10-county metropolitan of Atlanta has sprawled over dozens of local units of government. Issues of environmental concern for an entire region, such as air and water quality, do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Adjacent local units of government, however, may have conflicting policies for addressing environmental issues. For example, one community may have a progressive soil erosion, riparian buffer, and water quality policy while their upstream neighbor has none. Coordinated policymaking by various levels of governmental at different scales is critical to effectively address environmental issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. For example, a region’s water quality may be addressed at the local level through non-point source initiatives, at the community level by limiting the loss of canopy and increases of impervious surface in source headwaters, and at the regional level by efforts to reduce sewer line infiltration. Table 1 addresses considerations and concerns for different natural resource policy and management scales.

Table 1: Scale Considerations and Concerns

The most important contributions of science to resolution of interface issues may be in the policy-making arena. There is a need to better understand the relationships among policy, land use change, and resulting effects on ecosystems. As the interface is developed more ordinances and regulations are implemented that directly affect how ecosystem goods and services are used. Policy analyses need to be conducted to identify interface issues and resolve policy conflicts within and among the different levels of government. Analysis should also identify the roles, strengths, and weaknesses of public policies that address natural resource management and conservation; the value of forest ecosystems for offsetting negative environmental consequences of urbanization and changing land use patterns; interdisciplinary models for decision making at various scales; quality indicators for policy analysis; and the role of policy in reducing risk. This research should include basic discovery, applied research, modeling, and an aggressive program of information and technology exchange.

The establishment of public policy and planning within an ecological framework is critical to addressing complex natural resource issues. This framework is comprised of three components (Figure 1). The first component is the arsenal of currently available planning tools. Examples include growth management practices, local natural resource and landscape ordinances, and resource conservation through acquisition and easements.

The second component of the framework is the role of technology, particularly remote sensing and computer mapping technology. This technology enables a “view” of a region or community’s natural resource base to be overlaid with changing land use patterns, demonstrating where and how these resources are or potentially could be affected. Mapping can also be extremely useful for development vs. conservation decisionmaking, risk management, and the identification of potential conflicts between natural and built systems.

The third component is the foundation of the framework and involves incorporating the economic and ecological value of ecosystem goods and services into decisionmaking. This component is based on a series of natural resource related questions that should be asked before natural landscapes and disturbance regimes are altered. The questions follow:

• How is the landscape changing, what are the measures, scale and agents and agents of this change?
• What are the social, economic and environmental consequences of this change at different scales?
• Is this change measurable across multiple ownerships and jurisdictions?
• Can resource-related risk be identified and managed?
• What are the consequences of landscape change? Are these consequences natural, desirable or, acceptable?
• Are there actions that can offset these consequences and are the results of these actions measurable?
• Can relationships between landscape elements be identified?
• Can landscape performance be measured and monitored?
• How can the description and condition of natural resources guide suitability of land use decisions?

Land use planning and policy in the wildland-urban interface dramatically influences the availability, management, health, and condition of natural resources. Land use decisions affect ecosystem structure, dynamics, and ultimately, ecosystem goods and services. Land use change and the impact of urbanization affect quality-of-life measures such as air and water quality, opportunities for outdoor recreation, risk of catastrophic wildfire and flooding, and risks to human health. Planning tomorrow’s landscapes in the wildland-urban interface requires working within a policy framework, which includes technological, ecological, and managerial considerations.

Macie, E.A., and L.A. Hermansen, 2002. Human influences on forest ecosystems: The southern wildland-urban interface assessment, Asheville, North Carolina, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-55.

Author and Copyright Information