Understanding homes' harm to nature
Towns with highest loss (percent change) in Index of Ecological Integrity.
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff
Intuitively, it makes sense. Plop a home in the middle of a forest and the impact of that lot is going to be much more disruptive to species around it compared to, say, a new two-family squeezed into a spare lot in Somerville.
Now, Mass Audubon has placed a value on development’s ecological impact using a tool researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst developed that comes up with “scores” of the landscape based on each area’s ability to support plants, animals, and the natural processes that sustain them. Researchers looked at everything associated with a new home lot including habitat loss, the introduction of dogs and cats, and even nonnative plants and earthworms to develop the ecological integrity score.
Part of a Mass Audubon report that was released Monday, the scores place a spotlight on intact lands primarily in western Massachusetts and those that surround the Quabbin Reservoir, but also in southeastern Massachusetts, just south of Worcester and some parts of the North Shore.
The message? Officials should prioritize the most important ecological lands for conservation.
But there is other disturbing news.
Mass Audubon and UMass researchers estimate between 1971 and 2005, the state suffered a 23 percent reduction in its overall ecological integrity – but developed only eight percent of its land area. If the steady march of development continues to spread out from our cities, we will lose much more in the future.
For years, Mass Audubon only counted home development in one way: The footprint of a lot. But the newest tool they are using shows that the indirect impacts of development are three to four times greater than direct impacts. In some rural places, it can be as much as eight times greater.
The index, although it has limitations, is a powerful signal that the steady march of sprawl into dwindling intact lands out west and other parts of the state may needs a big stop sign. But how officials and conservationists begin to undo large lot zoning - and a cultural desire for bigger and bigger homes on bigger and bigger lots is anyone’s guess.
But if they don’t start trying, we could lose the places many of us love the most.
Comment
Permalink
Email
Too bad "squeezing a house into a spare lot in Somerville" is disruptive to the human species and requires something like $200K of permits and lawyer fees to get off the ground. Not to mention the cost of the lot (if you can find one) and the cost of construction. You're likely talking a $700K expense at least. That buys a lot of house out in the 'burbs.
It's also equally depressing to see how each town seems to think that "smart development" (like clustering homes and stores next to transit hubs) is a great idea -- for some other town to do.
I'm happy to be a homeowner now, though, since this will make my home value go UP!
There needs to be a "whole" method to our existence.; We are descended from Europeans, we came here to exploit because there was so much here that not enough people cared about the impact that is always obivous if you look. Europeans, all crowded together, get the message now, much better than we. No matter how much space there is, this planet is small compared to the impact man has made. It doesn't stand a chance of supporting us if we don't support it. Man STILL throws garbage outside his car keeping HIS environment (inside his car) clean, yet this same man will act disgusted with the neighborhoods where he dares to throw his garbage. It is all connected. The atmosphere, especially, is but a tiny layer when compared in size to this small planet. The USA is ancient Cyprus or modern Haiti, just bigger, so it takes longer for some to notice.
This change by the Audobon Society is painful even for me, yet even childbirth is painful, so stop whining. And K, you JUST complained about the cost of homeownership, yet it's OK if it benefits just you? Dot-com bubble, Derivative debacle indeed. The clowns who preached de-regulation should have their head examined for believing the hype. Let's de-regulate schoolbus transportation, train schedules. Let's trust crime in the open market. Competition should regulate it, not the laws on the books. I guess shortsightedness feels great if everything in sight is fine, and you ignore the road sign that says "Dead End, Cliff Ahead".
On the practical side it means support your conservation committee, land trust and Audobon/UMass work. It is responsible to listen and learn from experience.
Like energy conservation and pollution controls, lessons aren't learned easily and actions take a lot of effort and time to evolve.
Al,
Tsk, tsk, tsk.....
Don't you realize that it isn't a cliff? It is simply an opportunity in the "free market" for some people to sell tickets to give others the opportunity to experience the thrill of flight WITHOUT the government interference of, oh, say a parachute or a hang glider!!
SHEESH!
(Tongue FIRMLY planted in cheek!!)
What I was getting at is that the economic reality that prevents more dense development and promotes sprawl. Few people are going to spend $700K+ to develop a lot when more comfortable alternatives exist elsewhere, at bargain prices, with huge lot sizes. Where's the real incentive? There are a small amount of people who will do the "right thing", but far more vote with their wallets. The economic incentive needs to be towards the smarter growth, not the other way around. For a prime example, look at what $4/gallon gas did last year for small car sales -- it created more demand for small cars than decades of CAFE regulation. Do a similar thing for housing and demand will shift.
The politcal environment thrives on short term goals to meet the expectations of its apathetic constituency. There's not enough of us who care. Simple as that. Though not related to homes, two towns over from where I live in the suburbs, the State wants to contruct a bikepath. If built, it will probably be nice, but the construction of an asphalt road in the middle of the woods will clear nearly 3-4 acres of trees and vegetation for every mile. We live in an aphalt and concrete world.
1) cut local aid for towns that don't increase higher density zoning in transit-designated areas with fast-track permitting (say, a minimum of 10% of the town's developable land)
2) make users pay the true cost for their share of infrastructure... currently, everyone pays the same for water/sewer/gas/power even though it's a lot more expensive to serve sprawl vs. cities and higher density areas. This is obviously an issue w/r/t roads and highways also.
If you clear out the obstacles to development and the subsidies for sprawl, and then we can talk about what the "consumer preferences" are.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
contributors
Recent Blog Posts
browse this blog
by categoryRelated Blogs
Organizations
Information Sources
INside Boston.com