Landscape Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 129–140 | Cite as

The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology

  • Dennis E. Jelinski
  • Jianguo Wu
Article

Abstract

Landscape ecologists often deal with aggregated data and multiscaled spatial phenomena. Recognizing the sensitivity of the results of spatial analyses to the definition of units for which data are collected is critical to characterizing landscapes with minimal bias and avoidance of spurious relationships. We introduce and examine the effect of data aggregation on analysis of landscape structure as exemplified through what has become known, in the statistical and geographical literature, as theModifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). The MAUP applies to two separate, but interrelated, problems with spatial data analysis. The first is the “scale problem”, where the same set of areal data is aggregated into several sets of larger areal units, with each combination leading to different data values and inferences. The second aspect of the MAUP is the “zoning problem”, where a given set of areal units is recombined into zones that are of the same size but located differently, again resulting in variation in data values and, consequently, different conclusions. We conduct a series of spatial autocorrelation analyses based on NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) to demonstrate how the MAUP may affect the results of landscape analysis. We conclude with a discussion of the broader-scale implications for the MAUP in landscape ecology and suggest approaches for dealing with this issue.

Keywords

modifiable areal unit problem scale aggregation zoning systems spatial analysis spatial autocorrelation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T.F.H. and Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Amrhein, C. and Flowerdew, R. 1989. The effect of data aggregation on a Poisson regression model of Canadian migration.In: Accuracy of Spatial Databases. pp. 229–238. Edited by M.F. Goodchild and S. Gopal, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  3. Box, E., Holben, B.N. and Kalb, V. 1989. Accuracy of the AVHRR vegetation index as a predictor of biomass, primary productivity and net CO2 flux. Vegetation 80: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke, I.C., Kittel, T.G.F., Lauenroth, W.K., Snook, P., Yonker, C.M. and Parton, W.J. 1991. Regional analysis of the Great Plains. BioScience 25: 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cliff, A.D. and Ord, J.K. 1973. Spatial Autocorrelation. Pion, London.Google Scholar
  6. Cressie, N.A.C. 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Cullinan, V.I. and Thomas, J.M. 1992. A comparison of quantitative methods for examining landscape pattern and scale. Landscape Ecology 7: 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeAngelis, D.L. and Gross, L.J. (eds.) 1992. Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology: Populations, Communities and Ecosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  9. DeAngelis, D.L. and Waterhouse, J.C. 1987. Equilibrium and nonequilibrium concepts in ecological models. Ecological Monographs 57: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliott-Fisk, D.L. The Boreal Forest. In North American Terrestrial Vegetation, pp. 33–62. Edited by M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Errington, J.C. 1973. The effect of regular and random distributions on the analysis of pattern. Journal of Ecology 61: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Riley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Fotheringham, A.S., 1989. Scale-independent spatial analysis.In: Accuracy of Spatial Databases, pp. 221–228. Edited by M.F. Goodchild and S. Gopal. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  14. Fotheringham, A.S., and Rogerson, P.A. 1993. GIS and spatial analytical problems. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 7: 3–19.Google Scholar
  15. Fotheringham, A.S., and Wong, D.W.S. 1991. the modifiable areal unit problem in statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A 23: 1025–1044.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, R.H., Cale, W.G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1982. Robust analysis of aggregation error. Ecology 63: 1771–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greig-Smith, P. 1952. The use of random and contiguous quadrats in the study of the structure of plant communities. Annals of Botany, New Series 16: 293–316.Google Scholar
  18. Greig-Smith, P. 1957. Quantitative Plant Ecology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Greig-Smith, P. 1979. Pattern in vegetation. Journal of Ecology. 67: 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology, 3rd ed. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, F.G., Strebel, D.E. and Sellers, P.J. 1988. Linking knowledge among spatial and temporal scales: Vegetation, atmosphere, climate and remote sensing. Landscape Ecology 2: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jelinski, D.E., Goodchild, M. and Steyaert, L. 1994. Multiple roles for GIS in global change research: towards a research agenda.In: Environmental Information Management and Analysis: Ecosystem to Global Scales. pp. 41–56. Edited by W.K. Michener, J.W. Brunt and S.G. Stafford, Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D.D. and Howarth, P.J. 1987. The effects of spatial resolution on land cover/land use theme extraction from airborne digital data. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 13: 68–74.Google Scholar
  24. Kershaw, K.A. 1957. The use of cover and frequency in the detection of pattern in plant communities. Ecology 38: 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kershaw, K.A. 1964. Quantitative and Dynamic Ecology. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  26. Legendre, P. and Fortin, M.-J.F. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, S.A. 1993. Concepts of scale at the local level.In: Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe. pp. 7–19. Edited by J.R. Ebleringer and C.B. Field. Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  29. Loveland, T.R., Merchant, J.W., Ohlen, D.O. and Brown, J.F. 1991. Development of a landcover characteristics database for the conterminous U.S. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 1453–1463.Google Scholar
  30. Meentemeyer, V. 1989. Geographical perspectives of space, time, and scale. Landscape Ecology 3: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milne, B.T. 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computing 27: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nellis, M.D. and Briggs, J.M. 1989. The effect of spatial scale on Konza landscape classification using textural analysis. Landscape Ecology 2: 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O'Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. and Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  34. Openshaw, S. 1977. Optimal zoning systems for spatial interaction models. Environment and Planning A: 169–184.Google Scholar
  35. Openshaw, S. 1984. The modifiable areal unit problem. CATMOG 38. GeoBooks, Norwich, England.Google Scholar
  36. Openshaw, S. and Taylor, P. 1979. A million or so correlation coefficients: three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem.In: Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences. pp. 127–144. Edited by N. Wrigley. Pion, London.Google Scholar
  37. Openshaw, S. and Taylor, P.J. 1981. The modifiable areal unit problem.In: Quantitative Geography: A British View. pp. 60–69. Edited by N. Wrigley and R. Bennett. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  38. Openshaw, S., Charlton, M., Wymer, C. and Craft, A. 1987. Mark I geographical analysis machine for the automated analysis of point data sets. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 1: 35–51.Google Scholar
  39. Openshaw, S., Charlton, M. and Craft, A. 1988. Searching for Leukemia clusters using a geographical analysis machine. Papers of the Regional Science Association 64: 95–106.Google Scholar
  40. Gehlke, C.E. and Biehl, K. 1934. Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material. Journal of the American Statistical Association Supplement 29: 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pacala, S.W. and Silander Jr., J.A. 1985. Neighborhood models of plant population dynamics: I. Single-species models of annuals. American Naturalist 125: 385–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Putnam, S.H. and Chung, S.-H. 1989. Effects of spatial system design on spatial interaction models. 1: The spatial system definition problem. Environment of Planning A 21: 27–46.Google Scholar
  43. Rastetter, E.B., King, A.W., Cosby, B.J., Hornberger, G.M., O'Neill, R.V. and Hobbie, J.E. 1992. Aggregating fine-scale ecological knowledge to model coarser-scale attributes of ecosystems. Ecological Applications 2: 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson, A.H. 1950. Ecological correlation and the behaviour of individuals. American Sociological Review 15: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosswall, T., Woodmansee, R.G. and Risser, P.G., editors. 1988. Scales and Global Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Roughgarden, J., Running, S.W. and Matson, P.A. 1991. What does remote sensing do for ecology? Ecology 72: 4: 45–54Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, P.J. and Johnston, R.J. 1979. Geography of Elections. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  48. Tobler, W.R. 1989. Frame independent spatial analysis.In: Accuracy of Spatial Databases, pp. 115–122. Edited by M.F. Goodchild and S. Gopal Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  49. Townshend, J.R.G. and Justice, C.O. 1990. The spatial variation of vegetation changes at very coarse scales. International Journal of Remote Sensing 11: 149–157.Google Scholar
  50. Turner, M.G., Dale, V.H. and Gardner, R.H. 1989. Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology 3: 235–252.Google Scholar
  51. Turner, S.J., O'Neill, R.V., Conley, W., Conley, M.R. and Humphries, H.C. 1981. Pattern and scale: Statistics for landscape ecology.In: Quantitative Methods in Landscape ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. pp. 17–49. Edited by M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Turner, M.G., O'Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Upton, G.J.G. and Fingleton, B. 1985. Spatial data Analysis by Example. Volume 1: Point Pattern and Quantitative Data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  54. Urban, D.L., O'Neill, R.V. and Shugart, H.H., Landscape ecology. BioScience 37: 119–127.Google Scholar
  55. Usher, M.B. 1975. Analysis of pattern in real and artificial plant populations. Journal of Ecology 63: 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of “landscapes” in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle's perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B. and Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar
  58. Williams, E. and Jelinski, D.E. 1995. On using the NOAA AVHRR “Experimental Calibrated Biweekly Global Vegetation Index”. in press Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.Google Scholar
  59. Woodcock, C.E. and Strahler, A.H. 1987. The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 21: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu, J. 1992. Detecting spatial patterns: the net-function interpolation. Coenoses 7: 137–143.Google Scholar
  61. Wu, J. and Levin, S.A. 1994. A spatial patch dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grassland. Ecological Monographs 64: 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu, J. and Loucks, O.L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical path dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology (in press).Google Scholar
  63. Yule, G. and Kendall, M. 1950. An introduction to the theory of statistics. Charles Griffin and Company Limited, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis E. Jelinski
    • 1
  • Jianguo Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, Institute of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations