Defining urban, suburban, and rural: a method to link perceptual definitions with geospatial measures of urbanization in central and eastern Massachusetts

Developing greater understandings of socio-ecological relationships across urbanizing areas is increasingly recognized as important for the conservation and management of natural resources in a variety of development contexts. Efforts to do so have been hindered by a lack of consistent measures of urbanization and the challenge of integrating socio-cultural characteristics into definitions of urban. We present a novel method for linking perceptual definitions of urban, suburban, and rural to geospatial characteristics and demonstrate how the method can be used to map urban, suburban, and rural areas at multiple scales in central and eastern Massachusetts. Our method can facilitate comparative approaches to urban ecology, be used to scale up socio-ecological studies, and inform conservation research and practice in urbanizing areas.

[1]  A. Troy,et al.  Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[2]  W. Zipperer,et al.  Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient , 2005, Urban Ecosystems.

[3]  S. Pickett,et al.  Forest-Landscape Structure along an Urban-To-Rural Gradient* , 1995, The Professional Geographer.

[4]  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.

[5]  Lawrence E. Band,et al.  Beyond Urban Legends: An Emerging Framework of Urban Ecology, as Illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study , 2008 .

[6]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[8]  W. Zipperer,et al.  Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas , 2001 .

[9]  Nancy E. McIntyre,et al.  Urban Ecology as an Interdisciplinary Field: Differences in the use of “Urban” Between the Social and Natural Sciences , 2008 .

[10]  M. McKinney,et al.  Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation , 2002 .

[11]  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.

[12]  David M. Theobald,et al.  Placing exurban land‐use change in a human modification framework , 2004 .

[13]  Anne G. Short Gianotti,et al.  Landowner conservation awareness across rural-to-urban gradients in Massachusetts , 2015 .

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

[15]  N. Grimm,et al.  Integrated Approaches to Long-TermStudies of Urban Ecological Systems , 2000 .

[16]  Brian G. Tavernia,et al.  Spatial extent and habitat context influence the nature and strength of relationships between urbanization measures , 2009 .

[17]  Kevin R. Gurney,et al.  Urbanization and the carbon cycle: Current capabilities and research outlook from the natural sciences perspective , 2014 .

[18]  L. Hutyra,et al.  Inconsistent definitions of "urban" result in different conclusions about the size of urban carbon and nitrogen stocks. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[19]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[20]  Suming Jin,et al.  Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information , 2015 .

[21]  N. Grimm,et al.  Integrated Approaches to Long-TermStudies of Urban Ecological Systems , 2000 .

[22]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Classification and Regression Trees , 1984 .

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