Abstract
In this study we measure urbanization based on a diverse set of 21 variables ranging from landscape indices to demographic factors such as income and land ownership using data from Stockholm, Sweden. The primary aims were to test how the variables behaved in relation to each other and if these patterns were consistent across scales. The variables were mostly identified from the literature and limited to the kind of data that was readily accessible. We used GIS to sample the variables and then principal component analyses to search for patterns among them, repeating the sampling and analysis at four different scales (250 × 250, 750 × 750, 1,250 × 1,250 and 1,750 × 1,750, all in meters). At the smallest scale most variables seemed to be roughly structured along two axes, one with landscape indices and one mainly with demographic factors but also impervious surface and coniferous forest. The other land-cover types did not align very well with these two axes. When increasing the scale this pattern was not as obvious, instead the variables separated into several smaller bundles of highly correlated variables. Some pairs or bundles of variables were correlated on all scales and thus interchangeable while other associations changed with scale. This is important to keep in mind when one chooses measures of urbanization, especially if the measures are indices based on several variables. Comparing our results with the findings from other cities, we argue that universal gradients will be difficult to find since city shape and size, as well as available information, differ greatly. We also believe that a multivariate gradient is needed if you wish not only to compare cities but also ask questions about how urbanization influences the ecological character in different parts of a city.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson E, Barthel S, Ahrné K (2007) Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol Appl 17:1267–1278
Barthel S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C (2005) History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban, cultural landscape. Ecol Soc 10:10
Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519
Bowers MA, Breland B (1996) Foraging of gray squirrels on an urban—rural gradient: use of the GUD to assess anthropogenic impact. Ecol Appl 6:1135–1142
Burton E, Weich S, Blanchard M, Prince M (2005) Measuring physical characteristics of housing: the Built Environment Site Survey Checklist (BESSC). Environ Plann B Plann Des 32:265–280
Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Frontiers Ecol Environ 5:80–88
Carreiro MM, Howe K, Parkhurst DF, Pouyat RV (1999) Variation in quality and decomposability of red oak leaf litter along an urban–rural gradient. Biol Fertil Soils 30:258–268
Collins JP, Kinzig A, Grimm NB, Fagan WF, Hope D, Wu J, Borer ET (2000) A new urban ecology—modeling human communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of ecological theory. American Sci 88:416–425
Dow K (2000) Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst 4:255–275
Elmqvist T, Colding J, Barthel S, Borgstrom S, Duit A, Lundberg J, Andersson E, Ahrne K, Ernstson H, Folke C, Bengtsson J (2004) The dynamics of social-ecological systems in urban landscapes—Stockholm and the National Urban Park, Sweden. In: Alfsen-Norodom C, Lane BD, Corry M (eds) Urban biosphere and society: partnership of cities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 308–322
Germaine SS, Wakeling BF (2001) Lizard species distributions and habitat occupation along an urban gradient in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Biol Conserv 97:229–237
Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156
Hahs AK, McDonnell MJ (2006) Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne’s urban–rural gradient. Landsc Urban Plann 78:435–448
Hope D, Gries C, Zhu WX, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–8792
Jokimaki J, Huhta E (1996) Effects of landscape matrix and habitat structure on a bird community in northern Finland: a multi-scale approach. Ornis Fennica 73:97–113
Katti M, Warren PS (2004) Tits, noise and urban bioacoustics. Trends Ecol Evol 19:109–110
Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10:23
Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967
Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW, Chipman JW (2003) Remote sensing and image interpretation. Wiley, New York
Lu D, Weng Q (2006) Use of impervious surface in urban land-use classification. Remote Sens Environ 102:146–160
Luck M, Wu JG (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecol 17:327–339
McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2008) The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Landscape Ecol 23:1143–1155
McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban rural gradients—an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237
McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosyst 4:5–24
Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv Ecol 7:5
Metria (2006) Spot CNES 2006. Swedish Land Survey, Sweden
Ridd MK (1995) Exploring a V-I-S (vegetation-impervious surface-soil) model for urban ecosystem analysis through remote sensing: comparative anatomy for cities. Int J Remote Sens 16:2165–2185
RTK (2005) Befolkningsprognos 2005 för perioden 2005–2014, Stockholm, p 69
SCB (2006) Statistical yearbook of Sweden. Statistics Sweden
Slabbekorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267
Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432
ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s guide: software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power. Ithaca, NY
Whited D, Galatowitsch S, Tester JR, Schik K, Lehtinen R, Husveth J (2000) The importance of local and regional factors in predicting effective conservation—planning strategies for wetland bird communities in agricultural and urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann 49:49–65
Whittaker RH (1967) Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol Rev 42:207–264
Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397
Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138
Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17:761–782
Acknowledgment
We thank Jan Bengtsson and Åsa Berggren for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Funding was provided by the Swedish Research Council and Formas.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andersson, E., Ahrné, K., Pyykönen, M. et al. Patterns and scale relations among urbanization measures in Stockholm, Sweden. Landscape Ecol 24, 1331–1339 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9385-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9385-1