Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70190194

Integrating spatially explicit representations of landscape perceptions into land change research

Monica Dorning·Derek B. Van Berkel·Darius J. Semmens
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Purpose of Review Human perceptions of the landscape can influence land-use and land-management decisions. Recognizing the diversity of landscape perceptions across space and time is essential to understanding land change processes and emergent landscape patterns. We summarize the role of landscape perceptions in the land change process, demonstrate advances in quantifying and mapping landscape perceptions, and describe how these spatially explicit techniques have and may benefit land change research. Recent Findings Mapping landscape perceptions is becoming increasingly common, particularly in research focused on quantifying ecosystem services provision. Spatial representations of landscape perceptions, often measured in terms of landscape values and functions, provide an avenue for matching social and environmental data in land change studies. Integrating these data can provide new insights into land change processes, contribute to landscape planning strategies, and guide the design and implementation of land change models. Summary Challenges remain in creating spatial representations of human perceptions. Maps must be accompanied by descriptions of whose perceptions are being represented and the validity and uncertainty of those representations across space. With these considerations, rapid advancements in mapping landscape perceptions hold great promise for improving representation of human dimensions in landscape ecology and land change research.

Explore related subjects

Current Landscape Ecology ReportsArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Monica Dorning, Derek B. Van Berkel, Darius J. Semmens. 2017-08-08. Integrating spatially explicit representations of landscape perceptions into land change research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-017-0025-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2023

Compact or sprawling cities: Has the sparing-sharing framework yielded an ecological verdict?

Purpose of Review Global urban land area is growing faster than the urban population, raising concerns that sprawling, low-density development will reduce biodiversity and human wellbeing. The sparing-sharing framework, adapted from agroecology, provides one approach to assessing alternative urban growth patterns. It compares ecological outcomes in landscapes matched for total population and land area, but differing in configuration: land sparing (partitioned between densely urbanized and undeveloped areas) or land sharing (low-density development throughout). We reviewed the urban sparing-sharing literature since 2010 and recovered 15 studies conducted in 22 cities on four continents. Recent Findings Collectively, studies assessed effects of alternative development patterns on 296 species, 21 community metrics (such as species richness), and 26 indicators of ecosystem services or processes (such as carbon sequestration). Sparing was the best option for 51% of individual species; 43% of community metrics; and 27% of ecosystem service indicators. Summary Existing ecological research does not clearly favor one pattern or the other, and new approaches are needed to facilitate decision making and ecological insight. Specifically, future work could (1) explicitly evaluate optimized urban development patterns across multiple competing priorities (such as providing housing, delivering ecosystem services, and protecting priority species), (2) tackle issues of spatial scale and connectivity that are often ambiguous in sparing-sharing research, and (3) improve geographical representation. These advances can be made while preserving the key insight of the framework–that choices between alternative landscape configurations are only meaningful when those landscapes are matched for total area and the level of human needs met.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗
USGS2021

Responses of vertebrate wildlife to oil and natural gas development: Patterns and frontiers

Purpose of Review Anthropogenic activities can lead to the loss, fragmentation, and alteration of wildlife habitats. I reviewed the recent literature (2014–2019) focused on the responses of avian, mammalian, and herpetofaunal species to oil and natural gas development, a widespread and still-expanding land use worldwide. My primary goals were to identify any generalities in species’ responses to development and summarize remaining gaps in knowledge. To do so, I evaluated the directionality of a wide variety of responses in relation to taxon, location, development type, development metric, habitat type, and spatiotemporal aspects. Recent Findings Studies ( n = 70) were restricted to the USA and Canada, and taxonomically biased towards birds and mammals. Longer studies, but not those incorporating multiple spatial scales, were more likely to detect significant responses. Negative responses of all types were present in relatively low frequencies across all taxa, locations, development types, and development metrics but were context-dependent. The directionality of responses by the same species often varied across studies or development metrics. Summary The state of knowledge about wildlife responses to oil and natural gas development has developed considerably, though many biases and gaps remain. Studies outside of North America and that focus on herpetofauna are lacking. Tests of mechanistic hypotheses for effects, long-term studies, assessment of response thresholds, and experimental designs that isolate the effects of different stimuli associated with development, remain critical. Moreover, tests of the efficacy of habitat mitigation efforts have been rare. Finally, investigations of the demographic effects of development across the full annual cycle were absent for non-game species and are critical for the estimation of population-level effects.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗
USGS2020

Restoration at the landscape scale as a means of mitigation and adaptation to climate change

Purpose of Review Although landscape-scale restoration efforts are gaining traction worldwide, their success is generally unknown. We review landscape-scale restorations to gain insight to whether focal ecological outcomes have been achieved, in the face of changing environmental conditions. Recent Findings Only 9% of the 477 articles that resulted from our search were studies of landscape-scale restorations. The majority (73%) of the landscape restorations from our study have occurred since the 1990s, indicating that this type of restoration has gained in popularity in the last 30 years. Furthermore, 67% of these restoration studies occurred in a single country: China. Many scientific studies have addressed the ability of a species to shift ranges with climate change, yet few of the landscape-scale restoration studies used for our study addressed this question. Instead, 87% of the studies focused on ecosystem function, rather than community-level processes, as a result of restoration. Summary There is a clear need for more research to be undertaken on the ecological outcomes of landscape-scale restorations to understand whether they enable species and communities to shift their ranges or adapt to climate change. Conservation practitioners could utilize our decision matrix as a tool to guide restoration of individual sites within a landscape context, as well as current and future climatic conditions, to guide ecological outcomes of interest. Optimal biodiversity maintenance requires habitat conservation in concert with restoration activities at the landscape scale, and the latter, likely increasingly so in a world of changing climate.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗