Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1199–1212 | Cite as

Modelling of socio-ecological connectivity. The rural-urban network in the surroundings of Madrid (Central Spain)

  • Cecilia Arnaiz-SchmitzEmail author
  • Pablo Díaz
  • Diego Ruiz-Labourdette
  • Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui
  • Mercedes Molina
  • Carlos Montes
  • Francisco D. Pineda
  • María F. Schmitz
Article

Abstract

As most of Europe’s metropolitan landscapes grow, a change is occurring in their surrounding rural environment. The consequences thereof mainly involve losses of traditional land uses and changes in the socioecomic structures of the local population. The lack of coupling ‘urban society-countryside’ can be considered to constitute a driving force of this process. The present paper focuses upon the rural-urban network around the metropolis of Madrid (Central Spain). We developed a quantitative model to explain the socio-ecological rural-urban linkages, taking into account the influence of the metropolis in the network of neighbouring municipalities. The results show a rural landscape gradient ranging from silvo-pastoral to agricultural land uses and maintaining different interactions with the local socioeconomy. Urban-rural polarisation of the territory and accessibility to the metropolis are the main factors influencing the landscape dynamics. Territorial cohesion among municipalities and connectivity with the metropolis are factors determining the socio-ecological structure. The agricultural area presents good social cohesion, but a weak connection with the City. The silvo-pastoral landscape, on the contrary, maintains prominent links with the metropolis, but a non-significant interconnection between the small towns. The model tested constitutes a useful tool for analysing socio-ecological connectivity and for quantifying, designing and promoting territorial cohesion policies.

Keywords

Landscape–socioeconomy model Metropolis Rural-urban linkages Small towns Socio-ecological connectivity Territorial cohesion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the projects CULTURESCAPES (H2015/HUH-3383), funded by the European Social Fund and the Madrid Regional Government, and ECOGRADIENTS (CGL2014-53782-P), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

References

  1. Acosta-Gallo B, Sanchez Jardón L, Del Pozo A, Casado MA, Montalvo J, Pineda FD (2008) Grassland species composition and morpho-funcional traits along an altitudinal gradient in a Mediterranean environment: relationship whit soil water availability and evaporative dynamic. Acta Oecol 34:26–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2008.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnoletti M (2014) Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 126:66–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landsc Ecol 15:257–270.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008151109252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67:9–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape Urban Plan 75:187–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Schmitz MF, Herrero-Jáuregui C, Gutiérrez-Angonese J, Pineda FD, Montes C (2018). Identifying socio-ecological networks in rural-urban gradients: Diagnosis of a changing cultural Landscape Sci Total Environ 612:625–635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbero-Sierra C, Marques MJ, Ruiz-Pérez M (2013) The case of urban sprawl in Spain as active and irreversible driving force for desertification. J Arid Environ 90:95–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barlow M (1995) Greater Manchester: conurbation complexity and local government structure. Polit Geogr 14:379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckley T (1994) Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest dependent communities. Soc Natur Resour 8:261–266.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929509380919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blondel J, Aronson J (1995) Biodiversity and ecosystem function in the Mediterranean Basin: human and non-human determinants. In: Davis GW, Richardson DD (eds) Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, pp 43–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CAM (1997) Map of vegetation and land uses of Madrid Region, 1:50.000. Council of Environment and Regional Development, Madrid GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Castle EN, Wu J, Webber BA (2011) Place orientation and rural-urban interdependence. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 33:179–204.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1999) European spatial development perspective: Towards balanced and Sustain Dev of the territory of the EU. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  14. De Aranzabal I, Schmitz MF, Aguilera P, Pineda FD (2008) Modeling of landscape changes derived from the dynamics of socio-ecological systems. A case of study in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape. Ecol Indic 8:672–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Castri F, Mooney HA (eds) (1973) Mediterranean type ecosystems. Origin and structure. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Dupy G (1995) The territories of the automobile. Anthropos-Economics, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. EC (European Commission) (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge. In: Report. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (European Commission) (2014) Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities: Sixth report on economic and social cohesion. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. EPRC (European Policies Research Centre) (2010) The objective of economic and social cohesion in the economic policies of member states. In: Final Report. EPRC and Euroreg, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  20. Faludi A (2006) From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy. Reg Stud 40:667–678.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600868937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrara C, Carlucci M, Grigoriadis E, Corona P, Salvati L (2017) A comprehensive insight into the geography of forest cover in Italy: exploring the importance of socioeconomic local contexts. Forest Policy Econ 75:12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions: ecology and planning beyond the City. Cambridge Univ. Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forman RTT (2014) Urban ecology. Science of cities. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Frey WH, Zimmer Z (2001) Defining the city. In: Paddison R (ed) Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, London, pp 14–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. García-Delgado JL (2007) Economic structure of Madrid. Civitas Ediciones S.L, MadridGoogle Scholar
  28. Geyer HS (ed) (2002) International handbook of urban system: studies of urbanization and migration in advanced and developing countries. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  29. Gil-Alonso F, Bayona J, Pujadas I (2016) From boom to crash: Spanish urban areas in a decade of change (2001-2011). Eur Urban Reg Stud 23:198–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413498762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gkartzios M (2013) Leaving Athens: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. J Rural Stud 32:158–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B, Rotella JJ, Johnson JD, Parmenter AW, Langner U, Cohen WB, Lawrence RL, Kraska MPV (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the new west. BioScience 52:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0151:ECACOD]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haque MS (2004) The myths of economic growth (GNP): implications for human development. In: Mudacumura G, Haque MS (eds) Handbook of development policy studies. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  33. Healey P (2002) Urban-rural relationships, Spatial Strategies and Territorial Development. Built Environ 28:331–339Google Scholar
  34. IECM (2016) Territorial Data Base. Statistical Institute of the Region of Madrid. http://www.madrid.org/bdt. Accessed March 10 2016
  35. Joffre R, Rambal S, Ratte JP (1999) The dehesa system of southern Spain and Portugal as a natural ecosystem mimic. Agrofor Syst 45:57–79.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006259402496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krosby M, Breckheimer I, Pierce DJ, Singleton PH, Hall SA, Halupka KC, Gaines WL, Long RA, McRae BH, Cosentino BL, Schuett-Hames JP (2015) Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Landsc Ecol 30:2121–2132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0235-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamb YJ, Purcell AT (1990) Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc Urban Plan 19:333–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90041-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levitt J (ed) (2002) Conservation in the internet age. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Martín-Vicente A, Fernández-Alés R (2006) Long term persistence of dehesas. Evidences from history. Agrofor Syst 67:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-1110-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCloskey JM, Spalding H (1989) A reconnaissance – level inventory of the amount of wilderness remaining in the world. AMBIO 18:221–227Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell CJA (2004) Making sense of counterurbanization. J Rural Stud 20:15–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00031-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mockrin MH, Reed SE, Pejchar L, Salo J (2017) Balancing housing growth and land conservation: conservation development preserves private lands near protected areas. Landsc Urban Plan 157:598–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Modica G, Vizzari M, Pollino M, Fichera CR, Zoccali P, Di Fazio S (2012) Spatio-temporal analysis of the urban–rural gradient structure: an application in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape (Serra san Bruno, Italy). Earth Syst Dynam 3:263–279.  https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-263-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Müller A, Bøcher PK, Svenning JCh (2015) Where are the wilder parts of anthropogenis landscapes? A mapping case study for Denmark. Landscape Urban Plan144:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nassauer JI, Allan JD, Johengen T, Kosek SE, Infante D (2004) Exurban residential subdivision development: effects on water quality and public perception. Urban Ecosyst 7:267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:UECO.0000044039.65448.48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paddison R (ed) (2001) Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Petrosillo I, Aretano R, Zurlini G (2015) Socioecological systems. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences :1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09518-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pineda FD, Schmitz, M (coords.) (2011) Territorial ecological connectivity. Case studies of ecological and socioeconomic connectivity. National Parks Autonomous Agency, Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, MadridGoogle Scholar
  49. Pineda FD, De Nicolás JP, Ruiz M, Peco B, Bernáldez FG (1981) Succession, diversité et amplitude de niche dans les påturages du centre de la péninsule ibérique. Vegetatio 47:267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Redman C, Grove MJ, Kuby L (2004) Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-003-0215-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rees W, Wackernagel M (2008) Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. In: Gaston KG (ed) Urban ecology. Springer, Boston, pp 537–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rivas-Martínez S (2011) Map of vegetation series, geoseries and geopermaseries from Spain. Report of the potential vegetation map of Spain (I, II. 2007–2011). MAGRAMA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosell C, Álvarez G, Cahil S, Campeny R, Rodríguez A, Séiler A (2003) Habitat fragmentation in relation to transport infrastructures in Spain. MARM, MadridGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmitz MF, De Aranzabal I, Aguilera P, Rescia A, Pineda FD (2003) Relationship between landscape typology and socioeconomic structure. Scenarios of change in Spanish cultural landscapes. Ecol Model 168:343–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00145-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmitz MF, De Aranzabal I, Pineda FD (2007a) Spatial analysis of visitor preferences in the outdoor recreational niche of Mediterranean cultural landscapes. Environ Conserv 34:300–312.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892907004249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmitz MF, Sánchez IA, De Aranzabal I (2007b) Influence of management regimes of adjacent land uses on the woody plant richness of hedgerows in Spanish cultural landscapes. Biol Conserv 135:542–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitz MF, Matos DGG, De Aranzabal I, Ruiz-Labourdette D, Pineda FD (2012) Effects of a protected area on land-use dynamics and socioeconomic development of local populations. Biol Conserv 149:122–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Serra P, Vera A, Tulla AF, Salvati L (2014) Beyond urban-rural dichotomy: exploring socioeconomic land-use processes of change in Spain (1991-2011). Appl Geogr 55:71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shuqing Z, Da L, Tang Z, Fang H, Song K, Fang J (2006) Ecological consequences of rapid urban expansion: shanghai, China. Front Ecol Environ 4:341–346. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0341:ECORUE]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sohn C, Reitel B (2013) The role of national states in the construction of cross-border metropolitan regions in Europe: a scalar approach. Eur Urban Reg Stud 23:306–321.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413512138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaishar A, Zapletalová J (2009) Small towns as centers of rural micro-regions. European Countryside 1(2):70–81.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10091/009-0006-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Visscher RS, Nassauer JI, Brown DG, Currie WS, Parker DC (2014) Exurban residential household behaviors and values: influence of parcel size and neighbors on carbon storage potential. Landsc Urban Plan 132:37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weilenmann B, Seidl I, Schulz T (2017) The socio-economic determinants of urban sprawl between 1980 and 2010 in Switerzland. Landsc Urban Plan 157:468–482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Bank (2015) World development indicators. The World Bank http://wwwworldbankorg/data Accessed March 1 2016
  65. Wrbka T, Erb KH, Schulz NB, Peterseil J, Hahn C, Haberl H (2004) Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21:289–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xun B, Yu D, Wang X (2017) Prioritizing habitat conservation outside protected areas in rapidly urbanizing landscapes: a patch network approach. Landsc Urban Plan 157:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pablo Díaz
    • 2
  • Diego Ruiz-Labourdette
    • 3
  • Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui
    • 3
  • Mercedes Molina
    • 4
  • Carlos Montes
    • 1
  • Francisco D. Pineda
    • 3
  • María F. Schmitz
    • 3
  1. 1.Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of EcologyUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Ostelea-School of Tourism and HospitalityUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain
  3. 3.Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and EvolutionUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of Human GeographyUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations