Intuitively, the relationship between biodiversity and sprawl makes
sense for residential development on Moscow Mountain, and other such
environments that in their undeveloped state have some remaining biological
diversity.
My question is, does that paradigm apply to urban sprawl into
Palouse farmland? It would seem that Palouse farmland, as it's currently
managed and likely to be managed in the future, is as close to a biological
diversity desert as it's possible to get. Does the "five acres and a horse"
residential sprawl actually offer some environmental benefits such as
increased habitat diversity, better watershed conditions, less erosion, and
less farm chemical use, when compared to clean cultivated Palouse fields?
Note that our current planning at least gives lip service to
preserving prime agricultural lands. Is it possible, in the Palouse
situation, that we've got this wrong? From a biological diversity
perspective, should we encourage the development of the biological desert,
and preserve the areas that still have some biological diversity?
Any reactions? Is there any literature on the ecological effects of
"five acres and a horse" development?
Joel Hamilton