The Edmonton-Calgary corridor: Simulating future land cover change under potential government intervention

- Agricultural land has been fragmented over the past 30 years by rapid urbanization.
- Resultant expansion on farmland edges has reduced remaining natural landscape.
- Government restrictions are non-existent, leaving regulation to industry.
- Without policies, urbanization will decrease amount and capacity of viable farmland.
- Landscape design policies can ensure protection of farmland and reduce urban sprawl.

The region connecting Edmonton and Calgary, the two largest cities in Alberta, contains rich agricultural land and is one of the most rapidly changing areas in the province. There is little legislation to restrict urban sprawl or adequately protect agricultural land or native grasslands, and there has been little research to predict future alteration. The main study objectives are, therefore, to assess historical changes in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor from 1984 to 2013 and simulate the future landscape change to 2022 under potential government intervention scenarios. Satellite imagery from Landsat, used in conjunction with biogeophysical variables, was used to create a history of cover in the Edmonton-Calgary area. This history of the environment can be used as a baseline to project changes into the future. Testing different legislative scenarios under two major branches of modifying rates of change or locations of change can be used to identify effective policies for limiting damage to the environment while still allowing for urban growth. Five scenarios were created for this purpose: (1) business as usual, (2) increased rate of urban expansion, (3) no urban expansion, (4) implementation of greenbelts around urban areas, (5) protection of the best agricultural land. This study finds that over the past 30 years, urban area has nearly doubled in size, targeting predominately farmland, especially due to an increase in rural subdivisions. Each scenario impacts growth differently, however, greenbelts and the no expansion model decease growth the most, while the agricultural protection is comparable to the business as usual scenario.