Urban Sprawl Nature vs. Suburbia

Urban Sprawl

Nature vs. Suburbia

Urban sprawl and its impact on the environment has become one of the hottest topics in the media. Urban sprawl eats up farmland and wildlife habitat. On one side are the homeowners, who claim that humans are more important than animals. Others fear for the consequences of sprawl, both on wildlife and on humans, as animals are pushed to the limits of their existence. The following will explore both sides of the controversy in order to gain a better understanding of the issues involved.

On the Side of the Wild

Wildlife supporters fear that encroachment on wildlife can have some devastating effects. Humans do not simply invade full force; they creep in little by little. From 1960 to 1990, the amount of developed land in the U.S. more than doubles, while the population grew by less than 50% (Terris). The problem is not necessarily urban expansion near metropolitan areas, but small settlements that crop up in the middle of nowhere, interconnected by highways and roads. This breaks up the habitat so that animals have to change migratory patterns, nesting grounds, and hunting patterns. Open lands across the nation are at this type of risk.

One example of a species that is already at risk due to this type of growth is the Florida panther. With only 30-50 adults remaining, it is now one of the most endangered species on earth (Terris). This panther and its other relatives were once the most widespread animals in North and South America. Habitat destruction and deforestation are the key elements that contribute to the decline of this majestic animal (Terris). The Saguaro cactus of the Arizona desert may soon fall victim to the urbanization of Arizona, taking with it the other species that depend on it for their existence (Terris). The coastal sage ecosystem is California is one of the hardest hit areas, taking with it the gnatcatcher and other species that live there (Terris).

Urbanization of natural areas takes another toll as well. The numbers of species that can exist in the urban environment are much fewer than can exist in the natural habitat. This gives those that can adapt an unfair advantage and they increase in numbers, while species diversity continues to decline (Terris). This is known as generalization. The overall biomass may remain the same due to increases in the total number of animals, but it becomes even more fragile, as fewer species place this environment in danger of total devastation from a single cause, such as disease.

Fragmentation causes another affect on the animals that are affected. For instance, a road through an amphibian habitat physically divides a population. This division means fewer choices for mates and can lead to an inbred population and the promulgation of genetic borne disease among the species (Terris). Fragmentation makes a population vulnerable to stresses, such as drought and fatal genetic flaws (Terris). In addition, a species may be cut off from its breeding grounds, or from its hunting grounds, placing it at an immediate risk for extinction (Terris). Humans seldom know the real impact that the simply act of building a road, or putting up a building can have on the ecosystems in the direct vicinity of the project.

The three most significant human impacts on the environment are habitat loss generalization of the species, and fragmentation (Terris). However, the damage does not stop there; urban sprawl creates pollution in nearby waterways, the air, and in the soil (Terris). This places even greater strain on an already strained environment. Habitat loss and the loss of species are growing at an alarming rate, and many propose drastic measures to help curtail the further loss of our natural heritage.

Environmentalists propose purchasing land that is threatened by urban sprawl and setting it aside as a nature preserve. However, this may prove unfeasible, as developers often have greater purchasing power than environmental groups. Paying landowner easements to restrict development on their property is another way to protect habitats (Terris). However, it is still feared that these measures may be inadequate. The most popular solution appears to be controlling growth development to lessen the impact of future urbanization. This means making better use of already developed areas, and providing mixed land uses (Terris). Environmentalists agree that strategic planning is the best solution to help curb further destruction in the future.

Human Rights, not Animal Rights

Numerous wildlife encounters where animals appear in suburban areas make the news headlines at an increasing rate. This would appear to be good, as it indicates that animals are adapting to their human neighbors, and that they are thriving despite the invasion. However, wild animals in the burbs pose a hazard in terms of automobile collisions with deer, and even human deaths by bear attacks (Shaw). Not everyone agrees that humans are the invader, or that wildlife is being threatened by urban sprawl. They cite the number of incidences of animal-human encounters as support for their argument.

Natural reforestation due to a decline in farming, particularly cotton production is creating a documented natural reforestation of the eastern United States (Shaw). When farms are abandoned, forests quickly retake the area, increasing habitat, and thus the number of animals in the area. Over a 100-year span beginning in the 1880s, the amount of forested land in New Hampshire increased 36% (Shaw). This is referred to as the re-greening of America (Shaw).

The counter argument to habitat destruction by suburban expansion is that it creates habitat, such as ponds, bird nesting boxes, ornamental nurseries, and parks (Shaw). It is argued that these habitats are different, but friendly to wildlife (Shaw). The comeback of the key deer due to increased "friendly" urban habitat is sited as an example of this phenomenon. Now the problem seems to be deer overabundance, rather than species decline (Shaw).

Some scientists hypothesize that deer can survive in suburban environments better than they can in urban ones. The reason may be that dark forests do no allow the light to allow for undergrowth and vegetation necessary for the deer's survival (Shaw). A number of wildlife thrive in suburban niches, such as red-tailed hawks, robins, crows, opossums, chipmunks, rabbits, and many others (Shaw). However, the new population is much less diverse than the one that was once there, even supporters of development must admit that this factor exists (Shaw). Supporters of suburban development claim that humans and animals can live together in suburban environments are little detriment to either (Shaw).