Site Suitability Analysis

518 views
480 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
518
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Site Suitability Analysis

  1. 1. Massachusetts Biodiversity Consultants (MBC) Becky Alper Rahul Rakshit Ben Munro Tim Currie Dong-Ha Hwang Multi-Objective Site Suitability Analysis in Central Massachusetts
  2. 2. Our Targets in Central Mass. <ul><li>Protect half of the currently (1997) developable land in its natural state while: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Finding the best 5,000 hectares for additional protection from development; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The best 600 hectares for new urban areas; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And the best 1,900 hectares for additional residential land. </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Biodiversity in Massachusetts <ul><li>In the last 100 years </li></ul><ul><li>agriculture has declined </li></ul><ul><li>forest has increased. </li></ul><ul><li>Forest cover: </li></ul><ul><li>68% of land area. </li></ul><ul><li>Forests provide: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Habitat: Black bear, beavers, moose, bald eagle etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clean water and air </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aesthetic value and tourism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Timber e.g. red oak, white pine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protection of biodiversity in Massachusetts. </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. What are the factors affecting land use in Massachusetts? <ul><li>Citizens seek a higher quality of life. They want to build residences around rural landscapes, not too close to urban centers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yet residential sprawl leads to fragmented forests and biodiversity loss </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wildlife habitat is best in corridors and large patches </li></ul>
  5. 5. MBC’s Decision Logic <ul><li>We promote new urban and residential development close to existing development (existing urban, roads, residential areas). </li></ul><ul><li>We concentrate on conservation in large reserves and around wetlands, lakes and streams to maximize biodiversity. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Constraints <ul><li>Buffers 30.48 m (100 ft) from all streams, wetlands and lakes. </li></ul><ul><li>No urban or residential development is possible on land with slope greater than 25%. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing urban land cannot be converted to any other land use. </li></ul><ul><li>Each pixel, which represents 30x30 m on the ground, can only be used for one land use at one time. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Factor Standardization <ul><li>Urban development in relation to water. </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>New residential land in relation to existing roads. </li></ul>Factor Standardization
  9. 9. <ul><li>Protected land in relation to developed land. </li></ul>Factor Standardization
  10. 10. Factor Weights
  11. 11. Multi-Criteria Evaluation Best New Urban Area
  12. 12. Multi-Criteria Evaluation Best New Residential Area
  13. 13. Multi-Criteria Evaluation Best New Protected Area
  14. 14. Results: Multi-Objective Allocation
  15. 15. Discussion of Results <ul><li>According to MCE, we met all our objectives, BUT! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contiguity vs. fragmentation issues and its relation with biodiversity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Factor weight issues (arbitrariness) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision-making issues of IDRISI </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Thank you for choosing Massachusetts Biodiversity Consultants

×