Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 319–332 | Cite as

Evolution of land use-change modeling: routes of different schools of knowledge

  • Hossein Azadi
  • Ali Akbar Barati
  • Parisa Rafiaani
  • Fatemeh Taheri
  • Kindeya Gebrehiwot
  • Frank Witlox
  • Philippe Lebailly
Review

Abstract

Although much has been published on land use-change models (LUCMs), no study has comprehensively dealt with the evolution of land use models based on schools of knowledge. The primary objective of this paper is an explanation of the progress and growth of LUCMs concerning their main ontological, epistemological, and methodological origins. Five main paradigms, i.e., positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, participatory, and pragmatism approaches, are discussed in order to assess the current orientations of LUCMs. Given the complexities of LUCM components, the study concludes that one paradigm cannot adequately address all methodological aspects. Accordingly, it is necessary to combine quantitative and qualitative paradigms to create mixed-method approaches within a systemic framework. Such systemic approaches could shape the most probable future generations of LUCMs, which would be able to cope with the complexity of various subsystems, including biophysical and socioeconomic ones.

Keywords

Environmental planning Land management Land use Modeling Knowledge school Sustainable land use 

References

  1. Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM, Evans TP, Schweik CM (2002) A review and assessment of land use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. Gen Tech Rep NE-297. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 61Google Scholar
  2. Alcamo J, Kok K, Busch G, Priess JA, Eickhout B, Rounsevell M et al (2006) Searching for the future of land: scenarios from the local to global scale. In: Lambin EF, Geist HJ (eds) land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadi H, Filson G (2009) Comparative study of agricultural extension systems: a systemic view. Outlook Agric 38(4):337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azadi H, Shahvali M, Berg JVD, Faghih N (2007) Sustainable rangeland management using a multi-fuzzy model: how to deal with heterogeneous experts’ knowledge. J Environ Manage 83:236–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Azadi H, Berg J, Shahvali M, Hosseininia G (2009a) Sustainable rangeland management using fuzzy logic: a case study in southwest Iran. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131(3&4):193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azadi H, van den Berg J, Ho P, Hosseininia G (2009b) Sustainability in rangeland systems: introduction of fuzzy multi objective decision-making. Curr World Environ 4(1):19–32Google Scholar
  7. Azadi H, Ho P, Hasfiati L (2011) Agricultural land conversion drivers: a comparison between less developed, developing and developed countries. Land Degrad Dev 22:596–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barreteau O et al. (2003) Our companion modelling approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6 (2): 1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html. Accessed 19 February 2013
  9. Beurden JB, Bakema A, Tijbosch H (2007) A land use modelling system for environmental impact assessment: recent applications of the LUMOS toolbox. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharwani S, Bithell M, Downing TE, New M, Washington R, Ziervogel G (2005) Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:2183–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonan GB, Defries RS, Coe MT, Ojima DS (2004) Land use and climate. In: Gutman G, Janetos AC, Justice CO, Moran EF, Mustard JF, Rindfuss RR, Skole DL, Turner BL, Cochrane MA (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 301–317Google Scholar
  12. Breu K, Peppard J (2001) The participatory paradigm for applied information systems research. The 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 27–29 JuneGoogle Scholar
  13. Briassoulis H (2000) Analysis of land use change: theoretical and modeling approaches. In: Morgantown SL (ed) The web book of regional science. WV Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, MorgantownGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown DG, Verburg PH, Pontius JRG, Lange MD (2013) Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5): 452–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.012. Accessed 8 February 2014
  15. Center for BioEnergy Sustainability (CBES), Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2009) Land use change and bioenergy: report from the 2009 Workshop. ORNL/CBES-001, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Bioenergy Sustainability (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes)
  16. Chapin FSJ (1965) A model for simulating residential development. J Am Inst Plan 31(2):120–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chinneck JW (2001) Practical optimization: a gentle introduction. systems and computer engineering. Carleton University, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  18. Coll RK, Chapman R (2000) Choices of methodology for cooperative education researchers. Asia Pac J Coop Educ 1: 1–8. http://www.apjce.org/volume_1/volume_1_1_pp_1_8.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2013
  19. Courtney M, Regan CM, Bryan BA, Connor JD, Meyer WS, Ostendorf B, Zhu Z, Bao C (2015) Real options analysis for land use management: methods, application, and implications for policy. J Environ Manage 161:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cousins C (2002) Getting to the “truth”: issues in contemporary qualitative research. Aust J Adult Learn 42:192–204Google Scholar
  21. Coyle J, Williams B (2000) An exploration of the epistemological intricacies of using qualitative data to develop a quantitative measure of user views of health care. J Adv Nurs 31(5):1235–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Creswell JW (1994) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edition. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. D’Aquino P, Le Page C, Bousquet F, Bah A (2003) Using self-designed role-playing games and a multi-agent system to empower a local decision-making process for land use management: The Self Cormas experiment in Senegal. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(3): 5. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/3/5.html. Accessed 5 May 2013)
  27. Denzin NK (2001) The seventh moment: qualitative inquiry and the practices of a more radical consumer research. J Consum Res 28(2):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A (1997) Management research: an introduction. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Engelen G, Lavalle C, Barredo JI, Meulen M, White R (2007) The MOLAND modelling framework for urban and regional land use dynamics. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and Applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 297–319Google Scholar
  30. Gaucherel C, Griffon S, Misson L, Houet T (2010) Combining process-based models for future biomass assessment at landscape scale. Landsc Ecol 25(2):201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibon A, Sheeren D, Monteil C, Ladet S, Balent G (2010) Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework. Landsc Ecol 25(2):267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenfield BH, Greene B, Johanson MA (2007) The use of qualitative research techniques in orthopedic and sports physical therapy: moving toward postpositivism. Phys Ther Sport 8(1):44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guba EG (1990) The alternative paradim dialog. In: Guba E (ed) The Paradigm Dialog. Sage, London, pp 17–27Google Scholar
  34. Haase D, Holzkämper A, Seppelt R (2007) Beyond growth? Decline of the urban fabric in eastern Germany. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–353Google Scholar
  35. Hall CAS, Tian H, Qi Y, Pontius G, Cornell J (1995) Modelling spatial and temporal patterns of tropical land use change. J Biogeogr 22(4/5):753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heistermann M, Müller C, Ronneberger K (2006) Land in sight? Achievements, deficits and potentials of continental to global scale land use modeling. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hilferink M, Rietveld P (1999) Land use scanner: an integrated GIS based model for long term projections of land use in urban and rural areas. J Geogr Syst 1:155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hill DM (1965) A growth allocation model for the Boston region. J Am Inst Plan 31(2):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hillier FS, Lieberman GJ (1980) Introduction to operations research. Holden-Day, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  40. Hisschemoller M, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P (2001) The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integr Assess 2:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ho P, Azadi H (2010) Rangeland degradation in North China: perceptions of pastoralists. Environ Res 110(3):302–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hope KW, Waterman H (2003) Praiseworthy pragmatism? Validity and action research: methodological issues in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 44(2):120–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hosseininia G, Azadi H, Zarafshani K, Samari D, Witlox F (2013) Sustainable rangeland management: pastoralists’ attitudes toward integrated programs in Iran. J Arid Environ 92:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Houet T, Hubert-Moy L (2006) Modeling and projecting land use and land-cover changes with a cellular automaton in considering landscape trajectories: an improvement for simulation of plausible future states. EARSeL eProc 5(1):63–76Google Scholar
  45. Houet T, Verburg PH, Loveland TR (2010) Monitoring and modelling landscape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 25:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85(1–3):7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Janetos AC (2004) Research directions in land-cover and land use change. In: Gutman G, Janetos AC, Justice CO, Moran EF, Mustard JF, Rindfuss RR, Skole DL, Turner BL, Cochrane MA (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 449–458Google Scholar
  48. Johnson B, Christensen L (2010) Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage, UKGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson RB, Turner LA (2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  50. Koomen E, Stillwell J (2007) Modelling land use change. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  51. Koomen E, Rietveld P, Nijs TD (2008) Modelling land use change for spatial planning support. Ann Reg Sci 42(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lambin EF, Geist H (2006) Conclusion. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ (2000) Are agricultural land use models able to predict changes in land use intensity? Agric Ecosyst Environ 82(1–3):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E (2003) Dynamics of land use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:205–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lambin EF, Geist H, Rindfuss RR (2006) Introduction: local processes with global impacts. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee DK, Park C, Tomlin D (2015) Effects of land use-change scenarios on terrestrial carbon stocks in South Korea. Landscape Ecol Eng 11(1):47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research 2. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 163–188Google Scholar
  58. Loibl W, Tötzer T, Köstl M, Steinnocher K (2007) Simulation of polycentric urban growth dynamics through agents: model concept, application, results and validation. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 219–235Google Scholar
  59. Loonen W, Heuberger P, Kuijpers-Linde M (2007) Spatial optimisation in land use allocation problems. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 147–165Google Scholar
  60. Lor P (2011) Preparing for research: metatheoretical considerations. Retrieved from http://pjlor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/chapter-3-draft-2011-04-152.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2013
  61. Lundell M (1996) A qualitative model of physical fields. Paper presented at the National Conference on Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  62. Mackenzie N, Knipe S (2006) Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Educational research, vol 16. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html. Accessed 10 February 2013
  63. Mertens DM (1998) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  64. Mertens DM (2005) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  65. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  66. Mitsuda Y, Ito S (2011) A review of spatial-explicit factors determining spatial distribution of land use/land use change. Landsc Ecol Eng 7(1):117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):48–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mudgal S, Benito P, Koomen E (2008) Modelling of EU land use choices and environmental impacts-scoping study. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Bio Intelligence Service, SPINLAB, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Callaghan JR (1995) NELUP: an introduction. J Environ Plan Manage 38(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Overmars KP, de Groot WT, Huigen MGA (2007) Comparing inductive and deductive modeling of land use decisions: principles, a model and an illustration from the Philippines. Hum Ecol 35:439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pack JR (1978) Urban models: diffusion and policy application. Regional Science Research Institute, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  72. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Piyathamrongchai K, Batty M (2007) Integrating cellular automata and regional dynamics using GIS: the dynamic settlement simulation model (DSSM). In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 259–277Google Scholar
  74. Ponterotto JG (2005) Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Couns Psychol 52(2):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ramanath AM, Gilbert N (2004) The design of participatory agent-based social simulations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 7(4): 1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/4/1.html. Accessed 9 July 2013
  76. Rindfuss RR, Walsh SJ, Turner II BL, Moran EF, Entwisle B (2004) Linking pixels and people. In: G Gutman AC, Janetos CO, Justice EF, Moran JF, Mustard RR, Rindfuss DL, Skole BL, Turner MA Cochrane (eds) Land change science 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 379–394Google Scholar
  77. Rotmans J, van Asselt MBA (2001) Uncertainty management in integrated assessment modeling: towards a pluralistic approach. Envrion Monit Assess 69:101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sheridan P, Schroers JO, Rommelfanger E (2007) GIS-based modelling of land use systems. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (eds) Modelling land use change progress and applications 90. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 375–389Google Scholar
  79. Soares-Filho B, Rodrigues H, Follador M (2013) A hybrid analytical-heuristic method for calibrating land use change models. Environ Model Softw 43:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sohl TL, Loveland TR, Sleeter BM, Sayler KL, Barnes CA (2010) Addressing foundational elements of regional land use change forecasting. Landsc Ecol 25(2):233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tekin AK, Kotaman H (2013) The epistemological perspectives on action research. J Educ Soc Res 3(1):81–91Google Scholar
  82. Terry L, Sohl TL, Claggett PR (2013) Clarity versus complexity: land use modeling as a practical tool for decision-makers. J Environ Manage 129:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. USEPA (2000) Projecting land-use change: a summary of models for assessing the effects of community growth and change on land-use patterns. EPA/600/R-00/098. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  84. Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK, Ligtenberg A (2010) An agent-based approach to model land use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol 25(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Ittersum M, Brouwer FM (2010) Introduction. In: Brouwer FM, van Ittersum M (eds) Environmental and agricultural modelling: integrated approaches for policy impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  86. Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1996a) CLUE-CR: an integrated multi-scale model to simulate land use change scenarios in Costa Rica. Ecol Model 91(1–3):231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1996b) CLUE: a conceptual model to study the conversion of land use and its effects. Ecol Model 85(2/3):253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Editorial; predicting land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61:309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Verburg PH, Kok K, Pontius JRG, Veldkamp A (2006a) Modeling land use and land-cover change. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, New York, pp 117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Verburg PH, Rounsevell MDA, Veldkamp A (2006b) Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Verburg PH, Bakker M, Overmars KP, Staritsky I (2008) Landscape level simulation of land use change. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, New york, pp 211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den Heiligenberg HARM (2010) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc Ecol 25(2):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Voigt B, Troy A (2008) Land use modeling. In: Brian F, Sven Erik J (eds) Encyclopedia of ecology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 2126–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Voinov A, Costanza R, Wainger L, Boumans R, Villa F, Maxwell T et al (1999) Patuxent landscape model: integrated ecological economic modeling of a watershed. Environ Model Softw 14(5):473–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim; modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68(3):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wainger LA, Rayburn J, Price EW (2007) Review of land use change models applicability to projections of future energy demand in the Southeast United States. Southeast energy futures project, UMCES (CBL) 07-187. http://waingerlab.cbl.umces.edu/docs/LUchangeReviewRevised.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2014
  98. Wicke B, Verweij P, Meijl HV, Vuuren DPV, Faaij APC (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3(1):87–100. doi: 10.4155/bfs.11.154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wien JE, Rizzoli AE, Knapen R, Athanasiadis I, Janssen S, Ruinelli L et al (2010) A web-based software system for model integration in impact assessments of agricultural and environmental policies. In: Brouwer FM, van Ittersum M (eds) Environmental and agricultural modelling: integrated approaches for policy impact assessment. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2004) Research methods in education: an introduction. Pearson, NJGoogle Scholar
  101. Witlox F (2005) Expert systems in land use planning: an overview. Expert Syst Appl 29(2):437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Azadi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ali Akbar Barati
    • 4
  • Parisa Rafiaani
    • 1
  • Fatemeh Taheri
    • 5
  • Kindeya Gebrehiwot
    • 6
  • Frank Witlox
    • 3
  • Philippe Lebailly
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Environmental SciencesHasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium
  2. 2.Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio TechUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Department of GeographyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Agricultural Development and ManagementUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  5. 5.Department of Agricultural Extension and EducationKhuzestan Ramin Agricultural and Natural Resources UniversityAhvazIran
  6. 6.Department of Land Resource Management and Environmental ProtectionMekelle UniversityMekelleEthiopia

Personalised recommendations