Environmental Management

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 171–182

Conceptual Models as Hypotheses in Monitoring Urban Landscapes

  • Todd R. Lookingbill
  • Robert H. Gardner
  • Philip A. Townsend
  • Shawn L. Carter


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.


Conceptual ecologic models Model evaluation National Capital Region Network Stressor-response Urban ecology Vital signs monitoring 


  1. Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: A problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaustein AR, Wake DB (1990) Declining amphibian populations: A global phenomenon. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch ED, Trexler JC (2003) Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III, Torn MS, Tateno M (1996) Principles of ecosystem sustainability. The American Naturalist 148: 1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1992) Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 67:179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 6:665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cincota RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins JP, Kinzig A, Grimm N, Fagan BWF, Hope D, Wu J, Borer E (2000) A new urban ecology. American Scientist 88:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins JP, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 167–188Google Scholar
  14. 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 53:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falkner MB, Stolhgren TJ (1997) Evaluating the contribution of small National Park areas to regional biodiversity. Natural Areas Journal 17:324–330Google Scholar
  16. Fancy SG (2002) Monitoring natural resources in our National Parks. Available at http://www.science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor (accessed 31 January 2005)
  17. Findlay CS, Bourdages J (2000) Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsyth A, Musacchio L (2005) Designing small parks: A manual addressing social and ecological concerns. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 184–203Google Scholar
  20. 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 1:315–321Google Scholar
  21. Haefner JW (1996) Modeling biological systems: Principle and applications. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 17:144–148Google Scholar
  23. Heinz Center (2002) The state of the nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL (2000) Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404:752–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson LJ, Trebitz AS, Cottingham KL (2000) An introduction to the practice of ecological modeling. BioScience 50:694–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jauregui E, Romales E (1996) Urban effects on convective precipitation in Mexico City. Atmospheric Environment 30:3383–3389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenny H (1941) The factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser J (2000) Bringing science to the National Parks. Science 288:34–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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, WVGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 1:40–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 3–20Google Scholar
  32. 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 84:2200–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 63–71Google Scholar
  34. Marshall P (1989) Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 21:3473–3486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonald RI, Urban DL (2005) Forest edges and tree growth rates in the North Carolina Piedmont. Ecology 85:2258–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 200:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meiners SJ, Pickett STA, Handel SN (2002) Probability of tree seedling establishment changes across a forest–old field edge gradient. American Journal of Botany 89:466–471Google Scholar
  39. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 pGoogle Scholar
  41. Mueller SF, Bailey EM, Kelsoe JJ (2004) Geographic sensitivity of fine particle mass to emissions of SO2 and NOx. Environmental Science & Technology 38:570–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. National Research Council (2000) Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 49–68Google Scholar
  45. 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 27–71Google Scholar
  46. Oke TR (1988) The urban energy balance. Progress in Physical Geography 12:471–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parlange M (1998) The city as ecosystem. Bioscience 48:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 32:127–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 67–92Google Scholar
  50. Rizzo D, Garbelotto M (2003) Sudden oak death: Endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Semlitsch R (2003) Amphibian conservation. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutter GW II (1999a) Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:375–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sutter GW II (1999b) A framework for assessment of ecological risks from multiple activities. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van den Belt M (2004) Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 104:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 84:219–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 23–67Google Scholar
  58. Woodward A, Jenkins KJ, Schreiner EG (1999) The role of ecological theory in long-term ecological monitoring: Report on a workshop. Natural Areas Journal 19:223–233Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd R. Lookingbill
    • 1
  • Robert H. Gardner
    • 1
  • Philip A. Townsend
    • 3
  • Shawn L. Carter
    • 2
  1. 1.Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceFrostburgUSA
  2. 2.National Capital RegionNational Park ServiceWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations