Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using an Ecoregion Framework to Analyze Land-Cover and Land-Use Dynamics

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The United States has a highly varied landscape because of wide-ranging differences in combinations of climatic, geologic, edaphic, hydrologic, vegetative, and human management (land use) factors. Land uses are dynamic, with the types and rates of change dependent on a host of variables, including land accessibility, economic considerations, and the internal increase and movement of the human population. There is a convergence of evidence that ecoregions are very useful for organizing, interpreting, and reporting information about land-use dynamics. Ecoregion boundaries correspond well with patterns of land cover, urban settlement, agricultural variables, and resource-based industries. We implemented an ecoregion framework to document trends in contemporary land-cover and land-use dynamics over the conterminous United States from 1973 to 2000. Examples of results from six eastern ecoregions show that the relative abundance, grain of pattern, and human alteration of land-cover types organize well by ecoregion and that these characteristics of change, themselves, change through time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. J. R. Anderson E. E. Hardy J. T. Roach R. E. Witmer (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Professional Paper 964 US Geological Survey Reston, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Map, scale 1: 7,500,000.

  3. R. G. Bailey (1983) ArticleTitleDelineation of ecosystem regions Environmental Management 7 365–373 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01866919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. R. G. Bailey (1994) Global Ecosystems Database, Global View CD-ROM. Ecosystem and Global Change Program National Geophysical Data Center Boulder, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Bascom (2000) ArticleTitleRevisiting the rural revolution in east Carolina Geographical Review 90 432–445 Occurrence Handle10.2307/3250862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. D. J. Bogue C. L. Beale (1961) Economic areas of the United States The Free Press of Glencoe New York 1348

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. R. Borchert (1967) ArticleTitleAmerican metropolitan evolution Geographical Review 57 301–332 Occurrence Handle10.2307/212637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. R. Borchert (1987) ArticleTitleMaps, geography, and geographers The Professional Geographer 39 387–389 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.0033-0124.1987.00387.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. A. Bryce J. M. Omernik D. P. Larsen (1999) ArticleTitleEcoregions: A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management Environmental Practice 1 141–155 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S1466046600000582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryce, S.A., J.M. Omernik, D.E. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Map, scale 1:500,000.

  11. J. W. Clay P. D. Escott D. M. Jr. Orr A. W. Stuart (1989) Land of the South Oxmoor House Birmingham, Alabama 320

    Google Scholar 

  12. InstitutionalAuthorNameCommission for Environmental Cooperation (1997) Ecological regions of North America: Toward a common perspective Commission for Environmental Cooperation Montreal, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  13. W. Cronon (1992) Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the Great West W. W. Norton New York 530

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dorfman, D. 2001. Ecoregions of the United States of America. Western Conservation Science Center, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. Map, scale 1: 6,000,000.

  15. M. W. Dorsett M. McCarthy (1986) The Queen City: A History of Denver, 2nd ed Pruett Publishing Boulder, Colorado 382

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. D. Elvidge K. E. Baught E. A. Kihn H. W. Kroehl E. R. Davis (1997) ArticleTitleMapping of city lights using DMSP Operational Linescan System data Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63 727–734

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fedkiw, J. 1989. The evolving use and management of the nation’s forests, grasslands, croplands, and related resources. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-175, Fort Collins, Colorado.

  18. J. Gottmann (1969) Virginia in our Century University of Virginia Press Charlottesville, Virginia 656

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. P. Greene J. Stager (2001) ArticleTitleRangeland to cropland conversion as replacement land for prime farmland lost to urban development The Social Science Journal 38 543–555 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00150-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, S. Lawrence, G. Martin, A. Goddard, V.J. Hulcher, and T. Foster. 2001. Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Map, scale 1:700,000.

  21. Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Map, scale 1:500,000.

  22. J. A. Griffith S. V. Stehman T. R. Loveland (2003) ArticleTitleLandscape trends in Mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States ecoregions Environmental Management 32 572–588 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00267-003-0078-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. E. H. Hammond (1970) Classes of land surface form The National Atlas of the United States of America US Geological Survey Washington, DC 62–64

    Google Scholar 

  24. W. W. Hargrove F. M. Hoffman (1999) ArticleTitleUsing multivariate clustering to characterize ecoregion borders Computing in Science & Engineering 1 18–25 Occurrence Handle10.1109/5992.774837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. J. F. Hart (1996) ArticleTitleTurmoil in tobaccoland The Geographical Review 86 550–572 Occurrence Handle10.2307/215932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J. F. Hart (1980) ArticleTitleLand use change in a Piedmont county Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70 492–527 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01329.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. S. A. Heiskary C. B. Wilson D. P. Larsen (1987) ArticleTitleAnalysis of regional patterns in lake water quality. using ecoregions for lake management in Minnesota Lake and Reservoir Management 3 337–344 Occurrence Handle10.1080/07438148709354789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. J. C. Hudson (2001) Across This Land: A Regional Geography of the United States and Canada The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. P. Larsen D. R. Dudley R. M. Hughes (1988) ArticleTitleA regional approach to assess attainable water quality: an Ohio case study Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 43 171–176

    Google Scholar 

  30. N. Leathers M. B. Harrington (2000) ArticleTitleEffectiveness of conservation reserve programs and land “slippage” in southwestern Kansas Professional Geographer 52 83–93 Occurrence Handle10.1111/0033-0124.00207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Little, J.R. 2003. Part IV, Department of Agriculture, 7 CFR part 1410: 2002 farm bill—Conservation Reserve Program—long-term policy; interim rule. Federal Register, v. 68, no. 89, Thursday, May 8, 2003, FR Doc. 03-11405, 17 pp.

  32. J. D. Lord (2001) ArticleTitleGlobalization forces and the industrial restructuring of Greenwood county, South Carolina Southeastern Geographer 41 184–205

    Google Scholar 

  33. T. R. Loveland J. W. Merchant D. O. Ohlen J. F. Brown (1991) ArticleTitleDevelopment of a land cover characteristics database for the conterminous U.S Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57 1453–1463

    Google Scholar 

  34. T. R. Loveland T. Sohl K. Sayler A. Gallant J. Dwyer J. Vogelmann G. Zylstra T. G. Wade C. M. Edmonds (1999) Land cover trends: rates, causes, and consequences of late-twentieth century U.S. land cover change. NERL-LV-00-026, EPA/600/R-99/005 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development Las Vegas, Nevada

    Google Scholar 

  35. T. R. Loveland T. L. Sohl S. V. Stehman A. L. Gallant K. L. Sayler D. E. Napton (2002) ArticleTitleA strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land cover changes Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68 1091–1099

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. E. Lugo S. L. Brown R. Dodson T. S. Smith H. H. Shugart (1999) ArticleTitleThe Holdridge life zones of the conterminous United States in relation to ecosystem mapping Journal of Biogeography 26 1025–1038 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00329.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. F. J. Marschner (1959) Land Use and its Patterns in the United States. Agricultural Handbook No. 153 US Department of Agriculture Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  38. McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, M.C. Neel, and E. Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.

  39. J. M. Omernik (1987) ArticleTitleEcoregions of the conterminous United States Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 118–125 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. J. M. Omernik (1994) Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management: W. S. Davis T. P. Simon (Eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria, Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making Lewis Publishers Boca Raton, Florida 49–62

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. M. Omernik (1995) Level III Ecoregions of the Continent US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environment Effects Research Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. M. Omernik C. M. Rohm S. E. Clarke D. P. Larsen (1988) ArticleTitleSummer total phosphorus in lakes: a map of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, U.S.A Environmental Management 12 815–825 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01867609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. T. M. Power (1996) Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place Island Press Washington, DC 350

    Google Scholar 

  44. R. D. Ramsey A. Falconer J. R. Jensen (1995) ArticleTitleThe relationship between NOAA-AVHRR NDVI and ecoregions in Utah Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 53 188–198

    Google Scholar 

  45. T. H. Ricketts E. Dinerstein D. M. Olson C. J. Loucks W. Eichbaum D. DellaSala K. Kavanagh P. Hedao P. T. Hurley K. M. Carney R. Abell S. Walters (1999) Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment Island Press Washington, DC 508

    Google Scholar 

  46. W. W. Rogers W. Flynt R. D. Ward (1994) Alabama: The History of a Deep South State University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, Alabama 768

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. M. Rubenstein (1992) The Changing US auto Industry: A Geographical Analysis Routledge New York 336

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sohl, T.L., Gallant, A.L., and Loveland, T.R. (2004) The characteristics and interpretability of land surface change and implications for project design. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 70: 439–448

    Google Scholar 

  49. S. W. Trimble (1983) ArticleTitleCommentary on “Land use change in a Piedmont County,” by John Fraser Hart Annals of the Association of American Geographers 73 285–288 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8306.1983.tb01413.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. B. L., II Turner W. B. Meyer (1991) ArticleTitleLand use and land cover in global environmental change: Considerations for study International Social Science Journal 130 669–677

    Google Scholar 

  51. D. J. Twedt C. R. Loesch (1999) ArticleTitleForest area and distribution in the Mississippi alluvial valley: implications for breeding bird conservation Journal of Biogeography 26 1215–1224 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00348.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. InstitutionalAuthorNameUS Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1999) 1997 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1. Geographic Area Series, Part 51. AC97-A-51 US Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 629 pp

    Google Scholar 

  53. InstitutionalAuthorNameUS Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1981) Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 296 US Government Printing Office Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  54. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon. Digital map, scale 1:250,000.

  55. J. E. Vogelmann S. M. Howard L. Yang C. R. Larson B. K. Wylic J. N. Van Driel (2001) ArticleTitleCompletion of the 1990’s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 67 650–662

    Google Scholar 

  56. A. J. Woods J. M. Omernik D. D. Brown C. W. Kiilsgaard (1996) Level III and IV ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the ridge and valley, and the central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. EPA/600/R-96/077 US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The US Environmental Protection Agency, Landscape Ecology Branch in Las Vegas has provided funding for and been an important partner in this research (Interagency Agreement DW14938108-01-0). Funding was also provided by NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Land Cover Land Use Change Program. Terry Sohl’s participation in this research was made possible by Science Applications International Corporation (US Geological Survey contract 1434-CR-97-CN-40274). We thank Roger Auch, Paul Bartelt, Glenn Griffith, William Rasmussen, John Leathwick, and one anonymous reviewer for comments that led to the improvement of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57198, USA

    Alisa L. Gallant & Thomas R. Loveland

  2. Science Applications International Corporation, US Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57198, USA

    Terry L. Sohl

  3. Department of Geography, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 57007, USA

    Darrell E. Napton

Authors
  1. Alisa L. Gallant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas R. Loveland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terry L. Sohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Darrell E. Napton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

*Published online

Author to whom correspondence should be sent; Alisa L. Gallant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gallant, A., Loveland, T., Sohl, T. et al. Using an Ecoregion Framework to Analyze Land-Cover and Land-Use Dynamics. Environmental Management 34 (Suppl 1), S89–S110 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0145-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0145-3

Search

Navigation