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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Allen P.M. and Sanglier M. 1979. A dynamic model of urban growth: II. J. Social Biol. Struct. 2: 269-278.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hess G.R. and Bay J.M. 1997. Generating confidence intervals for composition-based landscape indexes. Landsc. Ecol. 12: 309-320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hobbs E.R. 1988. Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 141-152.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Redman C.L. 1999. Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems 2: 296-298.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. von Thünen J.H. 1825. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtshaft und Nationalökonomie. Hamburg, Rostock, Germany.

  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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luck, M., Wu, J. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17, 327–339 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020512723753

Download citation

  • Gradient analysis
  • Land use pattern
  • Landscape metrics
  • Urban ecology
  • Urbanization