Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Models as Hypotheses in Monitoring Urban Landscapes

  • FORUM
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many problems and challenges of ecosystem management currently are driven by the rapid pace and spatial extent of landscape change. Parks and reserves within areas of high human population density are especially challenged to meet the recreational needs of local populations and to preserve valued environmental resources. The complex problem of managing multiple objectives and multiple resources requires an enormous quantity of information, and conceptual models have been proposed as tools for organizing and interpreting this information. Academics generally prefer a bottom-up approach to model construction that emphasizes ecologic theory and process, whereas managers often use a top-down approach that takes advantage of existing information to address more pragmatic objectives. The authors propose a formal process for developing, applying, and testing conceptual models to be used in landscape monitoring that reconciles these seemingly opposing perspectives. The four-step process embraces the role of hypothesis testing in the development of models and evaluation of their utility. An example application of the process to a network of national parks in and around Washington, DC illustrates the ability of the approach to systematically identify monitoring data that would both advance ecologic theory and inform management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: A problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:133–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barna D, Gaumer G (2005) NPS director says visitation to National Parks up in 2004. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Office of Communications, Washington, DC

  • Blaustein AR, Wake DB (1990) Declining amphibian populations: A global phenomenon. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch ED, Trexler JC (2003) Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS III, Torn MS, Tateno M (1996) Principles of ecosystem sustainability. The American Naturalist 148: 1016–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1992) Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2:387–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1993) An empirical model for predicting diurnal air-temperature gradients from edge into old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Ecological Modelling 67:179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RN, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cincota RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JP, Kinzig A, Grimm N, Fagan BWF, Hope D, Wu J, Borer E (2000) A new urban ecology. American Scientist 88:416–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JP, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Gross LJ, Comiskey EJ, Mooij WM, Nott MP (2003) The use of models for a multiscaled ecological monitoring system. In: Busch ED, Trexler JC (eds) Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 167–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll CT, Whitall D, Aber J, Boyer E, Castro M, Cronan C, Goodale CL, Groffman P, Hopkinson C, Lambert K, Lawrence G, Ollinger S (2003) Nitrogen pollution in the northeastern United States: Sources, effects, and management options. Bioscience 53:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner MB, Stolhgren TJ (1997) Evaluating the contribution of small National Park areas to regional biodiversity. Natural Areas Journal 17:324–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Fancy SG (2002) Monitoring natural resources in our National Parks. Available at http://www.science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor (accessed 31 January 2005)

  • Findlay CS, Bourdages J (2000) Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth A, Musacchio L (2005) Designing small parks: A manual addressing social and ecological concerns. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Urban DL (2002) Model validation and testing: Past lesson, present concerns, and future prospects. In: Canham CD, Cole JC, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 184–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC, Zipperer WC (2003) Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:315–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Haefner JW (1996) Modeling biological systems: Principle and applications. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris LK, Shaw WW, Schelhas J (1997) Urban neighbors’ wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors near federally protected areas in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17:144–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz Center (2002) The state of the nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL (2000) Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404:752–775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson LJ, Trebitz AS, Cottingham KL (2000) An introduction to the practice of ecological modeling. BioScience 50:694–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jauregui E, Romales E (1996) Urban effects on convective precipitation in Mexico City. Atmospheric Environment 30:3383–3389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jenny H (1941) The factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser J (2000) Bringing science to the National Parks. Science 288:34–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koenen M, Gray E, Wright C, Sinclair J, Milton M, Hood S, Norris M, Curtis D (2002) The National Park Service monitoring workshop: Planning for the future in the National Capital Network, 9–11 July 2002. Shepherdstown, WV

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz JC, Jackson LE, Fish WS (2001) Strategies for evaluating indicators based on guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Ecological Indicators 1:40–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Taylor WW (2002) Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and new approaches. In: Liu J, Taylor WW (eds) Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankin JB, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH, Rust BW (1975) The importance of validation in ecosystem analysis. In: Innis GS (ed) New directions in the analysis of ecological systems. Society for Computer Simulation, LaJolla, CA, pp 63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall P (1989) Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masek JG, Lindsay FE, Goward SN (2000) Dynamics of urban growth in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 1973–1996, from Landsat observations. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21:3473–3486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Urban DL (2005) Forest edges and tree growth rates in the North Carolina Piedmont. Ecology 85:2258–2266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meentemeyer R, Rizzo D, Mark W, Lotz E (2004) Mapping the risk of establishment and spread of sudden oak death in California. Forest Ecology and Management 200:195–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiners SJ, Pickett STA, Handel SN (2002) Probability of tree seedling establishment changes across a forest–old field edge gradient. American Journal of Botany 89:466–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller ME (2005) The structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems—Conceptual models to inform long-term ecological monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5197, 73 p

  • Mueller SF, Bailey EM, Kelsoe JJ (2004) Geographic sensitivity of fine particle mass to emissions of SO2 and NOx. Environmental Science & Technology 38:570–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service (1999) Natural Resource Challenge: The National Park Service’s Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Noon BR (1999) Scientific framework for effectiveness monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan. In: Mulder B, Noon B, Spies T, Raphael M (eds) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service., General Technical Report PNW-437, Portland, Oregon, pp 49–68

  • Noon BR (2003) Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological resources. In: Busch ED, Trexler JC (eds) Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 27–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Oke TR (1988) The urban energy balance. Progress in Physical Geography 12:471–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parlange M (1998) The city as ecosystem. Bioscience 48:581–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:127–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranney JW, Bruner MC, Levenson JB (1981) The importance of edge in the structure and dynamics of forest islands. In: Burgess RL, Sharpe DM (eds) Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 67–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo D, Garbelotto M (2003) Sudden oak death: Endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R (2003) Amphibian conservation. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutter GW II (1999a) Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:375–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter GW II (1999b) A framework for assessment of ecological risks from multiple activities. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:397–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt M (2004) Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinebrooke RD, Cottingham KL, Norberg J, Scheffer M, Dodson SI, Maberly SC, Sommer U (2004) Impacts of multiple stressors on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: The role of species co-tolerance. Oikos 104:451–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volstad JH, Roth NE, Mercurio G, Southerland MT, Strebel DE (2003) Using environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland nontidal streams as measured by biological indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 84:219–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Van Horne B, Noon BR (2002) Integrating landscape structure and scale into natural resource management. In: Liu J, Taylor WW (eds) Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward A, Jenkins KJ, Schreiner EG (1999) The role of ecological theory in long-term ecological monitoring: Report on a workshop. Natural Areas Journal 19:223–233

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the many scientists, park personnel, and partners who actively participated in a 3-day monitoring workshop that led to the development of the NCRN case study. We also are grateful to John Gross, Eric Gustafson, Matthias Ruth, Virginia Dale, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The symbols for Figure 5 are courtesy of the Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols), University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Funding was provided by the National Park Service I&M Program through the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit, Task Agreement J309704101.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 301 Braddock Road, Frostburg, Maryland, 21532, USA

    Todd R. Lookingbill & Robert H. Gardner

  2. National Capital Region, National Park Service, 4598 MacArthur Boulevard NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Shawn L. Carter

  3. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA

    Philip A. Townsend

Authors
  1. Todd R. Lookingbill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert H. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip A. Townsend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shawn L. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd R. Lookingbill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lookingbill, T.R., Gardner, R.H., Townsend, P.A. et al. Conceptual Models as Hypotheses in Monitoring Urban Landscapes. Environmental Management 40, 171–182 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0246-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0246-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation