Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urban Morphology Drives the Homogenization of Tree Cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heterogeneous land cover patterns contribute to unique ecological conditions in cities and little is known about the drivers of these patterns among cities. We studied tree cover patterns in relationship to urban morphology (for example, housing density, parcel size), socioeconomic factors (for example, education, income, lifestyle characteristics), and historical legacies in Baltimore, Maryland, and Raleigh, North Carolina. Utilizing a multimodel inference approach and bivariate analyses, we analyzed two primary datasets employed in previous research predicting urban tree cover—one comprising continuous data (US Census), and the other consisting of categorical variables (Claritas PRIZM) that incorporate consumer purchasing data. Continuous data revealed that urban morphological characteristics were better predictors of tree cover patterns than socioeconomic factors in Raleigh and Baltimore at the parcel and neighborhood scales. Although the categorical dataset provided some evidence for the importance of socioeconomic and lifestyle characteristics in predicting tree cover patterns, the hierarchical nature of these data preclude separating the impacts of these factors from levels of urbanization. Bivariate analyses of continuous and categorical variables revealed that the highest correlation coefficients were associated with variables describing urban morphology—parcel size, percent pervious area, and house age. In Baltimore, historical census data were better predictors of present-day tree cover than census data from recent years. Most notably, parcel size, a key predictor of tree cover, has decreased with time in Raleigh to sizes consistently seen in Baltimore. Our findings demonstrate that urban morphology, the main driver of tree cover patterns in these cities, may lead to the homogenization of tree canopy in Raleigh and Baltimore in the future.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Kofahi S, Steele C, VanLeeuwen D, St Hilaire R. 2012. Mapping land cover in urban residential landscapes using very high spatial resolution aerial photographs. Urban For Urban Green 11:291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angel S, Parent J, Civco DL, Blei A, Potere D. 2011. The dimensions of global urban expansion: estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Prog Plan 75:53–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagby P. 1918. Public civil laws in Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Curlander W Publishing. 863 p

    Google Scholar 

  • BES LTER, Baltimore Ecosystem Study, Long Term Ecological Research. 2009. Land cover, Baltimore City. http://www.beslter.org/data_browser.asp. Accessed August 2011.

  • Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J, Strumsky D, West GB. 2010. Urban scaling and its deviations: revealing the structure of wealth, innovation, and crime across cities. PLoS ONE 5:e13541.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt LMA. 2013. The origins of scaling in cities. Science 340:1438–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boone CG, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Schwarz K, Buckley GL. 2010. Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: why the 60 s matter. Urban Ecosyst 13:255–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley GL. 2010. America’s conservation impulse: a century of saving trees in the old line state. Chicago: Center for American Places.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch WR Jr, Grove JM. 1993. People, trees and participation on the urban frontier. Unasylva 44:19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnhan KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K. 2007. Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • City of Raleigh. 2011. 2030 comprehensive plan for the City of Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanLongRange/Articles/2030ComprehensivePlan.html. Accessed June 2013.

  • Claritas. 2008. PRIZM segment narratives. New York, NY: The Nielsen Company (US), Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 46:35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway T, Hackworth J. 2007. Urban pattern and land cover variation in the greater Toronto area. Can Geogr 51:43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL. 2011. Residential landscapes as social–ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18:227–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobedo FJ, Nowak DJ. 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc Urban Plan 90:102–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI, Environmental Systems Resource Institute. 2011. ArcMap 10.0. ESRI, Redlands, CA.

  • Fraser EDG, Kenney WA. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J Arboric 26:106–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geolytics. 2006. Census neighborhood change database 1970–2000. East Brunswick, NJ.

  • Gillespie TW, Pincetl S, Brossard S, Smith J, Saatchi S. 2012. A time series of urban forestry in Los Angeles. Urban Ecosyst 15:233–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golubiewiski NE, Wessman CA. 2010. Discriminating urban vegetation from a metropolitan matrix through partial unmixing with hyperspectral AVIRIS data. Can J Remote Sens 36:261–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve AI. 2012. Linking urban form, land cover pattern, and hydrologic flow regime in the Puget Sound Lowland. Urban Ecosyst 15:437–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grove JM, Troy AR, O’Neil-Dunne JPM, Burch WR, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA. 2006. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:578–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasse J, Lathrop RG. 2003. A housing-unit-level approach to characterizing residential sprawl. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69:1021–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heynen NC, Lindsay G. 2003. Correlates of urban forest canopy: implications for local public works. Public Works Manag Policy 8:33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heynen N, Perkins HA, Parama R. 2006. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff Rev 42:3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Cook EA. 2001. Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst 4:105–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenerette GD, Harlan SL, Stefanov WL, Martin CA. 2011. Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol Appl 21:2637–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen R, Gatrell J, Boulton J, Harper B. 2004. Using remote sensing and geographic information systems to study urban quality of life and urban forest amenities. Ecol Soc 9:5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Zhou X. 2012. Landscape structure, zoning ordinance, and topography in hillside residential neighborhoods: A case study of Morgantown, WV. Landsc Urban Plan 108:28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. 2006. World map of the Koppen–Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 15:259–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry SM, Chakraborty J. 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ Plan A 41:2651–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan JR, Molotch HL. 1987. Urban fortunes: the political economy of place. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li XX, Shao GF. 2013. Object-based urban vegetation mapping with high-resolution aerial photography as a single data source. Intl J Remote Sens 34:771–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry JH, Baker ME, Ramsey RD. 2012. Determinants of urban tree canopy in residential neighborhoods: household characteristics, urban form, and the geophysical landscape. Urban Ecosyst 15:247–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Smallbone LT, O’Brien R. 2009. Socioeconomics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 12:604–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield C, Pattanayak SK, McDow W, McDonald R, Halpin P. 2005. Shades of green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J For Econ 11:177–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP. 2004. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc Urban Plan 69:355–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson G, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, Xiao Q. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J For 103:411–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Xiiao Q, Wu C. 2011. Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning 99:40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennis J. 2006. Socioeconomic vegetation relationships in urban, residential land: the case of Denver, Colorado. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 72:911–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasar JL, Fisher BS. 1993. “Hot spots” of fear and crime: a multi-method investigation. J Environ Psychol 13:187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ. 1993. Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implication for urban forest management. J Arboric 19:313–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA, McPherson EG, Sisinni SM, Kerkmann ER, Stevens JC. 1996. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landsc Urban Plan 36:49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Crane DE. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ. 2012. Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities. Urban For Urban Green 11:21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke NE, Jennings V, Pincetl S, Pouyat RV, Whitlow TH, Zipperer WC. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins HA, Heynen N, Wilson J. 2004. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21:291–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat RV, Russell-Anelli J, Yesilonis ID, Groffman PM. 2003. Soil carbon in urban forest ecosystems. In: Kimble JM, Heath LS, Birdsey RA, Lal R, Eds. The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 347–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DT. 2012. Land-cover fragmentation and configuration of ownership parcels in an exurban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 15:53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders RA. 1984. Some determinants of urban forest structure. Urban Ecol 8:13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talarchek GM. 1990. The urban forest of New Orleans: an explanatory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr 11:65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troy AR, Grove JM, O’Neil-Dunne JPM, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML. 2007. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ Manag 40:394–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. 2011a. Census of population and housing. http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html. Accessed January 2011.

  • US Census Bureau. 2011b. State and county quickfacts: Raleigh, NC and Baltimore, MD. http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed January, 2011.

  • Wagenmakers EJ, Farrell S. 2004. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11:192–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wake County Government. 2013. Wake County Geographic Information Map Service. http://www.wakegov.com/gis/services/pages/data.aspx. Accessed January, 2011.

  • Weiss MJ. 2000. The clustered world: how we live, what we buy, and what it all means about who we are. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Feng X, Jiang H. 2010. Object-oriented method for urban vegetation mapping using IKONOS imagery. Intl J Remote Sens 31:177–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Chen Y, Schaffner DW. 2001. Comparison of logistic regression and linear regression in modeling percentage data. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2129–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Science Foundation for their support of this research through the Triangle, NC, Urban Long Term Research Area—exploratory award (BCS-0948229). We also thank Morgan Grove, Jarlath O’Neil-Dunn at the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, Long Term Ecological Research site, for their generous contribution of data and comments on the research. This paper has benefitted from interactions with Brett Clark and Stacy Nelson, who helped develop important ideas regarding the direction of the research. Finally, we thank the reviewers and editor for their thoughtful and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, 3120 Jordan Hall, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, USA

    Kevin M. Bigsby, Melissa R. McHale & George R. Hess

Authors
  1. Kevin M. Bigsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa R. McHale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George R. Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin M. Bigsby.

Additional information

Author contributions

MM conceived of the study and KB designed the analyses and interpreted the data with significant input from MM and GH. KB, MM, and GH wrote and edited the manuscript as a team.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bigsby, K.M., McHale, M.R. & Hess, G.R. Urban Morphology Drives the Homogenization of Tree Cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC. Ecosystems 17, 212–227 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9718-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9718-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation