Advertisement

Current Landscape Ecology Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 43–56 | Cite as

An Analysis of Trends in Urban Landscape Ecology Research in Spatial Ecological Literature Between 1986 and 2016

  • Trymore Muderere
  • Amon Murwira
  • Paradzayi Tagwireyi
Effects of Landscape Structure on Conservation of Species and Biodiversity (J Watling, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Effects of Landscape Structure on Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Abstract

Growth of scientific literature on human-environment interactions in urban landscapes is occurring at an exponential rate, prompting a need to synthesize the literature to guide future research. Using a systematic review process, we quantified trends in urban landscape ecology studies published in spatial ecology literature from nine spatial ecology journals between 1986 and 2016. Specifically, we identified publication trends and assessed geographic and taxonomic focus, study approach, data types, temporal scale, spatial extent of study area, spatial resolution of remotely sensed data, and study site types. Results indicated that field-collected and socioeconomic data are the common data types, whereas remotely sensed data are infrequent. Although few studies employed remote sensing, those that did tended to use moderate to high spatial resolution imageries at spatiotemporal scales of < 10,000km2 and < 2 years. Birds, plants, and mammals were the most frequently studied taxa, whereas insects and cross-taxa studies were few. Intensely built-up areas and urban forests were the most frequently studied ecosystem types, followed by grassland, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Urban core areas were studied more than suburban, exurban, and rural-urban gradients. The majority of studies were from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, while studies from Africa, South America, and across regions were limited. Our results suggest that urban landscape ecology research is receiving a limited but growing focus in the spatial ecology literature (< 9% of publication by volume). Therefore, urban landscape ecological studies which integrate coupled data across-taxa and varying spatiotemporal scales are imperative.

Keywords

Literature citation frequency VOSviewer Geographic information systems Remote sensing Systematic review Urban ecosystems Urban landscape ecology Urban ecology Landscape ecology Spatial ecology 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Crutzen PJ. Geology of mankind. Nature. 2002;415(6867):23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR. The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 2007;36(8):614–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009;14(2)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brito L, Stafford Smith M. State of the Planet Declaration. Planet Under Pressure Conference. International Council for Science, Londres; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buyantuyev A, Wu J. Urbanization diversifies land surface phenology in arid environments: interactions among vegetation, climatic variation, and land use pattern in the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012;105(1–2):149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alberti M, Correa C, Marzluff JM, Hendry A, Palkovacs EP, Gotanda KM, Hunt VM, Apgar TM, Zhou Y. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2017;201606034. pp 8951–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. In: Marzluff JM, et al., editors. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer US; 2008. p. 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desa U. World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision. Final Report with Annex Tables. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; United Nations Secretariat, 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habitat U. Global report on human settlements 2009: planning sustainable cities. London: Earthscan; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pathirana A, Denekew HB, Veerbeek W, Zevenbergen C, Banda AT. Impact of urban growth-driven landuse change on microclimate and extreme precipitation—a sensitivity study. Atmos Res. 2014;138:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jenerette GD, Potere D. Global analysis and simulation of land-use change associated with urbanization. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25(5):657–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu J, Buyantuyev A, Jenerette GD, Litteral J, Neil K, Shen W. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns and ecological effects of urbanization: A multiscale landscape approach. Applied urban ecology: A global framework, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011. p. 33–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alberti M. Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. Washington DC: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schneider A, Friedl MA, Potere D. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite data. Environ Res Lett. 2009;4(4):044003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rees W, Wackernagel M. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. In: Marzluff JM, et al., editors. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer US; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. In: Marzluff JM, et al., editors. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer US; 2008. p. 123–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hepinstall-Cymerman J, Coe S, Hutyra LR. Urban growth patterns and growth management boundaries in the Central Puget Sound, Washington, 1986–2007. Urban Ecosystems. 2013;16(1):109–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forman RT. The urban region: natural systems in our place, our nourishment, our home range, our future, Landsc Eco, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 251–253, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lovett GM, Jones CG, Turner MG, Weathers KC. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes, Eds. New York, Springer US, 2005, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K. Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Washington: Island Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Francis RA, Millington JDA, Chadwick MA. An overview of landscape ecology in cities. In: Francis RA, Millington JDA, Chadwick MA, editors. Urban Landscape Ecology: Science, Policy and Practice. London: Earthscan; 2016. p. 1–18. The paper presents a similar study, though in a different way, in the opening chapter of Urban Landscape Ecology: Science, Policy and Practice, where the authors (Francis, Millington and Chadwick) look at 1,067 articles from 1979-2015 and describe trends in topics covered, organisms covered, and geographical regions (with a more specific focus on urban landscape ecology). This does not lessen the value of the work we present, but this overlapping study makes some useful comparisons. For example, in our study we note that most studies were conducted in North America, which is the same as the Francis study (though this was done at a finer country level), but Asia then comes quite far down the list, whereas Francis finds the second largest producer of spatial urban work is China. This is then a legacy of using just 9 journals in the current paper, rather than all journals, and with more general scope. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Rocchini D, Hernández-Stefanoni JL, He KS. Advancing species diversity estimate by remotely sensed proxies: a conceptual review. Ecological informatics. 2015;25:22–8. The authors present a review of spatial ecology literature and the integration of geographic information systems and remote sensing and landscape metrics an aspect reviewed in this current paper. It makes important inferences on cross-species surrogacy using the presence of one species to infer the presence or absence of other species. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hobbs ER. Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Landsc Ecol. 1988;1(3):141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forman RT, Godron M. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience. 1981;31(10):733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Forman RT, Godron M. Landscape ecology. New York: Wiley; 1986. p. 619.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu JJ. Landscape ecology, crossdisciplinarity, and sustainability science, Landsc Ecol, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    •• Turner MG. Landscape ecology in North America: past, present, and future. Ecology. 2005;86(8):1967–74. This article describes the development of landscape ecology in North America, discusses current questions and new insights that have emerged, and comments on future directions that are likely to produce new ecological insights. It is an important text reference as it unpacks broader theoretical underpinnings of landscape ecology as a scientific field concerned with understanding the reciprocal interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes, although it focuses on country level development of landscape ecology in the United States. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Skidmore AK, Franklin J, Dawson TP, Pilesjö P. Geospatial tools address emerging issues in spatial ecology: a review and commentary on the Special Issue. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2011;25(3):337–65. The authors present an expert commentary and review of Spatial Ecology theory, highlighting selected current themes of focus including the prominent role of geographic information systems and remote sensing in quantifying spatial phenomena which draws parallel to the findings of this paper. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turner MG. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1989;20(1):171–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiens JA. What is landscape ecology, really? Landsc Ecol. 1992;7(3):149–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turner MG. Landscape ecology—the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1989;20:171–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Magle SB, Hunt VM, Vernon M, Crooks KR. Urban wildlife research: past, present, and future. Biol Conserv. 2012;155:23–32. The authors performed a thorough assessment of urban wildlife research from 1971 to 2010. They observed that the rates of publication for urban wildlife research are increasing but remain low, most work is in conservation, landscape ecology, and wildlife biology journals, most urban wildlife research is from North America, Europe, and Australia, most urban wildlife research is conducted on birds and mammals. Apart from key observations that resonate with our key findings the authors observed that birds were the most commonly studied taxon and the broad review of literature their adoption and deployment of the systematic review method offers important insights. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiens JA. Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landsc Ecol. 2009;24(8):1053–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walbridge MR. Growing interest in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems. 1998;2(1):3–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wright R. Integration in land research for third world development planning: an applied aspect of landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 1987;1(2):107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    •• Walz U. Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev. Landscape Res. 2011;5(3):1–35. Ulrich Walz’s paper presents a review of landscape ecology literature focusing on the scientific state of the art with particular emphasis on landscape metrics including identification of gaps in the knowledge. Ulrich Walz’s work is therefore a critical reference that offer an in-depth review on the utility of landscape metrics a subject outside the scope of this paper. Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pickett STA, et al. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. In: Marzluff JM, et al., editors. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer US; 2008. p. 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McDonnell MJ, Pickett ST. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology. 1990;71(4):1232–1237.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK. The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23(10):1143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML. Advancing urban ecological studies: frameworks, concepts, and results from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. Austral Ecology. 2006;31(2):114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML, Childers DL, McDonnell MJ, Zhou W. Evolution and future of urban ecological science: ecology in, of, and for the city. EHS. 2016;2(7):1–16.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu J, Loucks OL. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol. 1995;70(4):439–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramalho CE, Hobbs RJ. Straw man or scaffolding? Building the foundations of urban ecology: a reply to McDonnell et al. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27(5):256–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pickett S, Cadenasso M, Grove J. Biocomplexity in coupled natural–human systems: a multidimensional framework. Ecosystems. 2005;8(3):225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grimm NB, Grove JG, Pickett ST, Redman CL. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems: urban ecological systems present multiple challenges to ecologists—pervasive human impact and extreme heterogeneity of cities, and the need to integrate social and ecological approaches, concepts, and theory. AIBS Bull. 2000;50(7):571–84.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramalho CE, Hobbs RJ. Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27(3):179–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schneider A, Woodcock CE. Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Stud. 2008;45(3):659–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Risser PG, Iverson LR. 30 years later—landscape ecology: directions and approaches. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(3)367–369.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wu JJ. Making the case for landscape ecology an effective approach to urban sustainability. Landsc J. 2008;27(1):41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu J, He C, Huang G, Yu D. Urban landscape ecology: past, present, and future. In: Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture. Springer; 2013. p. 37–53.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv. 2006;132(4):409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Khan KS, Ter Riet G, GlanvilleJ, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews (no. 4 (2n). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2001.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mulrow CD. Systematic review: rationale for systematic reviews. Br Med J. 1994;309:597–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gates S. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J Anim Ecol. 2002;71(4):547–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Esri, G. M. International, and U. S. C. I. Agency. The World Factbook [Online]. Available: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a3cb207855b348a297ab85261743351d.
  58. 58.
    Young C, Jarvis P, Hooper I, Trueman IC. Urban landscape ecology and its evaluation: a review. New York: Nova Science; 2009.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fortin MJ, Dale MR, Ver Hoef JM. Spatial analysis in ecology. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. 2002.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Buyantuyev A, Wu J. Urbanization alters spatiotemporal patterns of ecosystem primary production: a case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. J Arid Environ. 2009;73(4):512–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shandas V, Alberti M. Exploring the role of vegetation fragmentation on aquatic conditions: linking upland with riparian areas in Puget Sound lowland streams. Landsc Urban Plan. 2009;90(1):66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    McWilliam WJ, Brown RD. Effects of housing development on bird species diversity in a forest fragment in Ontario, Canada. Landsc Res. 2001;26(4):407–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    • Young R, Wolf S. Goal attainment in urban ecology research: a bibliometric review 1975–2004. Urban Ecosystems. 2006;9(3):179–93. The paper is of importance to urban ecology, although the focus is on two leading journals. The authors analyse a core literature of urban ecology (all articles published in Urban Ecology and Urban Ecosystems from 1975–2004, n = 261) to support a reflexive analysis of the field. The paper presents an analysis based on criteria derived from programmatic statements made by scientific societies, research funding organizations and academic institutions regarding what urban ecology should be. These debates are not covered in our paper. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Groom G, Mücher C, Ihse M, Wrbka T. Remote sensing in landscape ecology: experiences and perspectives in a European context. Landsc Ecol. 2006;21(3):391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Newton AC, et al. Remote sensing and the future of landscape ecology. Prog Phys Geogr. 2009;33(4):528–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Steiniger S, Hay GJ. Free and open source geographic information tools for landscape ecology. Ecological Informatics. 2009;4(4):183–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Legendre P, Dale MR, Fortin MJ, Gurevitch J, Hohn M, Myers D. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography. 2002;25(5):601–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Weng Q. Global urban monitoring and assessment through earth observation. CRC Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Richter M, et al. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns and ecological effects of urbanization: a multiscale landscape approach. In: Richter M, Weiland U, editors. Applied Urban Ecology: A Global Framework. Chichester: Wiley; 2011. p. 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gamba P, Herold M. Global mapping of human settlement: experiences, datasets, and prospects. CRC Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schneider A, Friedl MA, Potere D. Mapping global urban areas using MODIS 500-m data: new methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions. Remote Sens Environ. 2010;114(8):1733–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Leinenkugel P, Esch T, Kuenzer C. Settlement detection and impervious surface estimation in the Mekong Delta using optical and SAR remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ. 2011;115(12):3007–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Goodchild MF. Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010. JOSIS, 2010;2010(1):3–20.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Murwira A. Scale matters!: a new approach to quantify spatial heterogeneity for predicting the distribution of wildlife. Wageningen Universiteit. 2003.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tagwireyi P, Sullivan SMP. Riverine landscape patch heterogeneity drives riparian ant assemblages in the Scioto River Basin, USA. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Alberti M, et al. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: an empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;80(4):345–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Iverson LR. Land-use changes in Illinois, ASA: the influence of landscape attributes on current and historic land use. Landsc Ecol. 1988;2(1):45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Findlay CS, Bourdages J. Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conserv Biol. 1999;14(1):86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Magle SB, Theobald DM, Crooks KR. A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landsc Ecol. 2009;24(2):267–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gontier M, Balfors B, Mörtberg U. Biodiversity in environmental assessment: tools for impact prediction. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2006;26(3):268–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wu J. Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Roch L, Jaeger JAG. Monitoring an ecosystem at risk: what is the degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies? Environ Monit Assess. 2013;186(4):2505–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gibb H, Hochuli DF. Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv. 2002;106(1):91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Luck M, Wu J. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc Ecol. 2002;17(4):327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gontier M. Biodiversity in environmental assessment: tools for impact prediction. KTH. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trymore Muderere
    • 1
  • Amon Murwira
    • 1
  • Paradzayi Tagwireyi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Centre for Geoinformation Science and Earth ObservationUniversity of ZimbabweHarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations