Mapping Patterns of Human Use and Potential Resource Conflicts on Public Lands

  • James V. Schumacher
  • Roland L. Redmond
  • Melissa M. Hart
  • Mark E. Jensen


Large areas in western North America are publicly owned and managed by governmental agencies for a variety of uses. As the human population continues to grow, competing interests will place mounting pressures on how resources from these lands should be managed and used by people. To make sound decisions about the allocation of these resources, decision makers must consider all aspects of the ecosystems in which they are found. The human role in ecosystem function is one such topic deserving of more attention (Sheifer, 1996). Much as humans need to be included in ecological studies, current maps of human settlement and related patterns are not accurate enough for many assessments. One way to create more accurate maps is to integrate data from the U.S. Census Bureau with other information sources, often remotely sensed imagery (Lo and Faber, 1997; Yuan et al., 1997; Mesev, 1998; Ryavec and Veregin, 1998).


Public Land Human Population Density Mapping Pattern Search Radius Bull Trout 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ESRI. 1998. ARC/INFO version 7.1.Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Holloway, S. R.; Schumacher, J. V.; Redmond, R. L. 1999. People and place: dasymetric mapping using ARC/INFO. In: Morain, S., ed. GIS solutions in natural resource management: balancing the technical-political equation.Santa Fe, NM: OnWord Press: 283–291.Google Scholar
  3. Lo, C. P.; Faber, B. J. 1997. Integration of Landsat thematic mapper and census data for quality of life assessment. Remote Sens. Environ.62:143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Mesev, V. 1998. The use of census data in urban image classification. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing64: 431–438.Google Scholar
  5. Redmond, R.L.; Hart, M. M.; Winne, J. C.; Williams, W. A.; Thornton, P. C.; Ma, Z.; Tobalske, C. M.; Thornton, M. M.; McLaughlin, K. P.; Tady, T. P.; Fisher, F. B.; Running, S. W. 1998. The Montana gap analysis project: final report.Unpublished report. Missoula, MT: Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana: xiii + 136p.Google Scholar
  6. Ryavec, K. E.; Veregin, H. 1998. Population and rangelands in central Tibet: a GIS-based approach. GeoJournal 44:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schumacher, J. V.; Hart, M. M.; Redmond, R. L.; Jensen, M. E. 2000. GIS modeling of human use of public lands in the western United States. In: The EMAP symposium on western ecological systems: status, issues and new approaches. April 6-8, 1999. San Francisco: J. Environ. Monit. Assess.Google Scholar
  8. Seaber, P. R.; Kapinos, F. P; Knapp, G. L. 1987. Hydrologic unit maps.Water-Supply Pap. 2294. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey: 62p.Google Scholar
  9. Sheifer, I. C. 1996. Integrating the human dimension in ecoregion/ecosystem studies—a view from the ecosystem management national assessments effort. Bulletin Ecol. Soc. Amer.77:177–180.Google Scholar
  10. Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union33: 913–920.Google Scholar
  11. Yuan, Y.; Smith, R. M.; and Limp, W. F. 1997. Remodeling census population with spatial information from Landsat TM imagery. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.21:245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • James V. Schumacher
  • Roland L. Redmond
  • Melissa M. Hart
  • Mark E. Jensen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations