Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of land use-change modeling: routes of different schools of knowledge

  • Review
  • Published:
Landscape and Ecological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although much has been published on land use-change models (LUCMs), no study has comprehensively dealt with the evolution of land use models based on schools of knowledge. The primary objective of this paper is an explanation of the progress and growth of LUCMs concerning their main ontological, epistemological, and methodological origins. Five main paradigms, i.e., positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, participatory, and pragmatism approaches, are discussed in order to assess the current orientations of LUCMs. Given the complexities of LUCM components, the study concludes that one paradigm cannot adequately address all methodological aspects. Accordingly, it is necessary to combine quantitative and qualitative paradigms to create mixed-method approaches within a systemic framework. Such systemic approaches could shape the most probable future generations of LUCMs, which would be able to cope with the complexity of various subsystems, including biophysical and socioeconomic ones.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM, Evans TP, Schweik CM (2002) A review and assessment of land use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. Gen Tech Rep NE-297. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 61

  • Alcamo J, Kok K, Busch G, Priess JA, Eickhout B, Rounsevell M et al (2006) Searching for the future of land: scenarios from the local to global scale. In: Lambin EF, Geist HJ (eds) land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 137–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, Filson G (2009) Comparative study of agricultural extension systems: a systemic view. Outlook Agric 38(4):337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, Shahvali M, Berg JVD, Faghih N (2007) Sustainable rangeland management using a multi-fuzzy model: how to deal with heterogeneous experts’ knowledge. J Environ Manage 83:236–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, Berg J, Shahvali M, Hosseininia G (2009a) Sustainable rangeland management using fuzzy logic: a case study in southwest Iran. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131(3&4):193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, van den Berg J, Ho P, Hosseininia G (2009b) Sustainability in rangeland systems: introduction of fuzzy multi objective decision-making. Curr World Environ 4(1):19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Azadi H, Ho P, Hasfiati L (2011) Agricultural land conversion drivers: a comparison between less developed, developing and developed countries. Land Degrad Dev 22:596–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreteau O et al. (2003) Our companion modelling approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6 (2): 1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html. Accessed 19 February 2013

  • Beurden JB, Bakema A, Tijbosch H (2007) A land use modelling system for environmental impact assessment: recent applications of the LUMOS toolbox. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 281–296

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bharwani S, Bithell M, Downing TE, New M, Washington R, Ziervogel G (2005) Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:2183–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonan GB, Defries RS, Coe MT, Ojima DS (2004) Land use and climate. In: Gutman G, Janetos AC, Justice CO, Moran EF, Mustard JF, Rindfuss RR, Skole DL, Turner BL, Cochrane MA (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 301–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Breu K, Peppard J (2001) The participatory paradigm for applied information systems research. The 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 27–29 June

  • Briassoulis H (2000) Analysis of land use change: theoretical and modeling approaches. In: Morgantown SL (ed) The web book of regional science. WV Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Verburg PH, Pontius JRG, Lange MD (2013) Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5): 452–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.012. Accessed 8 February 2014

  • Center for BioEnergy Sustainability (CBES), Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2009) Land use change and bioenergy: report from the 2009 Workshop. ORNL/CBES-001, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Bioenergy Sustainability (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes)

  • Chapin FSJ (1965) A model for simulating residential development. J Am Inst Plan 31(2):120–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinneck JW (2001) Practical optimization: a gentle introduction. systems and computer engineering. Carleton University, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll RK, Chapman R (2000) Choices of methodology for cooperative education researchers. Asia Pac J Coop Educ 1: 1–8. http://www.apjce.org/volume_1/volume_1_1_pp_1_8.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2013

  • Courtney M, Regan CM, Bryan BA, Connor JD, Meyer WS, Ostendorf B, Zhu Z, Bao C (2015) Real options analysis for land use management: methods, application, and implications for policy. J Environ Manage 161:144–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins C (2002) Getting to the “truth”: issues in contemporary qualitative research. Aust J Adult Learn 42:192–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle J, Williams B (2000) An exploration of the epistemological intricacies of using qualitative data to develop a quantitative measure of user views of health care. J Adv Nurs 31(5):1235–1243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (1994) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edition. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aquino P, Le Page C, Bousquet F, Bah A (2003) Using self-designed role-playing games and a multi-agent system to empower a local decision-making process for land use management: The Self Cormas experiment in Senegal. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(3): 5. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/3/5.html. Accessed 5 May 2013)

  • Denzin NK (2001) The seventh moment: qualitative inquiry and the practices of a more radical consumer research. J Consum Res 28(2):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A (1997) Management research: an introduction. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelen G, Lavalle C, Barredo JI, Meulen M, White R (2007) The MOLAND modelling framework for urban and regional land use dynamics. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and Applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 297–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaucherel C, Griffon S, Misson L, Houet T (2010) Combining process-based models for future biomass assessment at landscape scale. Landsc Ecol 25(2):201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibon A, Sheeren D, Monteil C, Ladet S, Balent G (2010) Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework. Landsc Ecol 25(2):267–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield BH, Greene B, Johanson MA (2007) The use of qualitative research techniques in orthopedic and sports physical therapy: moving toward postpositivism. Phys Ther Sport 8(1):44–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG (1990) The alternative paradim dialog. In: Guba E (ed) The Paradigm Dialog. Sage, London, pp 17–27

  • Haase D, Holzkämper A, Seppelt R (2007) Beyond growth? Decline of the urban fabric in eastern Germany. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall CAS, Tian H, Qi Y, Pontius G, Cornell J (1995) Modelling spatial and temporal patterns of tropical land use change. J Biogeogr 22(4/5):753–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heistermann M, Müller C, Ronneberger K (2006) Land in sight? Achievements, deficits and potentials of continental to global scale land use modeling. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilferink M, Rietveld P (1999) Land use scanner: an integrated GIS based model for long term projections of land use in urban and rural areas. J Geogr Syst 1:155–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill DM (1965) A growth allocation model for the Boston region. J Am Inst Plan 31(2):111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (1980) Introduction to operations research. Holden-Day, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisschemoller M, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P (2001) The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integr Assess 2:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho P, Azadi H (2010) Rangeland degradation in North China: perceptions of pastoralists. Environ Res 110(3):302–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hope KW, Waterman H (2003) Praiseworthy pragmatism? Validity and action research: methodological issues in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 44(2):120–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseininia G, Azadi H, Zarafshani K, Samari D, Witlox F (2013) Sustainable rangeland management: pastoralists’ attitudes toward integrated programs in Iran. J Arid Environ 92:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houet T, Hubert-Moy L (2006) Modeling and projecting land use and land-cover changes with a cellular automaton in considering landscape trajectories: an improvement for simulation of plausible future states. EARSeL eProc 5(1):63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Houet T, Verburg PH, Loveland TR (2010) Monitoring and modelling landscape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 25:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85(1–3):7–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janetos AC (2004) Research directions in land-cover and land use change. In: Gutman G, Janetos AC, Justice CO, Moran EF, Mustard JF, Rindfuss RR, Skole DL, Turner BL, Cochrane MA (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 449–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Christensen L (2010) Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RB, Turner LA (2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Koomen E, Stillwell J (2007) Modelling land use change. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Koomen E, Rietveld P, Nijs TD (2008) Modelling land use change for spatial planning support. Ann Reg Sci 42(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Geist H (2006) Conclusion. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 173–176

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ (2000) Are agricultural land use models able to predict changes in land use intensity? Agric Ecosyst Environ 82(1–3):321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E (2003) Dynamics of land use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:205–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Geist H, Rindfuss RR (2006) Introduction: local processes with global impacts. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 1–8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DK, Park C, Tomlin D (2015) Effects of land use-change scenarios on terrestrial carbon stocks in South Korea. Landscape Ecol Eng 11(1):47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research 2. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 163–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Loibl W, Tötzer T, Köstl M, Steinnocher K (2007) Simulation of polycentric urban growth dynamics through agents: model concept, application, results and validation. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 219–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Loonen W, Heuberger P, Kuijpers-Linde M (2007) Spatial optimisation in land use allocation problems. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 147–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Lor P (2011) Preparing for research: metatheoretical considerations. Retrieved from http://pjlor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/chapter-3-draft-2011-04-152.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2013

  • Lundell M (1996) A qualitative model of physical fields. Paper presented at the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  • Mackenzie N, Knipe S (2006) Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Educational research, vol 16. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html. Accessed 10 February 2013

  • Mertens DM (1998) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens DM (2005) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsuda Y, Ito S (2011) A review of spatial-explicit factors determining spatial distribution of land use/land use change. Landsc Ecol Eng 7(1):117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):48–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudgal S, Benito P, Koomen E (2008) Modelling of EU land use choices and environmental impacts-scoping study. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Bio Intelligence Service, SPINLAB, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Callaghan JR (1995) NELUP: an introduction. J Environ Plan Manage 38(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overmars KP, de Groot WT, Huigen MGA (2007) Comparing inductive and deductive modeling of land use decisions: principles, a model and an illustration from the Philippines. Hum Ecol 35:439–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pack JR (1978) Urban models: diffusion and policy application. Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia

  • Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piyathamrongchai K, Batty M (2007) Integrating cellular automata and regional dynamics using GIS: the dynamic settlement simulation model (DSSM). In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 259–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponterotto JG (2005) Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Couns Psychol 52(2):126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanath AM, Gilbert N (2004) The design of participatory agent-based social simulations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 7(4): 1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/4/1.html. Accessed 9 July 2013

  • Rindfuss RR, Walsh SJ, Turner II BL, Moran EF, Entwisle B (2004) Linking pixels and people. In: G Gutman AC, Janetos CO, Justice EF, Moran JF, Mustard RR, Rindfuss DL, Skole BL, Turner MA Cochrane (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 379–394

  • Rotmans J, van Asselt MBA (2001) Uncertainty management in integrated assessment modeling: towards a pluralistic approach. Envrion Monit Assess 69:101–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan P, Schroers JO, Rommelfanger E (2007) GIS-based modelling of land use systems. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 375–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares-Filho B, Rodrigues H, Follador M (2013) A hybrid analytical-heuristic method for calibrating land use change models. Environ Model Softw 43:80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohl TL, Loveland TR, Sleeter BM, Sayler KL, Barnes CA (2010) Addressing foundational elements of regional land use change forecasting. Landsc Ecol 25(2):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekin AK, Kotaman H (2013) The epistemological perspectives on action research. J Educ Soc Res 3(1):81–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry L, Sohl TL, Claggett PR (2013) Clarity versus complexity: land use modeling as a practical tool for decision-makers. J Environ Manage 129:235–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2000) Projecting land-use change: a summary of models for assessing the effects of community growth and change on land-use patterns. EPA/600/R-00/098. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH

  • Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK, Ligtenberg A (2010) An agent-based approach to model land use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol 25(2):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ittersum M, Brouwer FM (2010) Introduction. In: Brouwer FM, van Ittersum M (eds) Environmental and agricultural modelling: integrated approaches for policy impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1996a) CLUE-CR: an integrated multi-scale model to simulate land use change scenarios in Costa Rica. Ecol Model 91(1–3):231–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1996b) CLUE: a conceptual model to study the conversion of land use and its effects. Ecol Model 85(2/3):253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Editorial; predicting land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61:309–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Kok K, Pontius JRG, Veldkamp A (2006a) Modeling land use and land-cover change. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 117–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Rounsevell MDA, Veldkamp A (2006b) Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Bakker M, Overmars KP, Staritsky I (2008) Landscape level simulation of land use change. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, New york, pp 211–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den Heiligenberg HARM (2010) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc Ecol 25(2):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voigt B, Troy A (2008) Land use modeling. In: Brian F, Sven Erik J (eds) Encyclopedia of ecology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 2126–2132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Costanza R, Wainger L, Boumans R, Villa F, Maxwell T et al (1999) Patuxent landscape model: integrated ecological economic modeling of a watershed. Environ Model Softw 14(5):473–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim; modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68(3):297–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainger LA, Rayburn J, Price EW (2007) Review of land use change models applicability to projections of future energy demand in the Southeast United States. Southeast energy futures project, UMCES (CBL) 07-187. http://waingerlab.cbl.umces.edu/docs/LUchangeReviewRevised.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2014

  • Wicke B, Verweij P, Meijl HV, Vuuren DPV, Faaij APC (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3(1):87–100. doi:10.4155/bfs.11.154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wien JE, Rizzoli AE, Knapen R, Athanasiadis I, Janssen S, Ruinelli L et al (2010) A web-based software system for model integration in impact assessments of agricultural and environmental policies. In: Brouwer FM, van Ittersum M (eds) Environmental and agricultural modelling: integrated approaches for policy impact assessment. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 207–234

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2004) Research methods in education: an introduction. Pearson, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Witlox F (2005) Expert systems in land use planning: an overview. Expert Syst Appl 29(2):437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium

    Hossein Azadi & Parisa Rafiaani

  2. Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Hossein Azadi & Philippe Lebailly

  3. Department of Geography, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Hossein Azadi & Frank Witlox

  4. Department of Agricultural Development and Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Akbar Barati

  5. Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Khuzestan Ramin Agricultural and Natural Resources University, Ahvaz, Iran

    Fatemeh Taheri

  6. Department of Land Resource Management and Environmental Protection, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia

    Kindeya Gebrehiwot

Authors
  1. Hossein Azadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Akbar Barati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Parisa Rafiaani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fatemeh Taheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kindeya Gebrehiwot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank Witlox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philippe Lebailly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Azadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azadi, H., Barati, A.A., Rafiaani, P. et al. Evolution of land use-change modeling: routes of different schools of knowledge. Landscape Ecol Eng 13, 319–332 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-016-0311-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-016-0311-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation