Patterns and scale relations among urbanization measures in Stockholm, Sweden

In this study we measure urbanization based on a diverse set of 21 variables ranging from landscape indices to demographic factors such as income and land ownership using data from Stockholm, Sweden. The primary aims were to test how the variables behaved in relation to each other and if these patterns were consistent across scales. The variables were mostly identified from the literature and limited to the kind of data that was readily accessible. We used GIS to sample the variables and then principal component analyses to search for patterns among them, repeating the sampling and analysis at four different scales (250 × 250, 750 × 750, 1,250 × 1,250 and 1,750 × 1,750, all in meters). At the smallest scale most variables seemed to be roughly structured along two axes, one with landscape indices and one mainly with demographic factors but also impervious surface and coniferous forest. The other land-cover types did not align very well with these two axes. When increasing the scale this pattern was not as obvious, instead the variables separated into several smaller bundles of highly correlated variables. Some pairs or bundles of variables were correlated on all scales and thus interchangeable while other associations changed with scale. This is important to keep in mind when one chooses measures of urbanization, especially if the measures are indices based on several variables. Comparing our results with the findings from other cities, we argue that universal gradients will be difficult to find since city shape and size, as well as available information, differ greatly. We also believe that a multivariate gradient is needed if you wish not only to compare cities but also ask questions about how urbanization influences the ecological character in different parts of a city.

[1]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[2]  R. Blair.  Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient , 1996 .

[3]  J. P. Collins,et al.  A New Urban Ecology Modeling human communities as integral parts of ecosystems poses special problems for the development and testing of ecological theory , 2003 .

[4]  E. Andersson,et al.  Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  Kirstin Dow,et al.  Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems , 2000, Urban Ecosystems.

[6]  P. Warren,et al.  Tits, noise and urban bioacoustics. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Scott Weich,et al.  Measuring Physical Characteristics of Housing: The Built Environment Site Survey Checklist (BESSC) , 2005 .

[8]  B. Wakeling,et al.  Lizard species distributions and habitat occupation along an urban gradient in Tucson, Arizona, USA , 2001 .

[9]  Teja Tscharntke,et al.  SCALE‐DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ON THREE POLLINATOR GUILDS , 2002 .

[10]  C. Gries,et al.  Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Urban biosphere and society : partnership of cities , 2004 .

[12]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics , 2002, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  S. Pickett,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification , 2007 .

[14]  M. Mcdonnell,et al.  Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne's urban–rural gradient , 2006 .

[15]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  Quantifying Landscape Spatial Pattern: What Is the State of the Art? , 1998, Ecosystems.

[16]  M. Ridd.  Exploring a V-I-S (vegetation-impervious surface-soil) model for urban ecosystem analysis through remote sensing: comparative anatomy for cities , 1995 .

[17]  M. Mcdonnell,et al.  The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  M. Bowers,et al.  Foraging of Gray Squirrels on an Urban‐Rural Gradient: Use of the Gud to Assess Anthropogenic Impact , 1996 .

[19]  R. Whittaker,et al.  GRADIENT ANALYSIS OF VEGETATION* , 1967, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[20]  S. Levin.  The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[21]  C. Folke,et al.  The Dynamics of Social‐Ecological Systems in Urban Landscapes: Stockholm and the National Urban Park, Sweden , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Ter Braak,et al.  Canoco reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user''s guide: software for canonical community ord , 2002 .

[23]  J. P. Collins,et al.  A New Urban Ecology , 2000, American Scientist.

[24]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Fluid dynamics: Vortex rings in a constant electric field , 2003, Nature.

[25]  N. McIntyre,et al.  Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences , 2004, Urban Ecosystems.

[26]  Jianguo Wu.  Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[27]  C. Folke,et al.  History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape , 2005 .

[28]  R. Pouyat,et al.  Variation in quality and decomposability of red oak leaf litter along an urban-rural gradient , 1999, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[29]  Jukka Jokimäki,et al.  Effects of landscape matrix and habitat structure on a bird community in northern Finland: A multi-scale approach , 1996 .

[30]  Petr Šmilauer,et al.  CANOCO 4.5 Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination , 2002 .

[31]  S. Levin.  THE PROBLEM OF PATTERN AND SCALE IN ECOLOGY , 1992 .

[32]  S. Pickett,et al.  Ecosystem Structure and Function along Urban‐Rural Gradients: An Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology , 1990 .

[33]  Madhusudan Katti,et al.  The Effects of Human Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity , 2005 .

[34]  D. Lu,et al.  Use of impervious surface in urban land-use classification , 2006 .

[35]  S. M. Glenn,et al.  Urban Bird Diversity and Landscape Complexity: Species- environment Associations Along a Multiscale Habitat Gradient , 2003 .

[36]  J. Wiens.  Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[37]  D. Whited,et al.  The importance of local and regional factors in predicting effective conservation Planning strategies for wetland bird communities in agricultural and urban landscapes , 2000 .

[38]  T. M. Lillesand,et al.  Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation , 1980 .