Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 327–339 | Cite as

A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA

  • Matthew Luck
  • Jianguo Wu


Urbanization is arguably the most dramatic form of land transformation that profoundly influences biological diversity and human life. Quantifying landscape pattern and its change is essential for the monitoring and assessment of ecological consequences of urbanization. Combining gradient analysis with landscape metrics, we attempted to quantify the spatial pattern of urbanization in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona, USA. Several landscape metrics were computed along a 165 km long and 15 km wide transect with a moving window. The research was designed to address four research questions: How do different land use types change with distance away from the urban center? Do different land use types have their own unique spatial signatures? Can urbanization gradients be detected using landscape pattern analysis? How do the urban gradients differ among landscape metrics? The answers to these questions were generally affirmative and informative. The results showed that the spatial pattern of urbanization could be reliably quantified using landscape metrics with a gradient analysis approach, and the location of the urbanization center could be identified precisely and consistently with multiple indices. Different land use types exhibited distinctive, but not necessarily unique, spatial signatures that were dependent on specific landscape metrics. The changes in landscape pattern along the transect have important ecological implications, and quantifying the urbanization gradient, as illustrated in this paper, is an important first step to linking pattern with processes in urban ecological studies.

Gradient analysis Land use pattern Landscape metrics Urban ecology Urbanization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen P.M. and Sanglier M. 1979. A dynamic model of urban growth: II. J. Social Biol. Struct. 2: 269-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antrop M. and Van Eetvelde V. 2000. Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: Visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 50: 43-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker L.A., Hope D., Xu Y., Edmonds J. and Lauver L. 2001. Nitrogen Balance for the Central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP) Ecosystem. Ecosystems 4: 582-602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty M. 1997. Cellular automata and urban form: A primer. J. Amer. Plann. Assoc. 63: 266-274.Google Scholar
  5. Batty M. and Longley P. 1989. Urban growth and form: Scaling, fractal geometry, and diffusion-limited aggregation. Environ. Plann. A 21: 1447-1472.Google Scholar
  6. Blair R. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol. Appl.: 506-519.Google Scholar
  7. Breuste J., Feldmann H. and Uhlmann O. 1998. Urban Ecology. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess E.W. 1925. The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. In: Park R.E., Burgess E.W. and McKenzie R. (eds), The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 47-62.Google Scholar
  9. Christaller W. 1933. Central Places in Southern Germany. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Collins J.P., Kinzig A., Grimm N.B., Fagan W.F., Hope D., Wu J. et al. 2000. A new urban ecology. Amer. Sci. 88: 416-425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook E.A. 1991. Urban landscape networks: an ecological planning framework. Landsc. Res. 16: 8-15.Google Scholar
  12. Couclelis H. 1985. Cellular worlds: A framework for modelling micro-macro dynamics. Environ. Plann. A 17: 585-596.Google Scholar
  13. Foresman T.W., Pickett S.T.A. and Zipperer W.C. 1997. Methods for spatial and temporal land use and land cover assessment for urban ecosystems and application in the greater Baltimore-Chesapeake region. Urban Ecosys. 1: 201-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frohn R.C. 1998. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology: New Metric Indicators for Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Grimm N., Grove J.M., Pickett S.T.A. and Redman C.L. 2000. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. BioSci. 50: 571-584.Google Scholar
  16. Harris C.D. and Ullman E.L. 1945. The nature of cities. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. So. Sci. 242: 7-17.Google Scholar
  17. Hess G. 1994. Pattern and error in landscape ecology: A commentary. Landsc. Ecol. 9: 3-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess G.R. and Bay J.M. 1997. Generating confidence intervals for composition-based landscape indexes. Landsc. Ecol. 12: 309-320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobbs E.R. 1988. Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 141-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoyt H. 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Federal Housing Administration, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Hunsaker C.T., O'Neill R.V., Jackson B.L., Timmins S.P., Levine D.A. and Norton D.J. 1994. Sampling to characterize landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 9: 207-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jelinski D.E. and Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 11: 129-140.Google Scholar
  23. Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region. Landsc. Ecol. 16: 611-626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kowarik I. 1990. Some responses of flora and vegetation to urbanization in central Europe. In: Sukopp H., Hejny S. and Kowarik I. (eds), Urban Ecology: Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 45-74.Google Scholar
  25. Knowles-Yanez K., Moritz C., Fry J., Redman C.L., Bucchin M. and McCartney P.H. 1999. Historic Land Use: Phase I Report on Generalized Land Use. Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  26. Lösch A. 1954. The Economics of Location. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticutt, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Loucks O.L. 1994. Sustainability in urban ecosystems: Beyond an object of study. In: Platt R.H., Rowntree R.A. and Muick P.C. (eds), The Ecological City. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 49-65.Google Scholar
  28. Luck M.A., Jenerette G.D., Wu J. and Grimm N. 2001. The urban funnel model and spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint. Ecosystems 4: 782-796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDonnell M.J., Pickett S., Groffman P. and Bohlen P. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosys. 1: 21-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71: 1232-1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA-Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  32. McIntyre N.E., Knowles-Yanez K. and Hope D. 2001. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: Differences in the use of 'urban' between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosys. 4: 5-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naveh Z. and Lieberman A.S. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  34. O'Neill R.V., Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H., Sugihara G., Jackson B., DeAngelis D.L. et al. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 153-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park R.E., Burgess E.W. and McKenzie R. 1925. The City in. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Pickett S.T.A., Burch J.W.R., Dalton S.E., Foresman T.W., Grove J.M. and Rowntree R. 1997. A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosys. 1: 185-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Portugali J. 2000. Self-Organization and the City. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Pouyat R.V. and McDonnell M.J. 1991. Heavy metal accumulations in forest soils along an urban-rural gradient in southeastern New York, USA. Water, Soil, and Air Pollution 57/58: 797-807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pouyat R.V., McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. 1995. Soil characteristics of oak stands along an urban-rural land-use gradient. J. Env. Quality 24: 516-526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Redman C.L. 1999. Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems 2: 296-298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schweitzer F. (ed.) 1997. Self-Organization of Complex Structures. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Sukopp H. 1990. Urban ecology and its application in Europe. In: Sukopp H., Hejny S. and Kowarik I. (eds), Urban Ecology: Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 2-22.Google Scholar
  43. Sukopp H. 1998. Urban ecology-Scientific and practical aspects. In: Breuste J., Feldmann H. and Uhlmann O. (eds), Urban Ecology. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 3-16.Google Scholar
  44. Tobler W.R. 1979. Cellular geography. In: Gale S. and Olsson G.D. (eds), Philosophy in Geography. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 379-386.Google Scholar
  45. Turner M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: The Effect of pattern on process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 171-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner M.G., O'Neill R.V., Gardner R.H. and Milne B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 3: 153-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. von Thünen J.H. 1825. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtshaft und Nationalökonomie. Hamburg, Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
  48. White R. and Engelen G. 1993. Cellular automata and fractal urban form: a cellular modelling approach to the evolution of urban land-use patterns. Environ. Plann. A 25: 1175-1199.Google Scholar
  49. Whittaker R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. MacMillan, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson A.G. 1976. Catastrophe theory and urban modelling: An application to modal choice. Environ. Plann. A 8: 351-356.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson A.G. 1981. Catastrophy Theory and Bifurcation. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Wong D.S.S. and Fotheringham A.S. 1990. Urban systems as examples of bounded chaos: Exploring the relationship between fractal dimension, rank-size, and rural-to-urban migration. Geografiska Annaler 72B: 89-99.Google Scholar
  53. Wu J. 2000. Landscape Ecology: Pattern, Process, Scale and Hierarchy. Higher Education Press, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  54. Wu J. and David J. 2002. A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: Theory and applications. Ecol. Modell (in press).Google Scholar
  55. Wu J., Jelinski D.E., Luck M. and Tueller P.T. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: Scale variance and pattern metrics. Geog. Info. Sci. 6: 6-19.Google Scholar
  56. Wu J. and Loucks O.L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 70: 439-466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhu W. and Carreiro M.M. 1999. Chemoautotrophic nitrification in acidic forest soils along an urban-to-rural transect. Soil Biol. Biochem.: 1091-1100.Google Scholar
  58. Zipperer W.C., Wu J., Pouyat R.V. and Pickett S.T.A. 2000. The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizing landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 10: 685-688.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Luck
    • 1
  • Jianguo Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Landscape Ecology and Modeling Laboratory, Department of Plant BiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations