Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the spatially dynamic distribution of humans in the Oregon (USA) Coast Range

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A common approach to land use change analyses in multidisciplinary landscape-level studies is to delineate discrete forest and non-forest or urban and non-urban land use categories to serve as inputs into sets of integrated sub-models describing socioeconomic and ecological processes. Such discrete land use categories, however, may be inappropriate when the socioeconomic and ecological processes under study are sensitive to a range of human habitation. In this paper, we characterize the spatial dynamic distribution of humans throughout the forest landscape of western Oregon (USA). We develop an empirical model describing the spatial distribution and rate of change in historic building densities as a function of a gravity index of development pressure, existing building densities, slope, elevation, and existing land use zoning. We use the empirical model to project changes in building densities that are applied to a 1995 base map of building density to describe future spatial distributions of buildings over time. The projected building density maps serve as inputs into a multidisciplinary landscape-level analysis of socioeconomic and ecological processes in Oregon's Coast Range Mountains.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azuma D.L., Birch K.R., DelZotto P., Herstrom A.A. and Lettman G.J. 1999. Land use change on non-federal land in western Oregon, 1973–1994. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon, USA, 55 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow R. 1978. Land Resource Economics: The Economics of Real Estate. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 653 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow S.A., Munn I.A., Cleaves D.A. and Evans D.L. 1998. The effect of urban sprawl on timber harvesting. Journal of Forestry 96: 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockstael N.E. 1996. Modeling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1168–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capozza D.R. and Helsley R.W. 1989. The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth. Journal of Urban Economics 26: 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan A.F. and Luloff A.E. 2000. The exurbanization of America's forests: research in rural social science. Journal of Forestry 98: 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan W.F., Meir E., Carroll S.S. and Wu J. 2001. The ecology of urban landscapes: modeling housing starts as a density-dependent colonization process. Landscape Ecology 16: 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin M.-J., Drapeau P. and Legendre P. 1989. Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology. Vegetation 83: 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzen R. and Hunsberger B. 1998. Have we outgrown our approach to growth? The Sunday Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, USA, December 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frayer W.E. and Furnival G.M. 1999. Forest survey sampling designs: a history. Journal of Forestry 97: 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita M. 1982. Spatial patterns of residential development. Journal of Urban Economics 12: 22–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geoghegan J., Villar S.C., Klepeis P., Mendoza P.M., Ogneva-Himmelberger Y., Chowdhury R.R. et al. 2001. Modeling tropical deforestation in the southern Yucatan peninsular region: comparing survey and satellite data. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 85: 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W.H. 1997. LIMDEP Version 7.0: User's Manual. Econometric Software, Inc., Bellport, New York, USA, 850 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene W.H. 1995. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New York, USA, 1075 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haining R. 1990. Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, 409 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser J.R. 1978. Testing the accuracy, usefulness, and significance of probabilistic choice models: an information theoretic approach. Operations Research 26: 406–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes K.E. and Fotheringham A.S. 1984. Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, USA, 88 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmer E.H. 2000. The landscape ecology of tropical secondary forest in montane Costa Rica. Ecosystems 3: 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin E.G. and Geoghegan J. 2001. Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85: 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona - Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 611–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline J.D. 2000. Comparing states with and without growth management: analysis based on indicators with policy implications, comment. Land Use Policy 17: 349–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline J.D. and Alig R.J. 1999. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farmlands? Growth and Change 30: 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline J.D., Moses A. and Alig R.J. 2001. Integrating urbanization into landscape-level ecological assessments. Ecosystems 4: 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis W.J., Phillips R.H. and Connaughton K.P. 1996. County portraits of Oregon and northern California. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-377. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA, 315 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milloy R.E. 2000. Population trends heighten West's fire woes. New York Times, New York, New York, USA, August 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills E.S. 1980. Urban Economics. Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois, USA, 241 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyao T. 1981. Dynamic Analysis of the Urban Economy. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA, 188 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) 1999. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 84 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nusser S.M. and Goebel J.J. 1997. The National Resources Inventory: a long-term multi-resource monitoring programme. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4: 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson G.C. and Hellerstein D. 1997. Do roads cause deforestation? using satellite images in econometric analysis of land use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79: 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Revenue 1998. Specially assessed forestland. Property Tax Division, Valuation Section, Oregon Department of Revenue., Salem, Oregon, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly W.J. 1929. Methods for the study of retail relationships. University of Texas Bulletin Number 2944. University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorl J.M. and Veldkamp A. 2001. Linking land use and landscape process modeling: a case study for the Alora region (south Spain). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85: 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L.C. and Pontius R.G. Jr. 2001. Modeling land-use change in the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85: 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serneels S. and Lambin E.F. 2001. Proximate causes of land-use change in Narok District, Kenya: a spatial statistical model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85: 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y.J., Phipps T.T. and Colyer D. 1997. Agricultural land values under urbanizing influences. Land Economics 73: 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies T.A., Reeves G.H., Burnett K.M., McComb W.C., Johnson K.N., Grant G. et al. 2002. Assessing the ecological consequences of forest policies in a multi-ownership province in Oregon. In: Liu J. and Taylor W.W. (eds), Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 179–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenson J.J. and Franklin J. 2000. The effects of future urban development on habitat fragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains. Landscape Ecology 15: 713–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Wear D.N. and Flamm R.O. 1996. Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 6: 1150–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Census 1992. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh S.J., Crawford T.W., Welsh W.F. and Crews-Meyer K.A. 2001. A multiscale analysis of LULC and NDVI variation in Nang Rong district, northeast Thailand. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 85: 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wear D.N. and Bolstad P. 1998. Land-use changes in southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial analysis and forecast evaluation. Ecosystems 1: 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wear D.N., Lui R., Foreman J.M. and Sheffield R. 1999. The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management 118: 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheaton W.C. 1982. Urban residential growth under perfect foresight. Journal of Urban Economics 12: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, 97331, USA

    Jeffrey D. Kline

  2. Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 97208, USA

    David L. Azuma

  3. Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331, USA

    Alissa Moses

Authors
  1. Jeffrey D. Kline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David L. Azuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alissa Moses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kline, J.D., Azuma, D.L. & Moses, A. Modeling the spatially dynamic distribution of humans in the Oregon (USA) Coast Range. Landscape Ecology 18, 347–361 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026184718626

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026184718626

Search

Navigation