Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 999–1011 | Cite as

Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US

  • David M. TheobaldEmail author
Research Article


Quantifying landscape dynamics is a central goal of landscape ecology, and numerous metrics have been developed to measure the influence of human activities on natural landscapes. Composite scores that characterize human modifications to landscapes have gained widespread use. A parsimonious alternative is to estimate the proportion of a cover type (i.e. natural) within a spatial neighborhood to characterize both compositional and structural aspects of natural landscapes. Here I extend this approach into a multi-scale, integrated metric and apply it to national datasets on land cover, housing density, road existence, and highway traffic volume to measure the dynamics of natural landscapes in the conterminous US. Roughly one-third of the conterminous US (2.6 million km2) in 1992 was classified as human-dominated. By 2001 this expanded by 80,800 km2, and forecasted residential growth by 2030 will potentially lead to an additional loss of up to 92,200 km2. Wetland cover types were particularly affected. The natural landscapes metric developed here provides a simple, robust measure of landscape dynamics that has a direct physical interpretation related to proportion of natural habitat affected at a location, represents landscapes as a gradient of conditions rather predicated on patch/matrix definition, and measures the spatial context of natural areas.


Natural landscapes Landscape dynamics Human modification Land use change Road use 



Thanks to F. Davis, J. Evans, J. Gross, S. Litschert, S. Reed, and A. Wade for comments on earlier drafts, and for insightful and helpful comments from the reviewers. This work was supported in part by a NASA Decision Support award through the Earth Science Research Results Program, and as a Visiting Researcher at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara.


  1. Alexander SM, Waters NM, Paquet PC (2005) Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can Geogr 49(4):321–331Google Scholar
  2. Aplet G, Thomson J, Wilbert M (2000) Indicators of wildness: using attributes of the land to assess the context of wilderness. In: McCool SF, Cole DN, Borrie WT, O’Loughlin J (2000) Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 2: wilderness within the context of larger systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp 89–98Google Scholar
  3. Bosworth D (2004) Four threats to the Nation’s forest and grasslands. Idaho Environmental Forum, Boise, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  4. Chruszcz B, Clevenger AP, Gunson KE, Gibeau ML (2003) Relationships among grizzly bears, highways, and habitat in the Banff-Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada. Can J Zool 81(8):1378–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crooks KR, Sanjayan MA (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2007. GDT Streetmap 2006 databaseGoogle Scholar
  7. Fancy SG, Gross JE, Carter SL (2008) Monitoring the condition of natural resources in US National Parks. Environ Monit Assess 151:161–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman CR, Heanue K, Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Turrentine T, Winter TC (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Fortin MJ, Olson RJ, Ferson S (2000) Issues related to the detection of boundaries. Landscape Ecol 15:453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner RH, Urban DL (2007) Neutral models for testing landscape hypotheses. Landscape Ecol 22:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaucherel C (2007) Multiscale heterogeneity map and associated scaling profile for landscape analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 82:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Girvetz EH, Thorne JH, Berry AM, Jaeger JAG (2008) Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: a statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 86:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez-Abraham CE, Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Hawbaker TJ, Stewart SI, Clayton MK (2007) Patterns of houses and habitat loss from 1937 to 1999 in northern Wisconsin, USA. Ecol Appl 17(7):2011–2023CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross JE, Goetz SJ, Cihlar J (2009) Application of remote sensing to parks and protected area monitoring: Introduction to the special issue. Remote Sensing Environ 113:1343–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multi-criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manage 21(9):1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hannah L, Carr JL, Lankerani A (1995) Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodivers Conserv 4:128–155Google Scholar
  21. Hansen AJ, DeFries R (2007) Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol Appl 17:974–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones K (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15(6):1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinz Center (2008) The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008: measuring the land, waters, and living resources of the United States. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ, Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2007) The evolution of urban sprawl: evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(52):20672–20677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15(2):115–130Google Scholar
  27. Jaeger JAG, Bowman J, Brennan J, Fahrig L, Bert D, Bouchard J, Charbonneau N, Frank K, Gruber B, von Toschanowitz KT (2005) Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecol Modell 185:329–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  29. Kliskey AD (1998) Linking the wilderness perception mapping concept to the recreation opportunity spectrum. Environ Manage 22(1):79–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leinwand I (2009) Land use patterns and trends in the Southern Rocky Mountains, US at the public-private interface. MS Thesis, Colorado State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesslie RG, Mackey BG, Preece KM (1988) A computer-based method of wilderness evaluation. Environ Conserv 15(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leu M, Hanser SE, Knick ST (2008) The human footprint in the West: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecol Appl 18(5):1119–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Li BL, Archer S (1997) Weighted mean patch size: a robust index for quantifying landscape structure. Ecol Modell 102:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 24:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merenlender AM, Reed SE, Heise KL (2009) Exurban development influences woodland bird composition. Landsc Urban Plan 92:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NatureServe 2009. Terrestrial ecological systems of the United States.
  38. Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol 19:435–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed SE, Merenlender AM (2008) Quiet, non-consumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. Conserv Lett 1:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Jones KB, Smith ER, Coulston JW, Wade TG, Smith JH (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Wade TG (2009a) An indicator of forest dynamics using a shifting landscape mosaic. Ecol Indic 9(1):107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Wade TG (2009b) Evaluating anthropogenic risk of grassland and forest habitat degradation using land-cover data. Landsc Online 13:1–14Google Scholar
  44. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52(10):891–904Google Scholar
  45. Schultz MT (2001) A critique of EPA’s index of watershed indicators. J Environ Manage 62:429–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie G, Groves C (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecol Appl 11:999–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoms DM (2000) GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity. Landscape Ecol 15:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Svancara LK, Scott JM, Loveland TR, Pidgorna AB (2009) Assessing the landscape context and conversion risk of protected areas using satellite data products. Remote Sensing Environ 113:1357–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Theobald DM (2003) Targeting conservation action through assessment of protection and exurban threats. Conserv Biol 17(6):1624–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc 10(1):32Google Scholar
  51. Theobald DM, Hobbs NT (2002) Functional definition of landscape structure using a gradient-based approach. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale, pp 667–674Google Scholar
  52. Theobald DM, Miller JM, Hobbs NT (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 39(1):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Theobald DM, Norman JB III, Newman P (2010) Estimating visitor use of protected areas by modeling accessibility: a case study in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. J Conserv Plan 6:1–20Google Scholar
  54. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. US Department of Transportation (USDOT) (2007) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) 2007 CD. Research and Innovative Technology Administration/Bureau of Transportation Statistics, January 2007Google Scholar
  56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; Bierwagen B, Theobald DM, Pyke CR, Choate A, Groth P, Thomas JV, Morefield P) (2009) Land-use scenarios: national-scale housing-density scenarios consistent with climate change storylines. Global change research program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/076F.
  57. US General Accounting Office (GAO) (1994) National Park Service: activities outside park borders have caused damage to resources and will likely cause more. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Wade AA, Theobald DM (2010) Residential encroachment on U.S. protected areas. Conserv Biol 24(1):151–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wade TG, Wickham JD, Zacarelli N, Riitters KH (2009) A multi-scale method of mapping urban influence. Environ Modell Softw 24:1252–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Western Governors Association (WGA) (2008) Western Governors Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative Report. 29 June. Accessed 12 Oct 2008)
  61. Wickham JD, Riitters KH, Wade TG, Homer C (2008) Temporal change in fragmentation of continental US forests. Landscape Ecol 23:891–898Google Scholar
  62. Woolmer G, Trombulak SC, Ray JC, Doran PJ, Anderson MG, Baldwin RF, Morgan A, Sanderson EW (2008) Rescaling the human footprint: a tool for conservation planning at an ecoregional scale. Landsc Urban Plan 87:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaccarelli N, Riitters KH, Petrosillo I, Zurlini G (2008) Indicating disturbance content and context for preserved areas. Ecol Indic 8:841–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zurlini G, Riitters KH, Zaccarelli N, Petrosillo N (2007) Patterns of disturbance at multiple scales in real and simulated landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22(4):705–721Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Dimensions of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology LabColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations