Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a quantitative landscape regionalization framework integrating driving factors and response attributes of landscapes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Landscape and Ecological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regionalization plays an important role in delineating landscape heterogeneity and providing spatial frameworks for environmental management. In this study, we developed a comprehensive regionalization approach that integrated multiple quantitative techniques and differentiated two distinct types of landscape variables, i.e., response attributes and driving factors. This approach was applied to the regionalization of surface-water resource in the Huai River Basin (HRB), China. In the regionalization scheme, the 25 subwatersheds of the HRB were adopted as the basic spatial unit; surface-water capacity, runoff depth, and drainage system density were used to characterize surface-water distribution (i.e., response attributes). The HRB subwatersheds were classified into a certain number of groups using the k-means cluster analysis based on the three response attributes. A goodness-of-fit index, calculated as the ratio of between-group/within-group variation, was employed as a quantitative criterion to assess the statistical performance of the classification results. Ultimately, the 25 subwatersheds were partitioned into five distinct regions. Results from redundancy analysis suggested that such regional pattern of surface-water resource was primarily correlated with driving factors representing climate conditions; soil and geological properties also had significant influences. Overall, our approach presents two advantages over previous regionalization frameworks: (1) It improves objectivity of landscape regionalization and reveals underlying mechanisms, generating landscape patterns by integrating response attributes and driving factors; (2) Goodness-of-fit evaluation can substantially reduce subjectivity in determining regionalization results.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell R, Thieme ML, Revenga C et al (2008) Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 58:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An S, Li H, Guan B, Zhou C, Wang Z, Deng Z, Zhi Y, Liu Y, Xu C, Fang S, Jiang J, Li H (2007) China’s natural wetlands: past problems, current status, and future challenges. Ambio 36:335–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RG (1983) Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ Manage 7:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernert JA, Eilers JM, Sullivan TJ, Freemark KE, Ribic C (1997) A quantitative method for delineating regions: an example for the western Corn Belt plains ecoregion of the USA. Environ Manage 21:405–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat G, Bergstrom J, Teasley RJ, Bowker JM, Cordell HK (1998) An ecoregional approach to the economic valuation of land- and water-based recreation in the United States. Environ Manage 22:69–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce SA, Clarke SE (1996) Landscape-level ecological regions: linking state-level ecoregion frameworks with stream habitat classifications. Environ Manage 20:297–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Csillag F, Kabos S (2002) Wavelets, boundaries, and the spatial analysis of landscape pattern. Ecoscience 9:177–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks DHK, Benn GA (2000) Identifying regional landscapes for conservation planning: a case study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan 50:237–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin M, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallant AL, Loveland TR, Sohl TL, Napton DE (2005) Using an ecoregion framework to analyze land-cover and land-use dynamics. Environ Manage 34:S89–S110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamble A, Babbar-Sebens M (2012) On the use of multivariate statistical methods for combining in-stream monitoring data and spatial analysis to characterize water quality conditions in the White River Basin, Indiana, USA. Environ Monit Assess 184:845–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon AD (1999) Classification. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Graef F, Schmidt G, SchrÖder W, Stachow U (2005) Determining ecoregions for environmental and GMO monitoring networks. Environ Monit Assess 108:189–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guo J, Gao S, Wang G, Mao F, Li Y, Zhuang L (2001) China’s cloud water resource and soil water resource. Climate Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall O, Arnberg W (2002) A method for landscape regionalization based on fuzzy membership signatures. Landsc Urban Plan 59:227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove WW, Hoffman FM (1999) Using multivariate clustering to characterize ecoregion borders. Comput Sci Eng 1:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove WW, Hoffman FM (2005) Potential of multivariate quantitative methods for delineation and visualization of ecoregions. Environ Manage 34:S39–S60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Host GE, Polzer PL, Mladenoff DJ, White MA, Crow TR (1996) A quantitative approach to developing regional ecosystem classifications. Ecol Appl 6:608–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itsukushima R, Shimatani Y, Kawaguchi Y (2013) The effectiveness of delineating ecoregions in the Kyushu region of Japan to establish environmental indicators. Landsc Ecol Eng 9:27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenerette GD, Lee J, Waller DW, Carlson RE (2002) Multivariate analysis of the ecoregion delineation for aquatic systems. Environ Manage 29:67–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston R (1968) Choice in classification: the subjectivity of objective methods. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 58:575–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft H, Jetz W (2010) A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions. J Biogeogr 37:2029–2053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick JR, Overton J, McLeod M (2003) An environmental domain classification of New Zealand and its use as a tool for biodiversity management. Conserv Biol 17:1612–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu M, Samal A (2002) A fuzzy clustering approach to delineate agroecozones. Ecol Model 149:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveland TR, Merchant JM (2005) Ecoregions and ecoregionalization: geographical and ecological perspectives. Environ Manage 34:S1–S13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lugo AE, Brown SL, Dodson R, Smith TM, Shugart HH (1999) The Holdridge Life Zones of the conterminous United States in relation to ecosystem mapping. J Biogeogr 26:1025–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey BG, Berry SL, Brown T (2008) Reconciling approaches to biogeographical regionalization: a systematic and generic framework examined with a case study of the Australian continent. J Biogeogr 35:213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon G, Gregonis SM, Waltman SW, Omernik JM, Thorson TD, Freeouf JA, Rorick AH, Keys JE (2001) Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United States. Environ Manage 28:293–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon G, Wiken EB, Gauthier DA (2005) Toward a scientifically rigorous basis for developing mapped ecological regions. Environ Manage 34:S111–S124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan GW, Cooper MC (1985) An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika 50:159–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (2005) Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environ Manage 34:S27–S38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM, Bailey RG (1997) Distinguishing between watershed and ecoregion. J Am Water Res Assoc 33:935–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snelder TH, Dey KL, Leathwick JR (2007) A procedure for making optimal selection of input variables for multivariate environmental classifications. Conserv Biol 21:365–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard JL (2005) Use of ecological regions in aquatic assessments of ecological condition. Environ Manage 34:S61–S70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO Reference Manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Dou H (1998) Lakes of China. Science Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolock DM, Winter TC, McMahon G (2005) Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environ Manage 34:S71–S88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y, Narumalani S, Waltman WJ, Waltman SW, Palecki MA (2003) A GIS-based spatial pattern analysis model for eco-region mapping and characterization. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:445–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. This study was supported by the Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment (2012ZX07501002-003), Special Environmental Protection Project of Public Interests (201009009-04-03), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41271197).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Life Sciences, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Road, Nanjing, 210093, People’s Republic of China

    Chi Xu, Ting Chi, Xuejiao Yang, Shuqing An & Maosong Liu

  2. East China Investigation and Design Institute, 22 Chaowang Road, Hangzhou, 310014, People’s Republic of China

    Sheng Sheng

Authors
  1. Chi Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheng Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ting Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuejiao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuqing An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maosong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maosong Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, C., Sheng, S., Chi, T. et al. Developing a quantitative landscape regionalization framework integrating driving factors and response attributes of landscapes. Landscape Ecol Eng 10, 295–307 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-013-0225-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-013-0225-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation