Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 217–230

Building patterns and landscape fragmentation in northern Wisconsin, USA

  • Charlotte E. Gonzalez-Abraham
  • Volker C. Radeloff
  • Roger B. Hammer
  • Todd J. Hawbaker
  • Susan I. Stewart
  • Murray K. Clayton
Research Article


Housing growth is prevalent in rural areas in the United States and landscape fragmentation is one of its many effects. Since the 1930s, rural sprawl has been increasing in areas rich in recreational amenities. The question is how housing growth has affected landscape fragmentation. We thus tested three hypotheses relating land cover and land ownership to density and spatial pattern of buildings, and examined whether building density or spatial pattern of buildings was a better predictor for landscape fragmentation. Housing locations were mapped from 117 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps across northern Wisconsin. Patch-level landscape metrics were calculated on the terrestrial area remaining after applying 50, 100 and 250 m disturbance zones around each building. Our results showed that building density and the spatial pattern of buildings were affected mostly by lake area, public land ownership, and the abundance of coniferous forest, agricultural land, and grassland. A full 40% of the houses were within 100 m of lakeshores. The clustering of buildings within 100 m of lakeshores limited fragmentation farther away. In contrast, agricultural and grassland areas were correlated with higher building density, higher fragmentation, and more dispersed building pattern possible legacies of agricultural settlement patterns. Understanding which factors influence building density and fragmentation is useful for landscape level planning and ecosystem management in northern Wisconsin and areas that share similar social and environmental constraints.


Disturbance zone Landscape fragmentation Building density Spatial pattern of buildings Landscape legacies Rural sprawl Wisconsin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. US Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt R (1997) Basing cluster techniques on development densities appropriate to the area. J Am Plann Assoc 63:137–145Google Scholar
  4. Bawden DL (1977) Four papers on farm family response to a negative income tax. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Black JD, Gray LC (1925) Land settlement and colonization in the Great Lakes states (Department Bulletin No. 1295). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  6. Brittingham MC, Temple SA (1983) Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown DG (2003) Land use and forest cover on private parcels in the Upper Midwest USA, 1970 to 1990. Landsc Ecol 18:777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carstensen VR (1958) Farms or forest; evolution of a state land policy for northern Wisconsin, 1850–1932. University of Wisconsin Press, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS, Price B (2000) Regression analysis by example, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen DL, Herwig BR, Schindler DE, Carpenter SR (1996) Impacts of lakeshore residential development on coarse woody debris in north temperate lakes. Ecol Appl 6:1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman JS, Temple SA (1993) Rural residents’ free-ranging domestic cats – a survey. Wildl Soc Bull 21:381–390Google Scholar
  12. Dwyer JF, Childs GM (2004) Movement of people across the landscape: a blurring of distinctions between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource management. Landsc Urban Plann 69:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manage 61:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flader SL (1983) The Great Lakes forest. University of Minnesota Press and Forest Historic Society, Santa Cruz, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Fries RF (1951) Empire in pine: the story of lumbering in Wisconsin 1830–1900. Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Friesen LE, Eagles PFJ, Mackay RJ (1995) Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conserv Biol 9:1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuguitt GV (1985) The nonmetropolitan population turnaround. Ann Rev Sociol 11:259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuguitt GV, Brown DL (1990) Residential preferences and population redistribution – 1972–1988. Demography 27:589–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garber DS, Burger J (1995) A 20-year study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecol Appl 5:1151–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gobster PH, Haight RG, Shriner D (2000) Landscape change in the Midwest: an integrated research and development program J For 98:9–14Google Scholar
  23. Gobster PH, Rickenbach MG (2004) Private forestland parcelization and development in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: perceptions of resource-oriented stakeholders. Landsc Urban Plann 69:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodman RB (1932) Forest land use in Wisconsin. Report of the Committee on Land Use and Forestry. Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B, Rotella JJ, Johnson JD, Partmenter AW, Langner U, Cohen WB, Lawrence RL, Kraska MPV (2002) Ecological cause and consequence of demographic change in the New West. BioScience 52:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Winkler RL, Radeloff VC, Voss PR (2004) Characterizing dynamic spatial and temporal residential density patterns from 1940–1990 across the North Central United States. Landsc Urban Plann 69:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Clayton MK (2005) Road density and landscape pattern in relation to housing density, land ownership, land cover, and soils. Landsc Ecol 20:609–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heimlich RE, Anderson WD (2001) Development at the urban fringe and beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural land. ERS Agricultural Economic Report No. 803, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Hockin D, Ounsted M, Gorman M, Hill D, Keller V, Barker MA (1992) Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Environ Manage 36:253–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hostetler M (1999) Scale, birds, and human decisions: a potential for integrative research in urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plann 45:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kareiva P (1990) Population-dynamics in spatially complex environments – theory and data. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 330:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kluza DA, Griffin CR, DeGraaf RM (2000) Housing developments in rural New England: effects on forest birds. Anim Conserv 3:15–26Google Scholar
  33. Lindsay AR, Gillum SS, Meyer MW (2002) Influence of lakeshore development on breeding bird communities in a mixed northern forest. Biol Conserv 107:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Long L, Nucci A (1997) The ‘clean break’ revisited: is US population again deconcentrating? Environ Plann 29:1355–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGranahan DA (1999) Natural amenities drive rural population change. Agricultural Economics Report No. 781. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller JR, Hobbs NT (2000) Effects of recreational trails on nest predation rates and predator assemblages. Landsc Urban Plann 50:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mladenoff DJ, White MA, Pastor J, Crow TR (1993) Comparing spatial pattern in unaltered old-growth and disturbed forest landscapes. Ecol Appl 3:294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy RE (1931) The geography of the northwestern pine barrens of Wisconsin. Trans Wis Acad Sci, Arts Lett 26:96–120Google Scholar
  39. Naiman RJ (1996) Water, society and landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 11:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 10:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Odell EA, Theobald DM, Knight RL (2003) Incorporating ecology into land use planning: the songbirds’ case for clustered development. J Am Plann Assoc 69:72–81Google Scholar
  42. Ostergren RC, Vale TR (1997) Wisconsin land and life. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus, statistics and computer. Springer, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005a) The wildland urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15:799–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005b) Sprawl and forest fragmentation in the US Midwest from 1940 to 2000. Conserv Biol 19:793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Voss PR, Hagen AE, Field DR, Mladenoff DJ (2001) Human demographic trends and landscape level forest management in the northwestern Wisconsin Pine Barrens. For Sci 47:229–241Google Scholar
  47. Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ, He HS, Boyce MS (1999) Forest landscape change in the northwestern Wisconsin Pine Barrens from pre-European settlement to the present. Can J For Res 29:1649–1659Google Scholar
  48. Reese HM, Lillesand TM, Nagel DE, Stewart JS, Goldmann RA, Simmons TE, Chipman JW, Tessar PA (2002) Statewide land cover derived from multiseasonal Landsat TM data – A retrospective of the WISCLAND project. Remote Sens Environ 82:224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodgers JA, Smith HT (1995) Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conserv Biol 9:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schnaiberg J, Riera J, Turner MG, Voss PR (2002) Explaining human settlement patterns in a recreational lake district: Vilas County, Wisconsin, USA. Environ Manage 30:24–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schulte LA, Mladenoff DJ, Nordheim EV (2002) Quantitative classification of a historic northern Wisconsin landscape: mapping forests at regional scales. Can J For Res 32:1616–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stearns FW (1997) Physical environment supporting Lake States forests. St. Paul, USA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-189, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  54. Theobald MD, Miller JR, Hobbs NT, Miller RJ, Thompson HN (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plann 39:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197Google Scholar
  56. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer-Verlag, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Upton G, Fingelton B (1985) Spatial data analysis by example: point pattern and quantitative data. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. USFS (2001) Chequamegon – Nicolet National Forest. html.Last accessed 6/4/2005Google Scholar
  59. USGS National Mapping Program Standards (1996) 2/03/2003Google Scholar
  60. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF (2000) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 183:24–41Google Scholar
  61. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) (1998) WISCLAND Land Cover (WLCGW930). Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  62. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) (2002a) 1:100,000 Scale DNR-Managed Lands, Geodisc 2.1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) (2002b) 1:24,000 Scale Hydrography, Geodisc 2.1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USAGoogle Scholar
  64. Woodford J, Meyer M (2003) Impact of lakeshore development on green frog abundance. Biol Conserv 110:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte E. Gonzalez-Abraham
    • 1
  • Volker C. Radeloff
    • 1
  • Roger B. Hammer
    • 2
  • Todd J. Hawbaker
    • 1
  • Susan I. Stewart
    • 3
  • Murray K. Clayton
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecology & ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Rural SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.US Forest Service North Central Research StationEvanstonUSA
  4. 4.Department of StatisticsUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations