Urban Development as a Cause for Deforestation: Patrick Diaz and Robert McDonald

Fortunately, the individual problems, which collectively result in deforestation can be corrected. In using local and national economic resources, these problems can be addressed, and deforestation can be slowed in these regions.

One of the most pressing issues on the environment in New England today is the fact that land is being eaten up to build new roads and buildings, strip malls, parking lots, discount stores, subdivisions and a host of other constructions. The EPA estimates that in New England unchecked development clears 1,200 acres, over two square miles, of open farmland and wetlands a week.* If trends such as these continue to occur, then forests in which animals live may vanish and the circle of life cannot remain in tact. In fact, the National Wildlife Foundation suggests that over the next 25 years, more than 22,000 acres of natural resources and habitat will be lost to development in 35 of the largest and most rapidly growing metropolitan areas in the United States.** Maybe even more disturbing than the fact that all that land is being built up is the fact that 538 of the nearly 11,200 at-risk species are found in these areas. These forests and other ecosystem that are being destroyed by urban development are helpful to the people in many ways. A new accounting of the goods and services provided by natural ecosystems demonstrate their true economic value when left intact. Beyond providing critical habitat for the other species living in a forest, trees provide a renewable resource if harvested in a sustainable fashion, contribute to the fight against climate change, play important roles in combating erosion, improve the retention of water retention and reduce flooding, and provide a host of other recreational and economic services. Finally having strong trees in the ground can help the economy because people, especially in New England, sell products like lumber and Maple syrup. Our fall tourism industry also relies heavily on healthy forests to attract “leaf peepers.” For all of these listed reason Massachusetts needs to stop cutting down trees for urban development.

One striking statistic, which demonstrates the extent to which the Massachusetts has been deforested, is that from 1982-1992 Massachusetts lost over 233,000 acres of land to development--the equivalent of one-third of Rhode Island. Massachusetts as a state needs to start getting serious about making sure that it has a long-term plan, which will not allow all of this land to be developed, if it wishes to preserve natural habitat for its indigenous animals and plants. The only other viable option, which seems to make the most sense, is to cut down the amount of development, and to make sure that any land, which is developed, will be of the greatest use possible. Rhode Island obviously has not made such plans for the best use of their land because from 1989-1999 the population did not increase, yet 26,000 acres of land was developed. Another example of this is the metro area of Boston itself. The Metropolitan area of Boston is growing seven times faster than the population is growing. This is a result of development, which was not planned carefully enough. Just to add on to the environmental problems to building and developing all these new roads, malls, and such, these building projects cost Americans over $4,000,000 in additional taxes. And nobody likes paying unnecessary tax money. These hard facts should give solid evidence that the developmental sprawl is bad.

Massachusetts as well as the rest of New England has lost too many trees and other important land toward urban sprawl and land development. This trend must stop now. The state governments must take the initiative to listen to the EPA’s recommendations on “Smart Growth” a system by which cities and population can grow and it minimizes the negatives of urbanizing the community. Recent construction trends focus on the size of the house. Obviously, with the growing size of the homes comes a greater demand for lumber and more land. As a replacement to the natural lumber that is presently used, there are several composite materials, which are equal in strength and hardiness. These materials are more expensive, but downsizing these houses can negate the price. If we can terminate useless development [unlike what happened in Rhode Island between 1989 and 1999], then the tree population and rural farming land can remain stable.

One reason for deforestation is a lack of awareness amongst the general public. If the public were informed of the affects of deforestation, and its causes, then surely greater support for change would be exhibited.

In preventing deforestation, instruction to local political councils about land management and construction moratoriums will become necessary. Beyond local councils, government involvement is crucial. To bring incentive to regional companies, state and federal government policies must be in place in order that companies comply. One such policy might involve the donation of grants to those companies that practice environmentally friendly methods. It may also involve the taxation of those utilizing methods that are harmful to the surrounding environment. (B McDonald)
All of these things would come back to help the economy because they would help to preserve Maple trees and other trees which create products for us humans. The government could also spend less tax money building these unnecessary roads. The Environment would benefit from this because the animals could have a safe place to live and erosion would be less likely. It has become clear that one of the most pressing issues regarding deforestation is urban development.
Bibliography
* http://www.newcolonist.com/sprawlbusters.html ; Sprawlbusters, A press release from the EPA
**Groups: Sprawl Threatens Plants, Animals, John Heilprin, Jan. 11, 2005
_ http://greaterboston.tv/features/gb_050602_sprawl.html# ; Greater Boston Television Show on its website; May 6, 2002
Back to list of reports