Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 7, pp 1133–1143 | Cite as

Managing the middle ground: forests in the transition zone between cities and remote areas

  • Charles Colgan
  • Malcolm L. Hunter
  • Brian McGill
  • Aaron Weiskittel
Perspective
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In many parts of the world there are extensive landscapes where forests and people strongly intermingle, notably in the suburbs and exurbs of cities. This landscape of transitional forest generally receives limited attention from policy makers and researchers who tend to be rooted in traditions centered on either urban planning or management of natural resources in rural areas. The transitional forest is on the periphery of both perspectives, but it is a large area that provides numerous important values (biodiversity, ecosystem function, forest products, and amenities) to the people that live in them and their neighboring cities. Here we argue for increased attention to transitional forests, identify major challenges, and suggest changes to planning and management practices needed to ensure that the values of these forests are sustained.

Keywords

Forests Ecosystem services Urban planning Natural resources management 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was completed with funding provided by the University of Maine, Sustainability Solutions Initiative (National Science Foundation ESPCoR #EPS-0904155) and Maine Agricultural and Forest Station Publication Number 3377. The authors would like to thank Spencer Meyer, David Kitteridge, Evan Richert, Mark Lapping, Lisa Schulte and two anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback that improved earlier drafts.

References

  1. Alberti M, Marzluff J, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for urban ecology. BioScience 53:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderman D (2013) North American and global forest product markets. Timber measurement society central meeting. Ferndale, WA, 10–12 AprilGoogle Scholar
  3. Athreya V, Odden M, Linnell JDC, Krishnaswamy J, Karanth U (2013) Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS ONE 8:e57872PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball J (1997) On the urban edge: a new and enhanced role for foresters. J For 95:6–10Google Scholar
  5. Beattie J, Kollin C, Moll C (2000) Trees tackle clean water regulations. Am For 106:18–19Google Scholar
  6. Brail RK (2008) Planning support systems for cities and regions. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge 312Google Scholar
  7. Butler BJ, Ma Z, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro PF (2010) Social versus biophysical availability of wood in the northern United States. North J Appl For 27:151–159Google Scholar
  8. Buyantuyev A, Wu J, Gries C (2010) Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA: time, space, and thematic resolution. Landsc Urban Plan 94:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colgan C, Yakovleff D, Merrill S (2013) An assessment of the economics of natural and built infrastructure for water resources in Maine. University of Southern Maine, New England Environmental Finance Center, Portland, ME p 58Google Scholar
  10. Cotugno A, Benner R (2011) Regional growth management in Portland metropolitan area. In: Montgomery CK (ed) Regional planning for a sustainable America: How creative programs are promoting prosperity and saving the environment. Rutgers University, Piscataway, pp 35–47Google Scholar
  11. D’Amato AW, Catanzaro PF, Damery DT, Kittredge DB, Ferrare KA (2010) Are family forest owners facing a future in which forest management is not enough? North J Appl For 108:32–38Google Scholar
  12. Degraaf, RM, Healy, WM (1990) Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the Northeast? Gen Tec Rep NE-140. US Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Radnor, PA p 32Google Scholar
  13. Edwards KK, Bliss JC (2003) It’s a neighborhood now: practicing forestry at the urban fringe. J For 101:6–11Google Scholar
  14. Egan AF, Luloff AE (2000) The exurbanization of America’s forest: research in rural social science. J For 98:26–30Google Scholar
  15. Erickson D (2006) MetroGreen: connecting open space in North American cities. Island Press, Washington 352Google Scholar
  16. Ewing R, Bartholomew K, Winkelmn S, Walters J, Chen D (2009) Growing cooler: the evidence of urban development and climate change. Renew Resour J 25:6–13Google Scholar
  17. Fischer AP, Bliss J, Ingemarson F, Lidestavd G (2010) From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA. Scand J For Res 25:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs JP (1998) Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecol 13:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godefroid S, Koedam N (2007) Urban plant species patterns are highly driven by density and function of built-up areas. Land Ecol 22:1227–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon JC, Sampson RN, Berry JK (2004) The challenge of maintaining working forests in the wildland-urban interface. In: Vince SW, Duryea ML, Macie EA, Hermansen A (eds) Forests at the wildland-urban interface: conservation and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 15–23Google Scholar
  21. 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 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kline JD, Azuma DL, Alig RJ (2004) Population growth, urban expansion, and private forests in Oregon. For Sci 50:22–43Google Scholar
  23. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2003) Sound science or social hooks: a response to Brooker’s application of the focal species approach. Landsc Urban Plan 62:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowrance R, Todd R, Fail J, Henderickson O, Leonard R, Asmussen L (1984) Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maine Revenue Service (2013) Maine tree growth tax law. Property tax bulletin 19. State of Maine Department of Administrative and Financial Services. Augusta, MEGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin LJ, Blossey B, Ellis E (2012) Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations. Front Ecol Environ 10:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCloskey JT, Lilieholm RJ, Cronan CS (2011) Using Bayesian belief networks to identify future compatibilities and conflicts between development and landscape conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 101:190–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McWilliam W, Brown R, Eagles P, Seasons M (2014) Barriers to the effective planning and management of residential encroachment within urban forest edges: a Southern Ontario, Canada case study. Urban For Urban Green 13:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medley KE, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1995) Forest-landscape structure along an urban-to-rural gradient. Prof Geogr 47:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer SR, Johnson ML, Lilieholm RJ (2012) Land conservation in the United States: evolution and innovation cross the urban–rural interface. In: Laband DN, Lockaby BG, Zipperer W (eds) Urban-rural interfaces: linking people and nature. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 225–255Google Scholar
  32. Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M (1993) The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuschulz EL, Brown M, Farwig N (2013) Frequent bird movements across a highly fragmented landscape: the role of species traits and forest matrix. Anim Conserv 16:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2000) The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model: Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T (eds) Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. Gen Tech Rep NC-212. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, MN pp 714–720Google Scholar
  35. Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA, McPherson EG, Sisinni SM, Kerkmann ER, Stevens JC (1996) Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landsc Urban Plan 36:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patterson ME, Montag JM, Williams DR (2000) The urbanization of wildlife management: social science, conflict, and decision-making. Urban For Urban Green 1:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radeloff V, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holocomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15:799–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwab JC (ed) (2009) Planning the urban forest: ecology, economy, and community development. Planning Advisory Service Report 555. American Planning Association. Chicago, IL p 156Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz MW, Hellmann JJ, Mclachlan JM, Sax DF, Borevitz JO, Brennan J, Camacho AE, Ceballos G, Clark JR, Doremus H, Early R, Etterson JR, Fielder D, Gill JL, Gonzalez P, Green N, Hannah L, Jamieson DW, Javeline D, Minteer BA, Odenbaugh J, Polasky S, Richardson DM, Root TL, Safford HD, Sala O, Schneider SH, Thompson AR, Williams JW, Vellend M, Vitt P, Zellmer S (2012) Managed relocation: integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. BioScience 62:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shelby B, Tokarczyk JA, Johnson RL (2004) Timber harvests and forest neighbors: the Urban Fringe Research Project at Oregon State University. J For 102:8–13Google Scholar
  42. Soulé ME (1991) Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: guidelines for conserving wildlife in an urban landscape. J Am Plan Assoc 57:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Alig RJ, Nelson MD, Theobald DM, Eley M, Dechter M, Carr M (2005) Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s private forests. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-636. US Forest Service, Portland, OR p 15Google Scholar
  44. Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Alig RJ, Carr M (2009) Forests on the edge. In: Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (eds) Forest resources of the United States, 2007. US Forest Service, Washington, pp 36–40Google Scholar
  45. Stokes JC, Grogan SR (2011) Pinelands National Reserve: saving a unique ecosystem in the nation’s most densely developed state. In: Montgomery CK (ed) Regional planning for a sustainable America: how creative programs are promoting prosperity and saving the environment. Rutgers University, Piscataway, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  46. Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc 10:32Google Scholar
  47. Thorne S, Sundquist D (2001) New Hampshire’s vanishing forests: conversion, fragmentation and parcelization of forests in the Granite State. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord 153Google Scholar
  48. Tilghman NG (1987) Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting breeding bird diversity and abundance. Landsc Urban Plan 14:481–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tyrväinen L (1997) The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landsc Urban Plan 37:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68:297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wear DN, Liu R, Foreman JM, Sheffield RM (1999) The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. For Ecol Manage 118:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu J (2008) Toward a landscape ecology of cities: beyond buildings, trees, and urban forests. In: CarreiroMargaret M, Song Y-C, Wu J (eds) Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests. Springer, New York, pp 10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zipperer WC, Foresman TW, Walker SP, Daniel CT (2012) Ecological consequences of fragmentation and deforestation in an urban landscape: a case study. Urban Ecosyst 15:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Colgan
    • 1
  • Malcolm L. Hunter
    • 2
  • Brian McGill
    • 3
  • Aaron Weiskittel
    • 4
  1. 1.Muskie School of Public ServiceUniversity of Southern MainePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.School of Biology and EcologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  4. 4.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations