Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 391–407 | Cite as

Contextual clustering for configuring collaborative conservation of watersheds in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands

  • Wayne L. Myers
  • Mary McKenney-Easterling
  • Kristen Hychka
  • Bronson Griscom
  • Joseph A. Bishop
  • Alynne Bayard
  • Gian L. Rocco
  • Robert P. Brooks
  • George Constantz
  • G. P. Patil
  • Charles Taillie
Original Article

Abstract

The environmental purpose is to characterize watersheds in a region regarding vulnerability and resiliency relative to present and potential degradation of water quality due to human impact based on available spatial information and multidisciplinary expertise. Available information is of six general types as (1) physical and topographic conformation, (2) soil factors, (3) climatic factors, (4) hydrologic characteristics, (5) land-cover/land-use, and (6) prior records of sampling at selected locations for water quality and biological indicators. The strategy is first to develop cluster-based classes of watersheds that are expected to have similar responses to anthropogenic stressors, without using indicators of landscape condition that are directly influenced by local human activity. Watersheds in these classes can then be analyzed for degree of human influence as indicated by land-cover/land-use demographics. More sparse data on water quality and biological indicators at stream sampling locations provide a basis for determining the degradation response to human-induced stressors in each class along with potential for remediation. Focus in this paper is on the first task of cluster-based classification.

Statistical adaptation comes in combining empirical objectivity of clustering with interdisciplinary environmental expertise, such that the trajectory of investigation arises from team expertise while the formulation is shaped statistically. Expertise enters initially in recognizing subsets of available descriptors that characterize different aspects of the watershed context needing to be explored separately rather than being completely confounded. Reduction of redundancy among available descriptors and removal of outliers are preliminary concerns. Clustering then proceeds through a series of phases using the sets of variables individually and in selected combinations. Contingency of composite clustering relative to separately clustered sets is examined via special cross tabulations in order to elucidate interactions between sets of variables. The spatial nature of the investigation contributes the major contextual capability for exercising team expertise through visualization using geographic information systems (GIS) that enhances and integrates insights from clustering, particularly with regard to spatial distribution of cluster membership.

Keywords

Watersheds Classification Clustering Geographic information systems Environment 

References

  1. Bryce, SA, Clarke, SE 1996Landscape-level ecological regions: linking state-level ecoregion frameworks with stream habitat classificationsEnviron. Manage.20297311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryce, SA, Omernik, JM, Larsen, DP 1999Ecoregions: a geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem managementEnviron Practice1141155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chrisman, N 2002Exploring geographic information systemsJohn Wiley & SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Classen, FAM, Klijn, F, Witte, JFPM, Nienhuis, JG 1994Ecosystem classification and hydro-ecological modeling for national water managementKlijn, F eds. Ecosystem classification for environmental managementKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht, Netherlands199222Google Scholar
  5. Collins, A, Constantz, G, Hunter, S, Selin, S 1998Collaborative watershed planning: the West Virginia experienceConserv Voices13135Google Scholar
  6. Constantz, G 2000Grass-roots based watershed conservation in central AppalachiaMountain Res Develop20122125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Detenbeck, NE, Batterman, SL, Brady, VJ, Brazner, JC, Snarski, VM, Taylor, DL, Thompson, JA 2000A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessmentEnviron Toxicol Chem1911741181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Digby, PGN, Kempton, RA 1991Multivariate analysis of ecological communitiesChapman & HallNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffith, GE, Omernik, JM, Woods, AJ 1999Ecoregions, watersheds, basins and HUCs: how state and federal agencies frame water qualityJ Soil Water Conserv4666677Google Scholar
  10. Gunderson, LH 2000Resilience in theory and practiceAnnu Rev Ecol System31425439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartigan, JA 1975Clustering algorithmsJohn Wiley & SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins, CP, Norris, RH, Hogue, JN, Feminella, JW 2000Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streamsEcol Appl1014561477Google Scholar
  13. Hunsaker, CT, Levine, DA 1995Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in riversBioscience45193203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Imhof, J, Fitzgibbon, J, Annable, WK 1996A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitatCan J Fish Aquat Sci53312326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, GD, Myers, WL, Patil, GP 2001Predictability of surface water pollution loading in Pennsylvania using watershed-based landscape measurementsJ Am Water Resources Assoc37821835Google Scholar
  16. Jones, KB, Neale, AC, Nash, MS, Remortel, RD, Wickham, JD, Ritters, KH, O’Neil, RV 2001Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic RegionLandscape Ecol16301312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones KB, Ritters KH, Wickham JD, Tankersley RD, O’Neill RV, Chaloud DJ, Smith ER, Neale AC (1997) An ecological assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic region: a landscape atlas. EPA/600/R-97/130, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  18. McCune, B, Grace, JB 2002Analysis of ecological communitiesMJM Software DesignGleneden, ORGoogle Scholar
  19. McGarigal, K, Cushman, S, Stafford, S 2000Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology researchSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Minitab Inc2003Meet MINITAB, release 14 for windows. Minitab, Inc.State CollegePAGoogle Scholar
  21. Morain, S eds. 1999GIS solutions in natural resource managementOnWord PressSanta Fe, NMGoogle Scholar
  22. Podani, J 2000Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological dataBackhuys PublishersLeiden, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Rohlf, F.J., Sokal, R.R. 1981Comparing numerical taxonomic studiesSyst. Zool.2001459490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. USEPA (2000) Mid-Atlantic highlands streams assessment. EPA/903/R-00/015. US. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, pp 64Google Scholar
  25. Whiting, PJ, Bradley, JB 1993A process-based classification system for headwater streamsEarth Surface Process Landforms18603612Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne L. Myers
    • 1
  • Mary McKenney-Easterling
    • 2
  • Kristen Hychka
    • 2
  • Bronson Griscom
    • 4
  • Joseph A. Bishop
    • 2
  • Alynne Bayard
    • 2
  • Gian L. Rocco
    • 2
  • Robert P. Brooks
    • 2
  • George Constantz
    • 4
  • G. P. Patil
    • 3
  • Charles Taillie
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate Studies in the School of Forest ResourcesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Canaan Valley InstituteThomasUSA

Personalised recommendations