From Landscapes 

to Lots:

Understanding and Managing Midwestern

Landscape Change

Paul H. Gobster and Robert G Haight

From Landscapes 

to Lots:

Understanding and Managing Midwestern 

Landscape Change

Paul H. Gobster and Robert G Haight
FROM LANDSCAPES TO LOTS: UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING

MIDWESTERN LANDSCAPE CHANGE

A PROGRESS REPORT

NORTH CENTRAL RESEARCH STATION

LANDSCAPE CHANGE INTEGRATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

PAUL H. GOBSTER AND ROBERT G. HAIGHT

SCIENCE CO-LEADERS
North Central Research Station 

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

1992 Folwell Avenue

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108

2004

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research findings described in this report stem from a sustained effort among Station

scientists and collaborators since the inception of the Landscape Change Integrated Research

and Development Program in 1998. Those playing a critical part in shaping the program

included Tom Crow, Linda Donoghue, John Dwyer, Eric Gustafson, Bob Haack, Warren

Heilman, Pam Jakes, Dennis May, Dave Shriner, Frank Thompson, and Mike Vasievich.

Researchers contributing to the individual projects highlighted on these pages are cited in the

text, with contact information and citations for further reading provided in appendix 1. A

complete list of contributors to NCRS-sponsored landscape change studies is provided in

appendix 2. We are grateful for their participation in the Landscape Change Program and for

the opportunity to learn from them in our service as program co-leaders.

This report is dedicated to David S. Shriner (1945-2003), who as Supervisory Assistant Director

of the Landscape Change Integrated Program provided a sustaining leadership and an endearing

enthusiasm for landscape change research at the North Central Station.
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is a progress report to stakeholders of the Landscape Change Integrated

Research and Development Program, highlighting the results of research conducted during

1999-2003 to provide policy-relevant information about development-related landscape change

in the seven-State Midwest region. Four questions are addressed: 

How is the landscape changing? Our research has helped to identify the critical patterns and

trends of changes in the Midwest region over recent decades. Detailed information on housing

density and land cover and county data on forest characteristics, plants and animals, and

human demographics have been organized in a Web-based atlas available to researchers,

planners, and decisionmakers. Special studies on other critical patterns such as ozone

concentrations help us understand trends and linkages within and beyond the region.

What drives landscape change? Physical, biological, social, and economic factors combine in

complex ways to draw people to locations within the region not only to visit, but also

increasingly to build primary residences and second homes. This amenity migration has

traditionally centered on the riparian areas within the region but is increasingly spreading to

forest and agricultural areas of the urban and rural fringe.

What are the consequences of landscape change? Forest parcelization and low-density

development patterns are affecting the people and ecosystems of the region. At the urban fringe,

fragmentation of forest cover is resulting in reductions in songbird populations and the decline

in health of oak ecosystems. There also are concerns in more rural areas, such as economic

impacts to the forest industry as increasing housing density results in fewer timber removals.

Concerns about sprawl among metropolitan residents have increased across the Midwest region,

with the perceived effects on environmental quality, farmland and open-space protection, traffic,

and other problems varying in intensity from city to city. 

What do we do about it? Strategies for avoiding, minimizing, or ameliorating the negative

effects of landscape change include policies aimed at protecting open space by regulating land

use, providing incentives to landowners and developers, and educating homeowners. The

effectiveness of many open-space protection strategies has not been tested, but approaches that

integrate multiple tools and authorities have the highest potential for succeeding.

Understanding the goals of planners and residents can go far to achieve long-term, effective, and

equitable guidelines for landscape change.

In the highlighted studies and in other efforts within and outside the region, the North Central

Research Station is contributing to the knowledge base needed to discover, understand, and

make reasoned decisions about development-related landscape change. Stakeholder

participation is needed to help guide the future course of work in this critical area.
ii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

How is the Landscape Changing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Changing Midwest: An Atlas of Landscape Change . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Patterns of Housing Density Change Across the Midwest 

Region,1940-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Land Cover Change in the Midwest Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Dynamics of Ozone in the Western Great Lakes Region . . . . . . . . . .10 

What Drives Landscape Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Amenity Migration as a Driver of Landscape Change . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 

Accessibility as a Driver of Landscape Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Homeowners’ and Developers’ Views of Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

What are the Consequences of Landscape Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Effects of Urbanization on Songbird Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 

Effects of Housing Density on Timber Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Protecting the Health of Oak Forests in Urbanizing Landscapes . . . . .21

The Perceived Impacts of Urban Sprawl Across 

Thirteen Midwestern Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

What Do We Do About Landscape Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Public Policies for Managing Urban Growth and 

Protecting Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Goal Tradeoffs in Metropolitan Open-Space Protection . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Impacts of Open-Space Protection on Development 

Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Guidelines for Open Space Neighborhoods on the 

Urban Fringe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Community Identities as Visions for Landscape 

Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Conclusions and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Appendix 1: Contact and Publication Information for 

Research Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Appendix 2: NCRS-sponsored Landscape Change

Research 1999-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
INTRODUCTION

Contemporary patterns of population growth,

landownership, and development are

changing the landscape of urban, suburban,

and rural areas throughout the United States.

Population growth on the edges of

metropolitan areas exceeded 10 percent in

1990-2000 as people continued to sprawl

outward from large, densely settled urban

cores (Heimlich and Anderson 2001) and

rates of land conversion from open space to

developed uses far exceeded rates of

population growth (Fulton et al. 2001). One

of the places where land consumption is most

visible is the Chicago metropolitan area.

During the 1990s, population growth in nine

suburban counties (598,000 people, 25%)

was more than twice the population growth in

Cook County (281,000, 5.5%), which

contains the city of Chicago (Johnson 2002),

and land consumption in the region grew by

40 percent (Openlands Project 1999). In

addition to the very rapid growth of

metropolitan areas, population growth in

non-metropolitan, recreation counties

throughout the United States exceeded 20

percent in 1990-2000 as people migrated to

and established residences in rural areas rich

in natural amenities and other recreational

attractions (Johnson and Beale 2002). In the

northwoods of the Great Lakes States,

population growth in 70 recreation counties

exceeded 15 percent (Johnson and Beale

2002).

Although population growth often spurs

positive economic changes such as more job

opportunities, higher property values, and

prosperity, it can have negative consequences

for the area’s social, physical, and biological

systems. Stakeholders are concerned about:

• Environmental degradation—loss of

biological diversity, increased forest

fragmentation, reduced quality and

quantity of wildlife habitat, reduced air

and water quality.

• Commodity production—reduced

availability of timber and mining

resources, greater extraction costs, higher

levels of conflict with adjacent

landowners.

• Community relations—overcrowding,

loss of unique identity and special

places, increased conflicts between new

and established residents, increased

infrastructure costs and planning

challenges.

• Recreation quality—loss of access to

private land, loss of opportunities for

solitude, increased conflicts between

participants in new and established

recreation activities. 1

FROM LANDSCAPES TO LOTS: UNDERSTANDING

AND MANAGING MIDWESTERN LANDSCAPE

CHANGE

A PROGRESS REPORT

Paul H. Gobster is a

Research Social

Scientist, with the

North Central Research

Station, Evanston, IL,

and Robert G. Haight

is a Research Forester

with the North Central

Research Station, St.

Paul, MN.
2

In response to these concerns, scientists

throughout the United States are studying the

impacts of population growth and development in both metropolitan and rural areas.

One of the most important landscape

attributes affected by development is forest

cover. Changes in species composition, size,

shape, and spatial distribution of forest

patches are related to the physical environment, ownership, and land use history (Crow

et al. 1999). For example, roads fragment

forests and reduce the amount of interior

forest habitat (Miller et al. 1996). In suburban

areas, housing fragments forests which

contributes to a reduction in water quality

(Wear et al. 1998) and degradation of wildlife

habitat (Theobald et al. 1997). Similar effects

occur as a result of low-density human

development in rural areas. Since the 1940s,

low-density housing dispersing outward from

large urban centers has contributed to the

fragmentation of forests in the St. Croix River

valley of Minnesota and Wisconsin (Andersen

et al. 1996). Forest fragmentation, in turn, can

isolate plant and animal populations and

threaten their existence (Saunders et al. 1991). 

Increasing population and development can

affect the sustainable forest productivity of a

region. For example, researchers found that

population density was a significant predictor

of commercial timberland in five counties of

western Virginia, and the probability of forest

management decreased with increasing

population and approached zero as population

density exceeded 150 people per square mile

(Wear et al. 1999). Working with data for

Mississippi and Alabama, researchers found

lower timber harvest rates in areas with higher

population density (Barlow et al. 1998). These

case studies highlight the need for further

research on the impacts of increasing

population and housing on the incidence of

various kinds of timber harvest, harvest costs,

timber supply, and employment in the logging

and wood processing sectors. 

A great deal of thinking has gone into the

factors that influence human settlement

patterns, and current social trends suggest that

environmental amenities are receiving more

weight in individual location decisions

(Stewart 2002). Retirement, technologies that

facilitate working from a distance, disposable

income, and second-home ownership are

factors that influence migration decisions. As a

result, people may be moving to nonmetropolitan counties not because of better

jobs and wages but because their lifestyle and

wealth allow them to choose places with more

environmental amenities. Given increased

demand for housing in non-metropolitan

counties, location of development depends on

topographic features like slope and elevation

and distances to major roads, metropolitan

centers, and water (Turner et al. 1996, Wear

and Bolstad 1998). Knowing where

development is likely to occur allows us to

evaluate potential environmental hazards and

mitigation strategies.

There is a growing literature on alternative

public policy tools for guiding development

and mitigating its negative consequences

(Fischel 1990, O’Neill 1999). One such tool is

open-space protection. Government programs

to protect open space grew in popularity in the

1990s with the passage of numerous State and

local referenda, which raised billions of dollars

for acquiring privately owned open space

(Hollis and Fulton 2002). Although designated

open spaces protect natural areas and provide

opportunities for recreation and education,

they affect housing prices and the pattern of

development (Riddel 2001). Thus, decisions to

increase the amount of public conservation

land should depend not only on the environmental and amenity benefits but also on the

housing and employment impacts to surrounding communities (Lewis et al. 2002).
3

3. Determine the effects of landscape change

on people and ecosystems.

4. Assess the effectiveness of public policies

for regulating landscape change.

Scope of this Document

This document describes research findings,

policy implications, and tools that we have

developed during the program’s first 5 years

(1999-2003) to help people make informed

choices about their natural resources.

Consistent with the program’s objectives, this

report provides information relevant to the

discussion of four main questions: 

1. How is the landscape changing? 

2. What drives landscape change? 

3. What are the consequences of landscape

change? 

4. What do we do about it? 

Our findings focus on landscape change issues

in the seven States of the Midwest region (fig.

1). These issues are associated with migration

and settlement patterns of people across an

urban to rural gradient and the impacts of

those patterns on our region’s natural

resources. 

The work described above and much more

forms a solid foundation for addressing problems specific to the Midwest region, with its

complexity of forest types, landforms, people,

and land uses. Merging our disciplinary

capacities in landscape and wildlife ecology,

forest inventory and analysis, social sciences

and economics, meteorology, and other areas,

the North Central Research Station launched

the Landscape Change Integrated Research

and Development Program in 1998 (Gobster

et al. 2000). The program is aimed at tackling

key problems and issues concerning the

development-related aspects of landscape

change. Teams of scientists from various disciplines are working together on common

problems, many for the first time. Focusing

on our seven-State region (fig. 1), we hope to

provide the specific information that forest

managers and policymakers need for guiding

growth and change in the Midwest and to

transfer that information elsewhere when possible.

Purpose and Objectives of the

Landscape Change Integrated

Program

The purpose of the Landscape Change

Integrated Program is to combine the efforts

of scientists across the Station’s

research work units to develop a

better understanding of land use and

land cover change and to develop

knowledge and tools to help people

make informed choices about how

they use natural resources. Based on

a series of workshops and other

communications with researchers

and stakeholders, we identified four

overarching objectives to:

1. Characterize the current patterns

of land use and land cover

change in the Midwest region.

2. Understand the physical,

biological, social, and economic

factors influencing the rate and

extent of landscape change.

Grand Rapids

 









St. Paul



Rhinelander

Houghton

East Lansing

West Lafayette

Evanston

Columbia





































Experimental Forests

Field Research Offices

Station Headquarters

Additional State

responsibilities for

Forest Inventory 

and Analysis

Figure 1.—The seven-State region of the North Central Research Station.
4

Stewart, S.I. 2002.

Amenity migration. In: Luft, K.; MacDonald,

S., comps. Trends 2000: shaping the

future, 5th Outdoor recreation & tourism

trends symposium; 2000 September 17-20;

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,

Department of Park, Recreation and

Tourism Resources: 369-378.

Saunders, D.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Margules,

C.R. 1991.

Biological consequences of ecosystem

fragmentation: a review. Conservation

Biology. 5: 18-32.

Theobald, D.M.; Miller, J.R.; Hobbs,

N.T. 1997.

Estimating the cumulative effects of

development on wildlife habitat. Landscape

and Urban Planning. 39: 25-36.

Turner, M.G.; Wear, D.N.; Flamm, R.O.

1996.

Land ownership and land-cover change in

the Southern Appalachian Highlands and

the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological

Applications. 6: 1150-1172.

Wear, D.N.; Bolstad, P. 1998.

Land-use changes in Southern Appalachian

landscapes: spatial analysis and forecast

evaluation. Ecosystems. 1: 575-594.

Wear, D.N.; Turner, M.G.; Naiman, R.J.

1998. 

Land cover along an urban-rural gradient:

implications for water quality. Ecological

Applications. 8: 619-630.

Wear, D.N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J.M.;

Sheffield, R.M. 1999.

The effects of population growth on timber

management and inventories in Virginia.

Forest Ecology and Management. 118:

107-115.

4

LITERATURE CITED

Andersen, O.; Crow, T.R.; Lietz, S.M.;

Stearns, F. 1996.

Transformation of a landscape in the upper

mid-west, USA: the history of the lower St.

Croix River Valley, 1830 to present.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 35: 247-

267.

Barlow, S.A.; Munn, I.A.; Cleaves, D.A.;

Evans, D.L. 1998.

The effect of urban sprawl on timber

harvesting: a look at two southern states.

Journal of Forestry. 96(12): 10-14.

Crow, T.R.; Host, G.E.; Mladenoff, D.J.

1999.

Ownership and ecosystem as sources of

spatial heterogeneity in a forested

landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape

Ecology. 14: 449-463.

Fischel, W.A. 1990.

Do growth controls matter? A review of

empirical evidence on the effectiveness

and efficiency of local government land

use regulations. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy. 68 p.

Fulton, W.; Pendall, R.; Nguyen, M.;

Harrison, A. 2001.

Who sprawls most? How growth patterns

differ across the U.S. Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and

Metropolitan Policy. 24 p.

Gobster, P.H.; Haight, R.G.; Shriner, D.

2000.

Landscape change in the Midwest: an

integrated research and development

program. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 9-14.

Heimlich, R.E.; Anderson, W.D. 2001.

Development at the urban fringe and

beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural

land. Agric. Econ. Rep. 803. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service. 80 p.

Hollis, L.E.; Fulton, W. 2002.

Open space protection: conservation

meets growth management. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution

Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

84 p.

Johnson, K.M. 2002.

The changing face of Chicago:

demographic trends in the 1990s.

Chicago Fed Letter #176, April. Chicago,

IL: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. 4 p.

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C.L. 2002.

Nonmetro recreation counties: their

identification and rapid growth. Rural

America. 17(4): 12-19.

Lewis, D.J.; Hunt, G.L.; Plantinga, A.J.

2002.

Public conservation land and employment

growth in the northern forest region.

Land Economics. 78: 245-259.

Miller, J.R.; Joyce, L.A.; Knight, R.L.;

King, R.M. 1996.

Forest roads and landscape structure in

the southern Rocky Mountains.

Landscape Ecology. 11: 115-127.

O’Neill, D. 1999.

Smart growth: myth and fact. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute. 26 p.

Openlands Project. 1999.

Under pressure: land consumption in the

Chicago region 1998-2028. Chicago, IL:

31 p.

Riddel, M. 2001.

A dynamic approach to estimating

hedonic prices for environmental goods:

an application to open space purchase.

Land Economics. 77: 494-512.
The researchers mapped change in four broad

sections of interest. The Land Cover section

describes changes in the amount and distribution of the major land cover types in the region (i.e., Agriculture, Forestland, and

Urban). The Forest Characteristics section

provides a comprehensive account of change

in forests by forest type group, including

change in area, volume, structure, composition, and ownership (e.g., fig. 2). The Plants

and Animals section describes change in the relative abundance of species of special concern. And the Human Demographics section

describes change in population, housing and

seasonal housing density, and personal

income.

The Changing Midwest is available in atlas

form and on the NC Web site: http://www.

ncrs.fs.fed.us/IntegratedPrograms/lc/. The set

of maps lays the groundwork for subsequent

studies that will examine the interactions

between people and resources across the region, such as a state-by-state identification

of hotspots of land cover change (see inset).

The set also is intended for use by planners

and others who need broad coverage of key

indicators of change at the State and regional

levels. Perhaps its highest and best use, however, will be to show citizens and policymakers where we have gone as a region over the

last two decades and to stimulate discussion

about the future. 

5

HOW IS THELANDSCAPECHANGING?

Human-influenced changes in the landscape can vary widely. Some are sudden and localized,

such as the removal of timber from a woodlot, while others like global climate change can be

imperceptibly slow and widespread. Identifying the key patterns of landscape change in the

Midwest region is thus an essential first step in understanding what potential impacts such

changes can have and ultimately what to do about them. To help answer questions about how

the landscape is changing, we have begun to identify important physical, biological, and social

patterns in the landscape at the regional or subregional scale—ecological land types, forest cover,

land use, population densities, and other factors. Using a diverse set of data from the Forest

Inventory and Analysis program, the U.S. Census Bureau, satellite imagery, and other sources, we

are putting together a region-wide picture of landscape patterns. To enrich this base of data, we

have also conducted expert and media analyses to help identify the types of issues resonating

with stakeholders at specific places within the region. As the following research highlights

demonstrate, we now have a solid understanding of the location, magnitude, and rate of change

and their manifestations in the landscape.

The Changing Midwest: An

Atlas of Landscape Change

“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then

a map is worth a thousand pictures.” This

geographer’s adage recognizes the value maps

have in revealing important spatial relationships about people and resources that are

often not visible from the ground. Maps of

landscape change add another valuable

dimension—a temporal one—and can thus reveal critical patterns of how our landscape

is evolving over space and time by providing

information about the concentration and dispersion of people and resources, rates of

change, and other important clues about

what is happening to the landscape in which

we live. 

NCRS researchers Rob Potts and Eric

Gustafson visualized these patterns of change

across the Midwest region as an important

first step in developing hypotheses about the

causes and consequence of development- related change and investigating strategies

aimed at minimizing its negative effects. Working as part of an interdisciplinary team

of researchers from the natural and social sciences, they developed a set of maps showing

key aspects of change across the seven-State

Midwest region. Sociodemographic and biophysical features are mapped at the county

level for 1980 and 2000, and a third composite map shows the degree of change that

occurred between these two periods.
6

Figure 2.—Percent change in the volume of all growing-stock trees, all ownerships, 1980-2000.

Planner’s Toolkit: Mapping the Hotspots of Landscape Change

One illustration of the utility of the Changing Midwest Landscape assessment is a Webbased slide show depicting land cover change. Region-wide, three trends in land cover

change emerged between 1980 and 2000:

• Low change—The corn and soybean belts in Illinois and Iowa, and forestland

in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan remained relatively stable.

• Medium change—Productive and marginally productive agriculture experienced moderate levels of change. Productive agriculture near high-tech areas

tended to convert to urban. Marginally productive agriculture tended to

revert to forestland.

• High change—Urban and suburban areas associated with large cities experienced significant change, particularly along major rail and water routes.

The slide show depicts hotspots of change in each of the seven States in the Region.

Within a given State, users can select from a list of city names to view hotspots of rapid

land cover change, as well as areas of low or medium change. Maps and data tables provide land cover change information over the two decades. 
Patterns of Housing Density

Change Across the Midwest

Region, 1940-2000

Of all the patterns of development-related

change that occur in the landscape, the distribution of people is perhaps the most revealing. Where people choose to live can provide

clues to the resources and other factors that

are driving landscape change and can foreshadow where and to what extent we might

expect changes that will impact the landscapes

we value. In this respect, housing density is a

particularly important measure of population

distribution because it can be used to examine

the spread of development in urban and rural

areas, and to show to what extent forests and

other open lands are becoming fragmented. 

As an extension of the Changing Midwest

assessment just described, NCRS social scientist Susan Stewart has been working with

demographer Roger Hammer and landscape

ecologist Volker Radeloff of the University of

Wisconsin-Madison to chart changes in housing density across the Midwest region. The

team has developed new demographic methods that make it possible to reconstruct past

patterns of residential density as well as to

project them into the future. 

Maps of the 1940-2000 housing density patterns for the region (fig. 3) show that growth

is impacting urban, suburban, and rural areas

alike. Across the seven-State region the number of housing units more than doubled from

1940 to 2000, with mid-level housing densities increasing the most in area. Low-density

development started to become widespread in

the forested rural and exurban regions of

northern Minnesota, Michigan, and

Wisconsin, and southern Missouri during the

1970s, and more than two-thirds of all

Midwest forests contained at least four housing units/km2 by 2000. Although major urban

centers grew little after the 1940s, their associated suburban areas continued to grow

throughout the period. By contrast, most

7

Figure 3.—Housing density change in the Midwest region, 1940-2000, partial block group resolution.

Midwest Region
8

smaller cities, towns, and rural areas in the

Midwest region’s farm belt grew slowly or not

at all over these five decades. 

Going beyond the detail needed for the

assessment, the housing density maps are

accurate enough to use in resource management and landscape ecological research.

When combined with land cover information, the maps are enabling the research team

to identify where land fragmentation is

occurring as well as to examine potential

impacts to wildlife, increases in fire risk, and

other resource management concerns. The

housing density maps are available at

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/IntegratedPrograms/

lc/

Land Cover Change in the

Midwest Region

A second key extension of the Changing

Midwest assessment has been to understand

in a more detailed way how land cover in the

Midwest region is changing. Remotely sensed

data, including aerial photography and satellite imagery, can provide the level of detail

needed by natural resource scientists, planners, and managers to do their jobs more efficiently and accurately. But until recently, the

lack of comparable data sets has prevented

these groups from using remotely sensed data

to detect how landscapes change over time. 

To remedy this problem NCRS scientist Rob

Potts has worked with researchers Daniel

Brown and Kathleen Bergen of the University

of Michigan to develop new methods for

merging disparate sets of remotely sensed

land cover data. In so doing, they produced a

classification system that permits them to

detect changes in land cover at a resolution of

1 km with an accuracy rate of more than 90

percent. 

Applying this methodology to the seven-State

Midwest region, the researchers have given us

a comprehensive picture of land cover change

between 1980 and 2000 (fig. 4). They found

that the most common types of landscape

change were from agriculture to forestland

and from agriculture to urban. Specifically,

the area of forestland in the Midwest region

increased by 18.7 percent (about 12.5 million

acres), and the area of urban lands increased

by 23.4 percent (about 1.4 million acres).

This improved ability to use remotely sensed

data to detect landscape change puts

researchers, planners, and managers in a better position to understand the forces that are

driving change, as well as the ecological, economic, and social consequences of change. In

other words, it gives us the data we need to

understand the effects of landscape change on

plants, animals, and water.

Remotely sensed data, including aerial photography and

satellite imagery, can provide the level of detail needed

by natural resource scientists, planners, and managers

to do their jobs more efficiently and accurately. 
Figure 4.—Forestlands increased by 12.5 million acres between 1980 and 2000, predominantly in less productive agricultural areas of the region.

9
10

Dynamics of Ozone in the

Western Great Lakes Region

The way we live can both directly and indirectly impact the natural resources we value.

As the population of the Midwest region

grows, development is not only consuming

progressively larger areas of open space, but it

is also increasing the number of miles we

have to drive during a day also thereby

increasing air pollution. Ozone (O3) is one

component of air pollution that significantly

threatens not only human health but also the

health and productivity of forest ecosystems.

Understanding the patterns of O3 generation

and movement is thus particularly important

in predicting pollution impacts to the

Midwest region and beyond. Ozone generated

in the atmosphere through chemical reactions

can be transported great distances by atmospheric winds, and the weather and climate

conditions that control O3 formation and its

transport can be influenced by landscape factors such as urban and suburban development, road usage, land usage, bodies of water,

topography, and vegetation patterns. 

To get a handle on these complex patterns,

NCRS scientist Warren Heilman worked with

Jerome Fast of the U.S. Department of

Energy—Battelle Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory to simulate O3 formation and

transport over the western Great Lakes region

(e.g., fig. 5). Using a coupled weather and

atmospheric chemistry model, their simulations for a 30-day period during the summer

of 1999 revealed the following six findings.

(1) Ozone produced in one area of the Great

Lakes region can affect O3 concentrations in

other areas on subsequent days. For example,

O3 produced in Illinois and Wisconsin can

be transported into southern Canada and the

northeastern U.S. (2) High surface O3 concentrations are frequently produced over the

Great Lakes surfaces, even when atmospheric

conditions over land are not conducive to O3

production. (3) Ozone production over the

Great Lakes is very sensitive to lake temperatures. (4) Reducing the emission rates of

oxides of nitrogen leads to higher O3 concentrations over southern Lake Michigan immediately downwind of Chicago and

Milwaukee, and lower O3 concentrations in

more remote areas. (5) Increases in the emission rates of oxides of nitrogen and volatile

organic compounds lead to higher O3 concentrations downwind. (6) Ozone concentrations in remote rural and forested areas of the

region will increase if current population

growth patterns continue.

These findings suggest that natural resource

managers, when predicting future forest

health conditions in the western Great Lakes

region, should take into account the potential

impact of future O3 pollution patterns resulting from regional landscape and climate

changes. Because O3 pollution is a regional

problem, land use decisions and policies

related to urban and suburban development

and transportation network usage in one area

can impact O3 pollution in other distant

areas. In addition, air quality regulators and

policymakers in the Great Lakes region

should consider the cumulative effects of

altered Great Lakes water temperatures and

future changes in land usage when developing O3 pollution standards and assessing

future impacts.

Because O3 pollution is a regional problem, land use

decisions and policies related to urban and suburban

development and transportation network usage in one

area can impact O3 pollution in other distant areas.
11

Figure 5.—Observed (dots) and simulated (contours) surface O3 concentrations in parts per

billion (ppb) at 5:00 pm EDT, 8:00 pm EDT, and 11:00 pm EDT on 24 July 1999 over the

western Great Lakes region. Wind vectors in white show the direction and relative speed of

surface winds. The figures indicate (1) maximum surface O3 concentrations typically occur

over the Great Lakes, (2) O3 can be transported over large distances, and (3) high surface

O3 concentrations can occur in remote areas of the region, far from the major urban centers

where O3-producing chemicals from sources are emitted into the atmosphere.

5:00 pm EDT, 24 July 1999 8:00 pm EDT, 24 July 1999

11:00 pm EDT, 24 July 1999

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 ppb
Amenity Migration as a Driver 

of Landscape Change

People are moving to the countryside in

increasing numbers and accepting longer commutes in order to live near forests, lakes, and

streams. These amenity resources have always

drawn visitors and seasonal homeowners, but

recent shifts in patterns of work make it easier

than ever for people to make these special

places their permanent home.

Susan Stewart, social scientist from NCRS’s

Evanston unit on urban populations and the

natural environment, working with Loyola

University-Chicago demographer Kenneth

Johnson, found evidence of amenity migration

in county population changes in the U.S.

Census. Non-metropolitan counties throughout the U.S. with recreational attributes such

as national forests had higher population

growth rates between 1990 and 2000 than

those without such amenities. Recreational

counties grew by 20.2 percent between 1990

and 2000 compared to 10.4 percent for nonmetropolitan counties as a whole and 13.2

percent for all U.S. counties. Migration, not

natural increase (more births than deaths),

was the demographic driver of most of this

growth. 

The striking difference in growth between

counties with and without amenity resources

suggests that we should pay close attention to

demographic changes in places where natural

resources attract new residents. Walworth

County, Wisconsin, is such a place. Situated in

a rolling countryside with lakes, small towns,

and farms, Walworth County is within a 2-

hour drive for the 10 million people of the

Chicago and Milwaukee metropolitan areas.

12

WHAT DRIVES LANDSCAPE CHANGE?

Since the 1970s, one of the most important features of the changing midwestern landscape is the

movement of people into forested rural and exurban regions of northern Minnesota, Michigan,

and Wisconsin and southern Missouri. The high rates of rural in-migration throughout the 1970s

declined sharply in the 1980s but increased again in the 1990s across the majority of rural counties in the region. And some rural counties were bypassed by this urban to rural migration.

The most compelling explanation for the rural renaissance is that people want to live in areas

rich in natural resource amenities and are willing to sacrifice higher wages, better job opportunities, and urban amenities for a better quality of life. Many aspects of the way we live in America

in the 21st century make amenity migration possible. The Baby Boom generation is approaching

retirement age. Portable pensions and dispersed families make retirement migration easier than it

was for earlier generations. Moving to a small town, perhaps where they grew up or where they

have vacationed or owned a second home, is an attractive option. Among working age people, a

growing number have no one place that constitutes being “at work,” instead telecommuting or

traveling extensively. New communication technologies also make working from a home office

easier. 

Scientists at the North Central Research Station are leading an effort to understand the role of

natural resources and the increasing diversity of social factors influencing urban to rural migration. The three studies in this section describe the importance of forests, lakes, and, surprisingly,

roads, in people’s decisions to move to rural areas or commuter-based subdivisions outside cities.

Amenity migration is a trend worth watching because it can bring major, fundamental change to

the social and natural landscape.
The attractive nature of Walworth County is

reflected by its 25-percent population gain

between 1990 and 2000. 

To find out more about amenity migration,

Susan Stewart and Kenneth Johnson studied

this hotspot of non-metropolitan growth. The

researchers surveyed more than 500 residents

of households owning residential property

close to one of 12 lakes in Walworth County.

Sixty-two percent of the respondents were second home owners, who also owned homes in

the Chicago metropolitan area (fig. 6). Many

residents said that Walworth County’s proximity to Chicago and Milwaukee was a key factor

in their decision to purchase their home. Both

second-home owners and permanent residents

were also attracted by the recreational and scenic amenities of the area. Residents and second-home owners both make extensive use of

the lakes and recreational amenities, and both

groups strongly support efforts to preserve the

environmental quality of the area. Secondhome owners also contribute significantly to

the local economy. Spending on their second

homes averages $13,005 per year, exclusive of

mortgage payments, and they use their second

13

home an average of 97 days a year. Nearly 40

percent of the second-home owners plan to

become permanent residents of the area in the

future. 

Population increases around our national

forests and other rural amenity areas can

increase pressure on recreational facilities and

local services. In addition, migration can

change the age structure, ethnic mix, minority

concentrations, education, and income of a

county’s population over a very short time.

The changing community composition can

affect attitudes toward the environment, willingness to engage in civic organizations, and

recreational use of forests. Continued attention

to the changing size and demographic structure

of populations in areas important to the Forest

Service can help managers and policymakers

understand social change and anticipate which

counties need particular care in planning and

management.

The changing community composition can affect attitudes toward the environment, willingness to engage in

civic organizations, and recreational use of forests.
14

Figure 6.—Primary residences of Walworth County second home owners.
Accessibility as a Driver of

Landscape Change

Parcelization (land ownership fragmentation)

and development of private forestlands can

have major repercussions for economic, ecological, and quality of life values and thus

have become critical concerns of many individuals, public agencies, and private groups

across the United States.

To better understand these concerns, NCRS

social scientist Paul Gobster and University of

Wisconsin-Madison forestry professor and

extension specialist Mark Rickenbach studied

stakeholders who attended a series of discussion forums about parcelization and development held across northern Wisconsin.

Participants generally saw the greatest change

occurring near the outskirts of towns and

cities and around traditional amenity areas.

However, they were often surprised at new

patterns of seasonal home development occurring on forestlands away from water and permanent homes well beyond common commuting distances. People felt that recent highway

improvements reduced daily and weekend

15

commuting distances and thus put formerly

unconsidered areas on the market. Although

improvement and expansion of roads aimed to

reduce congestion, they also improved accessibility and increased the potential for parcelization and development of private forestlands,

especially those near favored recreation areas.

In a related study of the drivers of parcelization, Station scientists Paul Gobster and Tom

Schmidt looked broadly at factors thought to

be influencing private forestland parcelization

across the northern Lake States using FIA data

from the last two forest inventory cycles.

Using stand area as an indicator of parcel size,

they found proximity of forestlands to water

bodies and roads showed the strongest relationships to changes in parcel size.

Furthermore, some of the greatest changes in

parcel size were happening in the smallest

ownership class, 0-10 acres (fig. 7). These

findings suggest private forestlands accessible

and close to recreation areas are being subdivided into parcels of a size that may be valued

more for their use as home sites than for their

potential for wildlife habitat or timber harvesting.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0-40 41-160 161+

Stand area class (acres)

1983 1996

Acres x 1,000

Figure 7.—Changes in parcelization of private timberlands in northwest Wisconsin,

1983-1996. Source: North Central Research Station FIA Statistics (see Gobster and

Schmidt 2000).
Homeowners’ and Developers’

Views of Nature

Home buyers are flocking to new residential

developments at the rural fringe of many metropolitan areas (fig. 8). Among the appeals of

living “out in the country” are “being closer to

nature” and “having space.” To find out what

these concepts mean to new homeowners, NC’s

Evanston unit worked with University of

Michigan social scientists Rachel Kaplan and

Maureen Austin to interview individuals who

purchased homes in new conservation-based

subdivisions in southeast Michigan. Residents’

satisfaction with their communities was overwhelmingly influenced by the availability of

forests, wetlands, and open meadows.

People who owned homes in subdivisions with

smaller lots set around a commonly held and

managed natural area were pleased with their

access to nearby nature. However, they varied

considerably in their understanding of the reasons for open-space conservation surrounding

their housing development. Some fully understood the conservation intent of their subdivision, while others did not understand it at all.

This range in understanding could undermine

conservation outcomes because if people are

not aware that they are at least partly responsible for the remaining open space, they could

make choices that threaten the long-term

health of that open space. 

The provision of conservation-based housing

alternatives is closely related to homeowners’

preferences and demands. Thus, to complete

the picture, the Evanston unit worked with

Michigan State University social scientist

Karen Vigmostad to find out how real estate

developers viewed nature in the context of

their work. In interviews with prominent

developers in Michigan, several key issues

emerged. Development is and is not about

money—although successful developers were

largely profit oriented, they also held altruistic

goals of “building neighborhoods” and helping

people’s dreams come true. Nature is invisible—developers for the most part have little

awareness of nature and wildlife unless these

values are protected by law or public interest.

The market drives development—most

developers contend that the demand for single 16

Figure 8.—Subdivision at the forest fringe.
family detached homes on large lots is still by

far the norm and feel no particular responsibility to try to change people’s preferences.

Planning and regulation are key—developers may resent new environmental controls

but will work within and may even be creatively stimulated by measures to protect natural values as long as they are applied equitably

to all developers. 

These findings suggest important guidelines

for policymakers. Provide homeowners with

better information about open-space conservation design, which may lead them to

more fully appreciate their access to nature

and continued involvement in managing local

natural areas. Provide planners and developers with better information about ecology—

handbooks and coursework could increase

17

awareness about natural area protection, particularly if such information were tied to

incentive programs. Make planning part of

the solution, not part of the problem—

master plans and ordinances often make it

difficult for developers to protect natural values. Plans must be examined and revised to

accommodate more ecologically sensitive

development alternatives. Channel developers’ creativity and passion in positive

ways—allowing higher building densities

and other types of incentives in exchange for

conservation-oriented designs can challenge

developers to seek creative ideas for developing new property. These positive incentives

may be preferable to heaping additional regulations upon the development process, which

often leads to homogeneity and minimum

standards of compliance.

This range in understanding could undermine conservation outcomes because if people are not aware that

they are at least partly responsible for the remaining

open space, they could make choices that threaten

the long-term health of that open space. 
Effects of Urbanization on

Songbird Populations

Urbanization can significantly threaten valued

songbird species, according to a new field

study based in and around Columbia,

Missouri. In the research, NCRS scientist

Frank Thompson teamed up with University

of Missouri ecologist Dirk Burhans to isolate

the effects of urbanization on songbird populations. The researchers compared old-field

sites in the city of Columbia with similar rural

sites in nearby Boone County, conducting

population counts; examining nest predation

by songbird enemies such as snakes, raccoons,

and house cats; and investigating incidents of

brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds.

After collecting and analyzing three breeding

seasons of data, the researchers concluded that

floodplain fields of similar size and structure

may contain very different songbird communities due to urbanization. Although

they found no differences in the

level of nest predation between the

two landscapes, the populations of

some songbirds such as the bluewinged warbler, white-eyed vireo,

and field sparrow common to the

rural sites were rarely or never

detected in bird counts at the urban

sites. Urban populations of brownheaded cowbirds, on the other

hand, were significantly greater

than at the rural sites. The

18

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF LANDSCAPE CHANGE?

Development-related landscape change can affect people and ecosystems in many ways. Some of

the consequences of change can be positive; in a recent study about private forestland parcelization and development in northern Wisconsin, stakeholders participating in discussion forums

said that increased fragmentation of forest cover could increase some desired types of wildlife,

particularly edge species, and that human population increases have expanded the range of

goods and services available in some rural communities. Most participants, however, felt the negative impacts of change were far more pervasive than the positive ones. In that study and others

conducted over the last 5 years, we have begun to systematically document and quantify how

development-related changes are affecting the people and ecosystems of the Midwest region. In

the following sections, we highlight four studies that illuminate the consequences of change

within and across the region.

researchers suspect that the urban landscape

may especially favor cowbirds, in turn putting

songbirds at a disadvantage. Because cowbirds

feed heavily at bird feeders and forage in

short-grass habitats such as lawns, urbanized

settings may constitute cowbird-rich habitats

that are not beneficial to songbirds during the

portion of the breeding season in which cowbirds are active. With their abundance in

urban areas thus assured, cowbirds can further harm urban songbird populations

through brood parasitism, a phenomenon

where cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of

songbirds, who then hatch the intruding

chicks while often losing their own. Here, the

researchers’ findings were especially conclusive. For three species common to both urban

and rural landscapes, the northern cardinal,

indigo bunting (fig. 9), and yellow-breasted

chat, the researchers found that nests were

parasitized 3 to 12 times more frequently in

the urban landscape (fig. 10). 

Figure 9.—Indigo bunting, a neotropical songbird on the

decline in urbanizing areas of the Midwest region.
The researchers’ findings take on a greater

sense of urgency when looked at in the broader context of development-related landscape

change. The Columbia metropolitan area grew

significantly over the period 1982-1997, with

a rate of land conversion to urbanized uses

(47%) nearly double that of human population growth (25%). Like many places across

the Midwest region, development was greatest

at Columbia’s metropolitan fringe, with Boone

County, the location of the study’s “rural” sites,

receiving the majority of the region’s building

permits for new housing. Thus, without any

change in development trends, the researchers’

findings suggest that songbird populations will

likely continue to decline as urbanization

increases in the region. The impact of this loss

could have economic as well as ecological

repercussions for the region. Recent data from

the USDA Forest Service’s National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment show that

birdwatching is the Nation’s fastest growing

recreational activity, participated in by nearly

70 million Americans and a favorite among

aging Baby Boomers with high discretionary

income. In this respect, the findings of this

study warn that birdwatching opportunities

will decline in quality and quantity with the

onset of urbanization, particularly at the urban

fringe nearest to where most people live. 19

Figure 10.—Songbirds were parasitized by cowbirds 3 to 12 times more

frequently on urban study sites than on similar sites in rural areas.

Effects of Housing Density on

Timber Harvesting

As shown in previous chapters on the patterns and drivers of landscape change, housing density in rural and amenity areas of the

Midwest region has increased significantly in

recent years. Researchers who have identified

this phenomenon are now beginning to

assess the potential impacts it might have on

the social, economic, and biological assets of

the region. In one such study, University of

Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. student Alexia

Sabor is quantifying how housing density

may be affecting the timber resource and

economy of the Upper Great Lakes States.

Working with NCRS social scientist Susan

Stewart and UW-Madison researchers Volker

Radeloff and Roger Hammer, Sabor and her

team have combined Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) and U.S. Census data to examine the relationships between housing density, timber removals, and mortality of forests

in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

By calculating the density of houses at various distances from FIA plots, the researchers

found that timber removals decreased substantially as housing density increased.

Results show that less than 10 percent of harvesting events occur in areas where housing

density exceeds 20 units per km2 (fig. 11).

Percent of nests parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds

according to landscape type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Northern Yellow-breasted Indigo

Cardinal Chat Bunting

Percent of nests

Urban Rural
20

Oak-hickory removals in Wisconsin

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Timber harvest (million square feet)

80% of harvest events at 80% of harvest events at

19.9 houses/sq km 19.9 houses/sq km Houses/km

2

Jack pine removals in Wisconsin

Timber harvest (million square feet)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

90% of harvest events at 90% of harvest events at 

 10.8 houses/sq km 10.8 houses/sq km

Houses/km 

2

Aspen removals in Wisconsin

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

 10,000 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Houses/km

2

Timber harvest (million square feet)

90% of harvest events at 90% of harvest events at

6.2 houses 6.2 houses/sq km

Figure 11.—The sensitivity of timber harvesting to housing density is shown for three

different timber types. In all cases, less than 10 percent of harvesting occurs in areas

where housing density exceeds 20 units per km

2

.
These results suggest timber harvesting rates

are closely related to housing density, even in

areas relatively sparsely populated. In addition, the researchers found mortality significantly decreased as housing density increased.

The research team suspects these relationships

may be due to an increased resistance to timber management as private nonindustrial

forestlands are subdivided and developed for

second homes. These new owners focus primarily on the recreational and esthetic values

of their land and are not likely to see timber

harvesting as a compatible objective. Because

the demand for second homes is expected to

rise, these results indicate timber harvesting in

the Upper Great Lakes States may decrease

significantly in the coming decades.

Protecting the Health of Oak

Forests in Urbanizing

Landscapes

Oak ecosystems formed the original landscape

matrix for what have since become the largest

urban centers of the Midwest region—St.

Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit,

Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis-St.

Paul. With growth and development, however,

these ecosystems have been so radically

altered and transformed within these metropolitan areas that today they exist only as remnant patches rather than as large contiguous

areas. In many cases, significant patches in the

form of woodlots and riparian zones still exist

at the urban fringe, but are often unprotected

and threatened by development. 

How can our metropolitan areas continue to

grow and prosper yet maintain and protect

these heritage oak landscapes? NCRS scientist

Jennifer Juzwik is working with a team of

researchers from the North Central Station and

the University of Minnesota to find out. Their

focus is the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan

area, a seven-county, 2,800 mi2 region currently home to more than 2.6 million people.

Echoing a pattern seen across the region,

Minneapolis-St. Paul’s 25 percent growth in

population from 1982 to 1997 was dwarfed

by a more than 60 percent increase in developed land area.

21

Looking at broad changes in the region with

the help of multi-temporal satellite imagery

(Landsat TM), the research team found the

area of oak forest in the region decreased by

4 percent between 1991 and 1998 (fig. 12).

The number of individual oak forest patches

also decreased, as did the average patch size

in six of seven ecological subsections in the

region. Decreases in oak acreage during this

period were highly correlated with increases

in three indicators of urbanization: population density, impervious surface area, and

developed land area (fig. 12). In 75 percent

of the cases where oak stands were completely removed, the stands had been located close

to roads and lakes.

In a followup study at a finer scale, the

researchers found differences in oak loss were

related to land use class, with the greatest

losses (75%) found in Medium Density

Residential and Commercial-Retail-Office

classes (fig. 13). Moderate and low oak

acreage losses were found in Low Density

Residential and Rural Residential classes,

respectively. Declines in forest health were

related also to land use class (fig. 13).

Looking at changes in the spectral reflectance

from satellite images taken of the sites in

1991 and 2000 as a measure of changes in

forest health, the researchers found the greatest reductions in health for sites in the

Medium Density Residential class. 

The team is now working to develop a predictive model to estimate future oak losses

across the metro region for the next 20 years

based on land use class. This information will

be of interest to regional, county, and community managers and planners as well as natural resource specialists in the region. As

team members continue to develop their base

of knowledge, they hope to work with these

individuals and groups in developing best

management practices to maintain and protect the oak resource in our region’s metropolitan areas.

With growth and development, however, these ecosystems have been so radically altered and transformed

within these metropolitan areas that today they exist

only as remnant patches rather than as large contiguous areas.
22

Figure 12.—(A) Decrease in oak forest in Anoka Sand Plains subsection from 1991 to 1998, (B) Increase in developed land in

Anoka Sand Plains subsection from 1990 to 2000.
23

Figure 13.—(A) Oak forest loss (%) from 1991 to 2000 in five land use classes, (B) Oak forest health

change from 1991 to 2000 in five land use classes.
Planner’s Toolkit: A Multimedia CD on Oak Wilt Management

Oak wilt is a severe fungal infection, endemic to Eastern and Midwestern States, that kills red

oaks swiftly and white oaks more slowly, often over several seasons. It is a big problem, killing

thousands of trees every year and destroying oaks highly prized as shade trees.

In an effort to combat its spread, Jennifer Juzwik, a research plant pathologist and project leader

for North Central’s Forest Diseases Research Unit, led a team in the development of a multimedia

CD entitled Oak Wilt: People and Trees—a Community Approach to Management. Released in July

2003, the CD uses Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, videos, and PDF documents to outline

prevention and treatment strategies that can halt the spread of oak wilt in a variety of settings,

from backyard trees to urban forests and beyond.

The CD’s target audiences include urban and community foresters, city administrators, tree

inspectors, parks and recreation staff, and anyone else interested in an integrated oak wilt management program. 

The CD contains three PowerPoint presentations. The first explains the details of the disease,

including a description of it, a guide to identifying it, an explanation of how it spreads, an

overview of management techniques, and an almanac of treatments over the year. For example,

summer is the best time for surveying for disease and administering fungicides, while fall is a

good time to use the deep plows to sever root grafts between neighboring trees, a key route of

disease transmission. Another presentation goes over a variety of oak diseases that look similar to

oak wilt. And the third presentation illustrates several management challenges and intervention

strategies, most centered around different approaches to severing root grafts. The presentations

include links to 30- to 90-second videos that illustrate key points. The presentations and video

files are easily accessible to the average reader with little or no knowledge of tree pests and are

brief enough the entire contents of the CD can be viewed in less than an hour.

For those who want more indepth information, the CD also includes a number of PDFs of

Federal and State brochures that go into much greater detail on specific topics. One, entitled

How to Identify, Prevent, and Control Oak Wilt, is an electronic version of a Forest Service brochure

that describes in well-illustrated detail the disease cycle, symptoms, distribution, and management techniques. Another is a guide to identification of the sap beetles that spread oak wilt.

Others include instructions for collecting field samples for testing and a guide for homebuilders

working in wooded lots, which is important because trees wounded by construction are particularly susceptible to infection.

Also included in the CD are public domain versions of viewing software to ensure the user can

view the contents. 

The CD is available from the North Central Research Station and the Northeastern Area, State

and Private Forestry units, of the USDA Forest Service.

24
The Perceived Impacts of Urban

Sprawl Across Thirteen

Midwestern Cities

Various indicators point to an increase in concern about the environmental and social costs

associated with sprawling development patterns. But these indicators are quite broad,

typically covering large geographic areas (such

as attitude surveys of the entire Nation) and

including only general concerns about sprawl.

This type of information is too broad to

inform policymaking and management in specific areas. 

To provide more geographically sensitive

information about the perceived impacts of

sprawl, NCRS scientists David Bengston and

Rob Potts collaborated with media analyst

David Fan of InfoTrend, Inc., to monitor the

salience of key sprawl-related issues for 13

metropolitan areas in the Midwest region from

1995 to 2000. The study provides a new

approach for the continuous monitoring and

assessment of a broad range of trends in public concerns, attitudes, beliefs, and values.

The researchers found eight main concerns

about urban sprawl. In order of their importance across the United States, these included

concern about (1) environmental impacts

(such as loss of wildlife habitat, forest fragmentation, decreased air and water quality),

(2) loss of farmland, (3) loss of open space,

(4) traffic congestion, (5) urban decline (the

concern that sprawl contributes to the decline

of core cities as public resources are dedicated

to growth at the periphery instead of redevelopment and revitalization of urban centers),

(6) taxpayer subsidies (the concern that

sprawl does not pay its own way and is

subsidized by taxpayers), (7) loss of a sense

of community, and (8) loss of historic sites

(including historic buildings and districts, prehistoric sites, and so on). They also found an

overall increase in these concerns about

sprawl across the United States and in most

metropolitan areas from 1995 to 2001.

Figures 14 and 15 illustrate findings for two

metropolitan areas in the Midwest region.

Figure 14 shows the overall and specific concerns about sprawl in Chicago. Concern about

the impact of sprawl on traffic congestion was

second most important in Chicago, typical of

large metropolitan areas. Figure 15 illustrates

the overall and specific concerns about sprawl

in Des Moines. In contrast to Chicago, this figure shows loss of farmland was the number

one concern about sprawl in Des Moines.

This rising concern about the impacts of

urban sprawl indicates there will likely be

strong public support for growth management

programs and efforts to protect open space.

More specifically, the researchers’ finding that

environmental impacts, loss of farmland, and

loss of open space are the top three concerns

about sprawl implies there may be strong support for public policies such as conservation

easements, purchase of development rights,

transfer of development rights, use-value taxation for resource lands, and other public policy instruments for protecting natural resources

from development. Their findings for individual metropolitan areas provide insights into

the specific concerns in those communities

and guidance for the appropriate public policy

response to address the concerns.

25

This rising concern about the impacts of urban sprawl

indicates there will likely be strong public support for

growth management programs and efforts to protect

open space. 
26

Overall sprawl concern, Chicago, IL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1995-96 1997-98 1999-00

Number of paragraphs

Specific sprawl concerns, Chicago, IL

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Historic

Community

Urban Decay

Subsidy

Traffic

Open Space

Farmland

Environment

Sprawl concerns

Percent of total

Figure 14.—Overall and specific concerns about sprawl in Chicago.
27

Overall sprawl concern, Des Moines, IA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1995-96 1997-98 1999-00

Number of paragraphs

Specific sprawl concerns, Des Moines, IA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Historic

Community

Urban Decay

Subsidy

Traffic

Open Space

Farmland

Environment

Sprawl concerns

Percent of total

Figure 15.—Overall and specific concerns about sprawl in Des Moines.
Public Policies for Managing

Urban Growth and Protecting

Open Space

Faced with growing populations and increasingly land-consumptive development, local,

regional, and State governments in the United

States are designing and implementing strategies to manage urban growth and protect open

space (table 1). 

To better understand the range of public policy

options, David Bengston from the North

Central Research Station, along with Jenna

Fletcher of the Minnesota Forest Resources

Council and Kristen Nelson of the University

of Minnesota, systematically reviewed the

extensive literature describing three broad categories of policy instruments: land acquisition,

land use regulation, and incentive-based

approaches. 

The following key lessons were gleaned from

the literature on the implementation and evaluation of growth management policies and

programs. (1) Surprisingly few empirical evaluations of the effectiveness of growth management policies and programs have been carried

out, despite decades of implementation of

such policies and programs. (2) Administrative efficiency and other details of policy

implementation—rather than the general type

of policy—are critical in determining effectiveness. Poorly administered growth management policies often frustrate desirable development and make a community unattractive

to developers. The result may be development

leapfrogging to distant communities at higher

environmental and social costs, exactly the

opposite of what growth management seeks

to achieve. (3) Multiple, reinforcing policy

instruments are needed to increase effectiveness and avoid unintended consequences. For

example, in the absence of zoning and other

techniques to protect open space, purchase of

development rights or conservation easements

will likely result in a patchwork of protected

lands that will be a magnet for development

on unprotected adjacent lands. (4) Vertical

coordination (between growth management

policies at different governmental levels) and

horizontal coordination (among neighboring

communities, regions, or States) are critical

for successful growth management but are

often inadequate or lacking. (5) Active and

meaningful participation by stakeholders 28

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT LANDSCAPE CHANGE?

The public sector in the United States has responded to growing concern about the social and

environmental costs of sprawling development patterns by creating a wide range of policy instruments designed to manage urban growth and protect open space. A panoply of techniques has

been implemented at the local, regional, State, and to a limited extent, national levels. Three

broad categories of these policy instruments are land acquisition, regulations (e.g., development

moratoria, adequate public facility ordinances, upzoning, urban growth boundaries, urban service boundaries, cluster zoning, exclusive agricultural or forestry zoning), and incentives (e.g., infill

and redevelopment incentives, split-rate property tax, right-to-farm laws, transfer of development

rights, purchase of development rights, use-value taxation). Scientists at the North Central

Research Station are beginning to study these approaches to managing urban growth, including

the process of land acquisition and protection, the potential impacts of land protection on spatial

pattern of development, and the benefits of open-space neighborhoods. 

One of the lessons learned from evaluating growth management policies is that active and meaningful participation by stakeholders throughout the process of planning and implementation is a

cornerstone of effective growth management. One way to foster participation within a community is to understand residents’ views about their environment. NCRS researchers are leading an

effort to identify community identities and understand how they help form a shared vision of

protecting valued places in the face of landscape change. 
throughout planning and implementation is a

cornerstone of effective growth management.

Bengston and his colleagues conclude with a

discussion of potential Federal roles in managing urban growth and protecting open space.

Potential roles include helping to increase

State and local planning capacity; coordinating

local, regional, and State efforts; coordinating

Federal development activities and growth

management goals; and providing greater

funding of incentives for open-space protection and infill development.

29

Table 1.—Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space; the level of government

at which they are typically applied is indicated in parentheses

Policies for Public Acquisition

Managing Urban Public ownership of parks, recreation areas, forests, wildlife 

Growth refuges, wilderness areas, environmentally sensitive areas, 

greenways, and so on (local, regional, State, national)

Regulation

Development moratoria, interim development regulations 

(local)

Rate of growth controls, growth-phasing regulations (local)

Adequate public facility ordinances (local, State)

Upzoning or small-lot zoning, minimum density zoning (local)

Greenbelts (local, regional)

Urban growth boundaries (local, regional, State)

Urban service boundaries (local, regional)

Planning mandates (regional, State)

Incentives

Development impact fees (local)

Development impact taxes, real estate transfer taxes (local)

Infill and redevelopment incentives (local, State)

Split-rate property tax (local)

Brownfields redevelopment (local, State, national)

Location efficient mortgages (local)

Historic rehabilitation tax credits (State, national)

Protecting Open Public Acquisition

Space Public ownership of parks, recreation areas, forests, wildlife 

refuges, wilderness areas, environmentally sensitive areas, 

greenways, and so on (local, regional, State, national)

Regulation

Subdivision exactions (local)

Cluster zoning (local, regional)—incentives also sometimes 

used

Downzoning or large-lot zoning (local)

Exclusive agricultural or forestry zoning (local, State)

Mitigation ordinances and banking (local, State)

Nontransitional zoning (local)

Concentrating rural development (local)

Incentives

Right-to-farm laws (local, State)

Agricultural districts (local, regional, State)

Transfer of development rights (local, regional)

Purchase of development rights, conservation easements 

(local, State, Federal)

Use-value tax assessment (State, national)

Circuit breaker tax relief credits (State)

Capital gains tax on land sales (State)
Goal Tradeoffs in Metropolitan

Open-Space Protection

Major metropolitan areas in the United States

are growing very rapidly, which has resulted in

high rates of conversion of natural areas and

open space in and around urban centers. In

response, people are concerned that open

spaces and the natural communities and recreational opportunities they sustain are being

degraded or destroyed. These concerns are

reflected in a resurgence of land protection

activities by public agencies, non-profit

groups, and local land trusts. 

One of the places where the countervailing

forces of land consumption and land protection are most visible is the Chicago metropolitan area. During 1990-1996, the metropolitan

population grew by 9 percent while land consumption grew by 40 percent. This rapid rate

of land consumption coincided with the passage of numerous county bond referenda in

which funds were raised to acquire and preserve open space. 

To better understand land protection goals and

process, Paul Gobster and Robert Haight from

the North Central Research Station, along with

University of Minnesota economists Jane

Ruliffson and Frances Homans, interviewed 15

planners in municipal, county, regional, and

State agencies and non-governmental organizations involved in open-space protection in

the Chicago area. Although a wide variety of

land protection organizations operate in

Chicago, most of the land protection is done

at the county level by county forest preserve

districts, which can levy property taxes to

acquire, restore, and protect natural areas.

30

Since 1995, over $450 million has been

raised by forest preserve districts for new

land acquisition. An important objective of

land preservation planners is site accessibility: the provision of public access for passive

recreation. Groups with the most money to

spend on land protection are government

agencies, who must argue their case to the

public when persuading them to approve

bond referenda. Public access is a powerful

public relations tool because constituents can

see the direct benefits of their financial contributions through their ability to use and

enjoy a site. Another important goal is biodiversity conservation, including protection of

native terrestrial communities, habitat for an

endangered species, and large areas of highquality habitat.

The research team developed a decision support tool that allows decisionmakers to discover tradeoffs between their land protection

goals. For example, cost curves show how

much area must be protected to increase the

number of cities with access to protected

sites (fig. 16). The cost curves show that,

when land protection funds are limited, there

can be a sharp tradeoff between the goals

maximizing site accessibility and those maximizing species representation. The conflict

can be reduced by protecting a larger number of small and relatively inexpensive

reserves dispersed around the study area.

These results have important implications for

planners and the general public. In the

Chicago area, people who want to influence

land protection decisions should work with

county forest preserve district planners

because they have the most funding available

for land protection. Because the land area

available for protection is shrinking, planners

should seek to protect areas that provide

multiple benefits, such as accessible recreational opportunities and protection of rare

species and ecosystems.

One of the places where the countervailing forces of

land consumption and land protection are most visible

is the Chicago metropolitan area. 
31

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Minimum number of

species represented

55

60

61

Number of cities with access

C

ost (1

0

0 ha)

Figure 16.—Cost curves showing gain in number of cities with access to protected sites for increasing cost (expressed in hectares protected) under different requirements for the number of species represented. A city has access if

it has at least two protected sites within 3 km.

Impacts of Open-Space

Protection on Development

Pattern

In the face of rapid housing and commercial

development, planners in local and regional

governments aim to protect open space for

ecological, recreational, and esthetic purposes. Although protecting open space conserves

natural resources and provides recreation

services, it can also affect the spatial pattern

of development, density of development, and

property values both locally and regionally

(fig. 17). 

To understand the development impacts of

open-space protection, Robert Haight from

the North Central Research Station, along

with University of Minnesota economists

Liaila Tajibaeva and Stephen Polasky, developed a model of the housing market in an

urban area with discrete neighborhoods and

open space. Neighborhoods differ with

respect to the area available for development,

amount of protected open space, and access

to employment. The government provides

open space by purchasing land with money

raised by property taxes. The model predicts

and highlights two important effects of

increasing open-space protection within a

neighborhood. On the one hand, increasing

open space restricts the supply of land available for development, increases the price of

the remaining developable land, and increases

housing density on that land. Higher land

prices and crowding push households away

from the neighborhood. On the other hand,

protected open space generates a local amenity that makes the neighborhood more attractive thereby pulling households toward the

neighborhood. The strength of these push and

pull forces and the resulting pattern of development depend on the amenity value of open

space. When the amenity value of open space

is low, households move away from the neighborhood as open space increases. When the

amenity value of the open space is high,

increasing open space attracts households and

increases housing density and price.
The model provides a theoretical framework for

analyzing environmental amenities across space

and can be extended to determine the impacts

of open-space protection on traffic patterns and

congestion and the welfare and distribution of

income groups. Equally important, results

from the model can alert planners about the

possible development impacts of open-space

protection in their locales. 

32

Figure 17.—Open-space protection in a town restricts the supply of land for development and affects

land prices and demand for residential development.
Guidelines for Open-Space

Neighborhoods on the Urban

Fringe

Residential development throughout the

Midwest region is expanding into green open

spaces on the fringes of metropolitan areas

and bringing significant changes to the landscape. An emerging alternative to haphazard development is the creation of neighborhoods with shared open, natural

spaces—the “Open-Space Neighborhood”

(fig. 18). This is one of the options being set

forth as part of “smart” residential development. 

To understand public perceptions of openspace neighborhoods, social scientists

Christine Vogt from Michigan State

University and Robert Marans from the

University of Michigan, working in cooperation with John Dwyer from the North Central

Research Station, interviewed local government officials, developers, environmentalists,

and homeowners in Livingston, Washtenaw,

and southern Wayne Counties outside of

Detroit. From the interviews, the scientists

learned that local government officials view

open-space neighborhoods favorably because

they maintain natural areas and typically provide recreation opportunities for local residents, often reducing the need for new public

parks and recreational services. Developers

believe such neighborhoods facilitate home

sales. Residents feel their quality of life is

enhanced. Environmentalists believe such

neighborhoods protect natural resources, provide habitat for wildlife, and maintain ecosystems. 

The research suggests five major guidelines

for policymakers concerning open-space subdivisions. Connectivity and coordination—

Within each political unit, consider preparing

an open-space plan to guide future public and

private acquisition and development and establishing mechanisms for linking public and private parcels for ecological, recreational, and

esthetic purposes. Intergovernmental cooperation—Consider increasing coordination and

cooperation between political units in preparing land use plans, developing regulatory systems and approval processes, and managing

natural resources. Natural resource management—Consider alternative institutional

arrangements, approaches, and techniques for

managing neighborhood natural resources—to

include a range of public-private partnerships.

Equal access to nature and recreational

opportunities—Where open-space neighborhoods exist or are being planned, address

issues of access to natural resources and recreation opportunities so the benefits of natural

settings can be shared by residents from other

parts of the community. Developer

incentives—Consider incentives to encourage

developers to protect and maintain natural

resources. 

When these policy guidelines are followed,

open-space neighborhoods provide a highly

effective way of meeting the demands for new

housing in developing areas while maintaining

natural resources. Such neighborhoods also

provide recreational opportunities for local residents while allowing the land to remain on the

tax rolls (fig. 19). Finally, these neighborhoods

contribute to quality of living in the area and

reduce many of the problems associated with

more traditional residential developments.

33

Residential development throughout the Midwest

region is expanding into green open spaces on the

fringes of metropolitan areas and bringing significant

changes to the landscape.
34

Figure 18.—A residential development with shared open space.

Figure 19.—A residential development with a shared nature trail providing recreation opportunities

for local residents.
Community Identities as Visions

for Landscape Change 

A community’s sense of itself, as felt by its citizens, should play a substantial role in determining visions for landscape change. Landscape planning often emphasizes infrastructure

design and development without adequately

considering local identities that distinguish

one community from another. Community

identities are often anchored in tangible environments and events of a community and

have the potential to serve as visions for landscape planning. 

To investigate the connections between community residents and their environment, social

scientist William Stewart of the University of

Illinois, with support from the North Central

Research Station, interviewed members of rapidly growing communities surrounding

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie just outside

the Chicago metropolitan area. Photo-elicitation was used to determine the various meanings that residents attached to local environments. A group of stakeholders were given

disposable cameras and asked to photograph

places that were important to them (fig. 20).

After the film was developed, interviews were

conducted and participants were asked to discuss the significance of places they photographed.

Analysis of photographs and interviews

focused on understanding the meanings of

places that evoked a sense of community.

Three types of community-based meanings

were represented in the landscape surrounding

Midewin. Places to learn about community

landscapes included various kinds of natural

areas, festival sites, and historic transportation

routes where people could learn about the

functioning of natural ecosystems and the connections between human society and landscapes. Places to enact community were

gathering places in the community such as

churches, local restaurants, murals painted by

local artists that represented local heritage,

and public parks where people meet and work

toward shared goals or demonstrate shared

beliefs. Places to improve community landscapes included an abandoned mine, eroded

farmland stream, and degraded prairie where

people have worked together to improve the

natural environment. The restoration of

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is an example of a natural area being a powerful place for

individuals to learn about and improve landscapes in ways that facilitate development of

various community identities.

For planners, identifying shared community

identities could form the basis of planning

visions that integrate both landscape change

and protect valued meanings of local landscapes. In varying degrees, these identities recognize the positive values of landscape change

as a restorative and enriching element in

building a sense of community. The direction

of this research was not to question changes in

land use and development, but to provide

tools to facilitate changes that enhance a sense

of locality and contribute to meaningful senses

of community. In the words of Midewin planners: We learned that there is “no need to

move back to pre-settlement conditions.

Locals do not need the area to be

pristine...Evidence of humans is OK.” And

“The planning process should start with a

study like this, that gets stakeholders talking

about special places.” Information like that

produced in this study helps ensure that positive aspects of existing conditions are maintained and that future landscapes are perceived by constituents as being enhanced.

35

Information like that produced in this study helps ensure

that positive aspects of existing conditions are maintained and that future landscapes are perceived by constituents as being enhanced.
36

Figure 20.—Examples of photographs that study participants took to reflect important elements

of their community.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT

STEPS

This document is a progress report of the

Landscape Change Integrated Research

Program, highlighting science findings that

address the main questions we started out to

solve when we first began this venture 5 years

ago: (1) How is the landscape changing? (2)

What drives landscape change? (3) What are

the consequences of landscape change? (4)

What do we do about it? Summarizing an

ongoing program at a specific point in time is

like trying to shoot at a moving target, and in

choosing to highlight three to four projects for

each question, we necessarily glossed over or

left out many other important findings from

other projects at various stages of completion

(see appendix 2 for a full listing). Drawing on

this larger portfolio of work, in this final section we attempt to provide a more generalized

synthesis of where we stand in the program

and what gaps exist that might be filled in

future work. 

Patterns

The Changing Midwest landscape assessment

has gone far to build a portfolio of human and

natural resource information on changes

across the Midwest region in recent decades.

This county-level information is ideal for giving us the broad picture we need to understand generalized patterns of change across

our seven-State region. In addition to the data

layers we now have, we should continue to

add other human and natural resource information at the county level to our portfolio so

we can better address diverse questions and

issues facing the region as a whole. Some of

this work is now underway, and soon we will

have data layers on such attributes as road

density, songbird abundance, and presence of

insect defoliators and exotics. 

In other cases, however, county data do not

yield the level of detail necessary for the analysis of specific questions. Here, we have found

major land cover classes derived from satellite

imagery at the 1-km2 resolution and housing

density data at the partial block group level

provide two key and very versatile building

blocks. They allow us not only to look at

broad patterns of change across the entire

region but also to use these same data to

address management questions about particular subareas within a county, metropolitan

region, or ecological type. Adding layers at

this scale could only be done at great cost and

may be unnecessary. Instead, we need to more

fully exploit this medium-scale land cover and

housing density data to understand the drivers

and effects of change. 

At the same time, some questions and issues

relating to the patterns of change can be

understood only by using very fine-grained

data such as that obtainable from field study

and mapping through GPS and aerial photos.

A number of these studies also are underway,

including a study of housing development and

road networks within selected townships.

However, we cannot collect data at this scale

across the entire region. Therefore, in the

future it will be important to expand these

fine-grained studies in a systematic way across

important dimensions such as ecological

regions so we can derive greater knowledge

from them than they are capable of providing

as isolated case studies.

37
Along with these issues of scale, we need to

make better use of pattern recognition tools

and methods to understand patterns of landscape change. For example, in cooperation

with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we

are beginning to use “point-pattern analysis” to

help understand whether housing locations

exhibit random, regular, or clustered patterns

of development over time. Concepts from

landscape ecology and spatial analysis tools

such as FragStats also will be useful in this

respect.

Finally, we can learn a great deal more about

the critical patterns of landscape change by

tapping into the expertise of our region’s stakeholders. The study of forestland ownership

parcelization and development in northern

Wisconsin has already been mentioned in this

document. Conducting similar listening sessions in other places around the region could

prove instrumental in identifying how and

where change is taking place. This kind of

qualitative, perceptual information is not often

available through maps or other published data

sources and can thus serve as an early warning

system for incipient changes within the region. 

Drivers

Our analyses of what is driving developmentrelated landscape change in the region point

clearly to North Central’s amenity resources—

especially its forests, lakes, and rivers—as

major forces of change. Although these amenity resources are driving second-home development in the northern and southern portions

of the region, our studies indicate related

socioeconomic, demographic, and technological forces are also at work, including greater

surplus income among some individuals, an

overall aging of the population, and the presence and improvement of roads that provide

improved access to rural home sites. 

One area where decisionmakers could benefit

from a more systematic study of the drivers of

change in rural areas would be in the modeling and prediction of outcomes of policy alternatives aimed at protecting resource values

and guiding growth. NCRS social scientist

Dave Bengston has identified a range of such

policies in place regionally and nationally, yet

he notes that little has been done to quantify

how these policies have worked to achieve

their intended purposes. Another driver that

could have big effects on the forests of the

region is the globalization of industrial forestland ownership. In States such as Wisconsin,

90 percent of the industrial lands changed

hands in the last few years, many of which

have gone from locally owned companies with

a primary timber emphasis to larger, more

diversified corporations. No drastic effects of

such changeovers have been reported, yet

many of the region’s stakeholders are concerned about potential changes over the

longer term and the effects they might have on

timber supply and other resource concerns.

Some of the same drivers at work in the rural

areas of the Midwest region also are playing a

role in the landscape change of our region’s

metropolitan areas. Urban geographers, planners, and others working outside the Station

have developed models of metropolitan

growth by examining proposed highway

extensions, regional economic forecasts, development policies, and other drivers to help

assess future urban form over the next few

38

Our analyses of what is driving development-related

landscape change in the region point clearly to North

Central’s amenity resources—especially its forests,

lakes, and rivers—as major forces of change.
decades. These models often do not place

much attention on natural resource protection

issues, nor do they look beyond their own

metropolitan area of concern to examine

potential changes across a multistate region.

Within this context, a potential role for the

North Central Research Station might be to

synthesize the results of these individual

urban growth modeling efforts across our

seven-State region, to look at common and

divergent change drivers and to highlight

potential changes to forest and other critical

natural resource features.

Effects

Our research to date has just begun to address

the effects of landscape change. Of the spectrum of ecosystem-related landscape changes,

our scientists have thus far focused on (1)

biotic changes—the effects of urbanization on

songbird species and abundance and on oak

disease and mortality; (2) land resource

changes—the effects of forest fragmentation

on timber productivity; and (3) atmospheric

changes—patterns of ozone transport within

and outside the region, with implications for

forest health and productivity. Besides topic

and content areas, these studies differ along a

number of other important dimensions. Some

focus on a specific site or area while others

cover the entire Midwest region and beyond.

Some focus on impacts at the metropolitan

fringe while others look at rural and wildland

landscapes. And some look at problems

unique to the northern ecosystems of the

Midwest region while others deal with issues

characteristic of the forests and urban areas of

the region’s central and southern portions. 

Because the landscape change program has

from the very beginning been organized

around understanding the process of change

more than on any one particular resource,

perhaps it has not been so critical that our initial set of studies was tightly coordinated.

Future work, however, could benefit from

embedding questions about the landscape

change processes within a tighter set of conceptual or geographic boundaries so as to

allow for more systematic comparison and

analysis. 

Two strategies for such future work might

prove fruitful. The first approach, suggested in

our original charter but not yet acted upon,

would be to undertake a place-based

approach. Here, we would select three to five

prototypical areas within the region where

issues of landscape change are critical but different from one another. From these, the

effects on the ecosystem could be thoroughly

assessed. A second approach would be content

oriented, and here we would look to the other

two integrated research programs for direction

and coordination. As we have seen thus far,

forest productivity and riparian landscapes are

critical content areas for landscape change.

Many stakeholders are concerned about the

effects of development on forest health, timber

supply, and other forest productivity issues;

with lakes and streams being such key amenity attractions for development and use, an

obvious priority area should examine development impacts on riparian resources. 

Future studies should address not only the

ecosystem effects of development-related

change, but also those changes that affect people. Although a few program-sponsored studies to date have provided an overview of what

these effects might be—restrictions on recreational access to private lands and loss of historic resources, to name two—little systematic

or indepth work has yet been accomplished. 39

Our research to date has just begun to address the

effects of landscape change. 
The importance of providing a balanced view

of the effects of changes to people cannot be

overemphasized here. Although most work to

date has focused on negative impacts, documenting the benefits of development-related

growth and change can provide important

information to decisionmakers on how future

landscape change might be appropriately guided to maximize benefits and minimize impacts. 

Strategies

Research to date in our fourth and last problem area has been largely social in nature.

Studies here have looked at policies aimed at

mitigating the negative effects of landscape

change, studied people’s responses to alternative housing development designed to conserve

open space, and examined how different

socially desirable goals result in alternative

land acquisition strategies. Most of these have

focused on urban and urban fringe areas, and

although they may have implications for the

broader Midwest region, they have tended to

examine particular metropolitan areas in the

southern or central portion of the region. 

Because many response strategies begin at the

policy and planning level, social science

approaches seem to be an appropriate focus for

this area of the Landscape Change Program.

However, field studies and experiments

designed to examine factors to protect or rehabilitate sites and landscapes may provide useful

information that could also advance research in

the Landscape Change Program. For example,

stream naturalization strategies developed by

NCRS scientists as part of the ecological

rehabilitation of Lake Calumet in southeast

Chicago speak directly to the Landscape

Change Program goals, as do projects undertaken for the ecological restoration of urban

park, rural agricultural, and wildland forest

lands throughout the Midwest region. As mentioned above, such work might be conducted

within a place-based assessment or within priorities established by the other integrated programs.

Future Directions

This final chapter has identified a number of

potential future directions for the Landscape

Change Integrated Research and Development

Program. Certainly other courses could be

taken as well. One fundamental question is

whether the program should continue to focus

only on development-related landscape change

or should expand or shift direction to address

other landscape changes such as those from

natural disturbances. Such a shift might make

sense given the knowledge we might gain

from comparing the similarities and differences between different types of disturbances;

it also might make sense given new priorities

for Forest Service research such as wildland

fire and invasive species. 

As we move ahead, we will need to continue

to rely upon our partners to help us identify

and work on research that matters to the constituents of the Midwest region. Please contact

us with your questions and ideas so that we

can work together to create the knowledge

needed to guide the planning and management of our future landscape.

40

Future studies should address not only the ecosystem

effects of development-related change, but also those

changes that affect people. 
APPENDIX 1: CONTACT AND PUBLICATION INFORMATION FOR

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

How is the Landscape Changing?

The Changing Midwest: An Atlas of Landscape Change

Station contacts: 

Eric J. Gustafson

Robert S. Potts

Web site: 

The Changing Midwest at http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/IntegratedPrograms/lc/

Patterns of Housing Density Change Across the Midwest region, 1940-2000

Station contact: 

Susan I. Stewart

Station partners: 

Roger B. Hammer, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Volker C. Radeloff, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of 

Wisconsin-Madison

Publications:

Hammer, R.B.: Stewart, S.I.; Winkler, R.; et al. 2004.

Characterizing spatial and temporal residential density patterns from 1940-1990 across the

North Central United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 183-189.

Stewart, S.I.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B. 2003.

Characteristics and location of the Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States. In: Proceedings,

2d International wildland fire ecology and fire management workshop; 2003 November 16-20;

Orlando, FL. 6 p. 

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. [In review].

'Sprawl' and forest fragmentation in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000. Conservation 

Biology.

Land Cover Change in the Midwest region

Station contacts: 

Eric J. Gustafson

Robert S. Potts

Station partners: 

Daniel G. Brown and Kathleen M. Bergen, School of Natural Resources and 

Environment, University of Michigan

Publication: 

Bergen, K.M.; Brown, D.G.; Rutherford, J.; Gustafson, E. 2002.

Hotspots of land-cover change in the North-Central region using USGS LUDA and NOAA AVHRR.

Proceedings, IEEE IGARSS 2002; June 2002; Toronto. 

41
Dynamics of Ozone in the Western Great Lakes Region

Station contact: 

Warren E. Heilman

Station partner: 

Jerome D. Fast, Department of Energy, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Publications: 

Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E.; Bian, X. 1998.

Weather patterns associated with high ozone concentrations in the Great Lakes region. In: 23d

conference on agricultural and forest meteorology; 1998 November 2-6; Albuquerque, NM.

Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society: 333-336.

Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E. 2002a.

The effect of lake temperatures and emissions on ozone exposure in the western Great Lakes

region. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 42(9): 1197-1217.

Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E. 2002b.

The effect of lake temperatures on ozone in the western Great Lakes region. In: 25th conference

on agricultural and forest meteorology; 2002 May 20-24; Norfolk, VA. Boston, MA: American

Meteorological Society: J66-J67.

What Drives Landscape Change?

Amenity Migration as a Driver of Landscape Change

Station contact: 

Susan I. Stewart

Station partner: 

Kenneth M. Johnson, Loyola University, Chicago, IL

Publications:

Johnson, K.M. 2002.

The rural rebound of the 1990s and beyond. In: Levitt, James N., ed. Conservation in the Internet

age: threats and opportunities. Washington, DC: Island Press: 63-82.

Stewart, S.I. 2002.

Amenity migration. In: Luft, K.; MacDonald, S., comps. Trends 2000: shaping the future: 5th outdoor recreation & tourism trends symposium; 2000 September 17-20; Lansing, MI. East

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University: 369-378.

Accessibility as a Driver of Landscape Change

Station contact: 

Paul H. Gobster

Station partner: 

Mark G. Rickenbach, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of 

Wisconsin-Madison.

42
Publications:

Rickenbach, M.G.; Gobster, P.H. 2003.

Stakeholders’ perceptions of parcelization in Wisconsin’s northwoods. Journal of Forestry. 101(6):

18-23.

Gobster, P.H.; Rickenbach, M.G. 2004.

Stakeholder perceptions of private forestland parcelization and development: landscape change in

Wisconsin’s northwoods. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 165-182.

Gobster, P.H.; Schmidt, T.L. 2000.

The use of amenity indicators in anticipating private forestland parcelization: a look at the Lake

States’ northwoods. In: DeCoster, L.A., ed. Forest fragmentation 2000: a conference on sustaining private forests in the 21st century; 2000 September 17-20; Annapolis, MD. Alexandria,

VA: The Sampson Group: 171-180.

Homeowners’ and Developers’ Views of Nature

Station contact: 

Paul H. Gobster

Station partners: 

Rachel Kaplan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan

Maureen E. Austin, Environmental Science Department, Alaska Pacific University

Publications: 

Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E. 2004. 

Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69:

235-243.

Austin, M.E. 2004.

Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 245-253.

Austin, M.E.; Kaplan, R. 2003. 

Resident involvement in natural resource management: open space conservation design in practice. Local Environment. 8(2): 141-154.

Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E.; Kaplan, S. 2004.

Open space communities: resident perception, nature benefits, and terminological problems.

Journal of the American Planning Association. 70(3): n.p.

What are the Consequences of Landscape Change?

Effects of Urbanization on Songbird Populations

Station contact: 

Frank Thompson

Station partner: 

Dirk E. Burhans, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of MissouriColumbia

43
Publications:

Thompson, F.R.; Burhans, D.E. 2003.

Predation of songbird nests differs by predator and between field and forest habitats. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 67(2): 408-416.

Thompson, F.R.; Burhans, D.E.; Root, B. 2002.

Effects of point count protocol on bird abundance and variability estimates and power to detect

population trends. Journal of Field Ornithology. 73(2): 141-150.

Pagen, R.W.; Thompson, F.R.; Burhans, D.E. 2001.

A comparison of point-count and mist-net detections of songbirds by habitat and time-of-season.

Journal of Field Ornithology. 73(1): 53-59. 

Burhans, D.E.; Dearborn, D.; Thompson, F.R.; Faaborg, J. 2002. 

Factors affecting predation at songbird nests in old fields. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66(1):

240-249.

Effects of Housing Density on Timber Harvesting

Station contact: 

Susan I. Stewart

Station partners: 

Volker C. Radeloff and Alexia A. Sabor, Department of Forest Ecology and 

Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Roger B. Hammer, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Publication:

Sabor, A.A.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I. 2003.

Relationships between housing density and timber harvest in the Upper Lake States. In: Buse,

L.J.; Perera, A.H., comps. Meeting emerging ecological, economic, and social challenges in the

Great Lakes region: popular summaries. For. Res. Inf. Pap. 155. Sault Ste. Marie, ON: Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute: 80-82.

Protecting the Health of Oak Forests in Urbanizing Landscapes

Station contact: 

Jennifer Juzwik

Station partners:

Frank Pfleger, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul

Brian Loeffelholz, Gary Johnson, and Marvin Bauer, Department of Forest Resources, 

University of Minnesota, St. Paul

Linda Haugen, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, St. 

Paul, MN

Steve Cook, Cook Company, West St. Paul, MN

Joan Elwell, JD Grafix, New Brighton, MN

Publication:

Juzwik, J.; Cook, S.; Haugen, L.; Elwell, J. 2003.

Oak wilt: people and trees, a community approach to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-240. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. CDROM version 2004 v 1.3. 

44
The Perceived Impacts of Urban Sprawl Across Thirteen Midwestern Cities

Station contact: 

David N. Bengston

Station partners: 

David P. Fan, Department of Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Minnesota 

Edward Goetz, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

Publication:

Bengston, D.N.; Fan, D.P.; Potts, R.S.; Goetz, E.G. [In review].

Monitoring the social environment for planning: a computer content analysis approach. Journal of

the American Planning Association. 

What Do We Do About Landscape Change?

Public Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Protecting Open Space

Station contact: 

David N. Bengston

Station partners: 

Kristen C. Nelson, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota

Jenna Fletcher, Minnesota Forest Resources Council

Publication: 

Bengston, D.N.; Fletcher, J.; Nelson, K.C. 2004.

Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 271-286.

Goal Tradeoffs in Metropolitan Open-Space Protection

Station contact: 

Robert G. Haight

Station partner: 

Frances R. Homans, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota

Publications:

Ruliffson, J.A.; Gobster, P.H.; Haight, R.G.; Homans, F.R. 2002.

Niches in the urban forest: organizations and their role in acquiring metropolitan open space.

Journal of Forestry. 100(6): 16-23.

Ruliffson, J.A.; Haight, R.G.; Gobster, P.H.; Homans, F.R. 2003.

Metropolitan natural area protection to maximize public access and species representation.

Environmental Science and Policy. 6: 291-299.

Impacts of Open-Space Protection on Development Pattern

Station contact: 

Robert G. Haight

Station partner:

Stephen Polasky, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota

45
Publication:

Tajibaeva, L.; Haight, R.G.; Polasky, S. [In review].

A discrete space urban model with environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management.

Guidelines for Open-Space Neighborhoods on the Urban Fringe

Station contact: 

Paul H. Gobster

Station partners: 

Christine A. Vogt, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan 

State University

Robert W. Marans, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of 

Michigan.

Publications: 

Vogt, Christine A.; Marans, Robert W. 2002.

Understanding landscape change in open space neighborhoods: views from developers and residents. In: Schuster, Rudy, comp., ed. Proceedings, 2002 Northeastern recreation research

symposium; 2002 April 13-16; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-302. Newtown Square,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 72-78.

Vogt, C.A.; Marans, R.W. [In review]. 

Open-space neighborhoods: resident views on emerging residential developments. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration.

Marans, Robert W. 2003. 

Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of

subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning. 65: 73-83.

Vogt, Christine A.; Marans, Robert W. 2001.

The role, use and benefits of natural recreation areas within and near residential subdivisions. In:

Todd, Sharon, ed. Proceedings, 2001 Northeastern recreation research symposium; 2001 April

1-3; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-289. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 208-213.

Community Identities as Visions for Landscape Change

Station contact: 

Lynne M. Westphal

Station partner: 

William P. Stewart, Department of Leisure Studies, University of Illinois

Publication: 

Stewart, W.P.; Liebert, D.; Larkin, K.W. 2004.

Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69: 315-

334.

46
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

initiated contact info

1997 Landscape change Eric Gustafson, egustafson@fs.fed.us Evelyn Howell,

along ecological and NC-4153, (715-362-1152) Dept. Landscape

cultural gradients in Rhinelander Archit., Univ. of

the Lower St. Croix Wisconsin-Madison 

River Valley

1998 Simulating the effects Eric Gustafson, egustafson@fs.fed.us David Mladenoff

of forest management NC-4153, (715-362-1152) and Volker

and natural disturbances Rhinelander Radeloff, Dept.

on landscape patterns of For. Ecol. and

the Northwestern Manage., Univ. of

Wisconsin Pine Barrens Wisconsin-Madison

1999 Recreation-amenity Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Kenneth Johnson, kjohnso@luc.edu

migration in urban NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. of Socio., (773-508-3461)

proximate areas Evanston Loyola Univ., Chicago

1999 Understanding the John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Robert Marans, marans@umich.edu

dynamics of NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) Coll. Archit. and (734-763-4583),

residential choice: the Evanston Urban Plann., vogtc@pilot.msu.edu

role of the natural Univ. of Michigan, (517-353-5190 x128)

environment Christine Vogt, 

Dept. Park, 

Recreation and Tourism 

Resour., Michigan 

State Univ.

1999 Landscape change at Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us William Stewart, wstewart@uiuc.edu

Midewin Prairie NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Dept. Leisure Studies, (217-244-4532) 

Evanston Univ. of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign

1999 Nature at the urban Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Rachel Kaplan, rkaplan@snre.umich.

edge: ecological- NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) School of Nat. Resour. edu

psychological values Evanston and Environ., (734-763-1061)

Univ. of Michigan

1999 The role of urban Herbert Schroeder, hschroeder@fs.fed.us Rohit Verma, rohit.verma@business.

forests and green- NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x15) David Eccles, utah.edu 

frastructure on Evanston School of (801-585-5263)

suburban sprawl and Business,

on housing choice Univ. of Utah

decisions: an exploratory study

1999 Perceptions of Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Karen Vigmostad, kvigmostad@nemw.

development, NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. Resour. org 

sustainability, and Evanston Dev., Michigan (202-544-5200)

nature: a narrative study State Univ.

of real estate developers

1999 Exploring goal Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Frances Homans, fhomans@dept.

tradeoffs in NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16); Dept. Appl. Econ., agecon.umn.edu

metropolitan natural Evanston; and rhaight@fs.fed.us Univ. of Minnesota (612-625-6220)

area protection Robert Haight, (651-649-5178)

NC-4803, 

St. Paul

47

APPENDIX 2: NCRS-SPONSORED LANDSCAPE CHANGE RESEARCH, 1999-2003

Table 1.—List of landscape change studies sponsored by NCRS

(Table 1 continued on next page)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

1999 Simulating forest Frank Thompson, frthompson@fs.fed.us David Larsen,

landscape change NC-4154, (573-875-5341) Univ. of Missouri

in Indiana Columbia

1999 Predicting scenic Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us James Palmer, zooey@mailbox.

perception in a NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. Landscape syr.edu

changing landscape Evanston Archit., State Univ. (315-470-6548)

of New York-Syracuse

1999 Landscape change Thomas Crow, tcrow@fs.fed.us Barbara Andersen, bjander@uidaho. 

in the Upper NC-4101, (218-326-7110), Dept. Landscape edu

Midwest Grand Rapids; and slietz@fs.fed.us Archit., Univ. of (208-885-9821)

Sue Lietz, NC-4153, (715-362-1142) Idaho

Rhinelander

1999 Causes of land- Thomas Crow, tcrow@fs.fed.us George Host, Nat. ghost@umn.edu 

scape pattern NC-4101, (218-326-7110) Resour. Res. Inst., (218-720-4264), 

Grand Rapids Univ. of Minnesota- djmladen@facstaff.

Duluth, David Mladenoff, wisc.edu 

Dept. For. Ecol. and (608-262-1992) 

Manage., Univ. of 

Wisconsin-Madison

2000 Characterizing David Cleland, dcleland@fs.fed.us Donald Dickmann, 

historical and NC-4153, (715-362-1117) Michigan State Univ.

modern disturbance Rhinelander 

regimes in the Lake 

States

2000 Conservation priorities John Probst, jprobst@fs.fed.us Mike Worland and worl0014@umn.edu

for lowland forest NC-4153, (715-362-1156) Francesca Cuthbert, (715-282-4925),

birds on the St. Croix Rhinelander Dept. Fish. and Wildl., cuthb001@umn.edu

River Univ. of Minnesota (612-624-1756)

2000 Landscape level John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Daniel Brown, danbrown@umich.edu 

analysis linking urban NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) School of Nat. Resour. (734-963-2195)

sprawl and aquatic Evanston and Environ., Univ. 

ecosystems of Michigan

2000 Aligning social and Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Joan Nassauer, School nassauer@umich.

ecological drivers NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) of Nat. Resour. and edu 

of urban landscape Evanston Environ., Univ. of (734-763-9893)

change: the Calumet Michigan

Urban Riparian Area

2000 Policies for managing David Bengston, dbengston@fs.fed.us Kristen Nelson, kcn@umn.edu

forest landscape change: NC-4803, (651-649-5162) Dept. For. Resour., (612-624-1277)

an assessment and an St. Paul Univ. of Minnesota

agenda for future 

research

2000 Demographic change John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Alan Marsinko AMMRS@clemson.

and landscape NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) Dept. For. Resour., edu

management in the Evanston Clemson Univ. (864-656-4839) 

Midwest region: a 

focus on wildlife 

resources

2000 Ethnography of a Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Karen Vigmostad kvigmostad@ 

growth coalition NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. Resour. Dev. nemw.org

Evanston Michigan State Univ. (202-544-5200)

48

(Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

2000 Midwestern land- Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Paul Voss and voss@ssc.wisc.edu

scapes in transition: NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Roger Hammer, (608-262-9526),

identification of past Evanston Dept. Rural Sociol., rhammer@facstaff.

and future residential and Volker Radeloff wisc.edu

development and and Donald Field, (608-263-2898),

demographic change Dept. For. Ecol. radeloff@facstaff.

hotspots across the and Manage., Univ. wisc.edu

Midwest region of Wisconsin (608-265-6321)

drfield@facstaff.

wisc.edu 

(608-263-0853), 

2000 Extending research Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Robert Marans, marans@umich.edu

on the dynamics of NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Coll. Archit. and (734-763-4583),

residential choice: the Evanston Urban Plann., Univ. vogtc@pilot.msu.edu

appeal of older of Michigan, (517-353-5190 x128)

neighborhoods Christine Vogt, 

Dept. Park, Recreation and Tourism 

Resour., Michigan 

State Univ.

2000 Social costs and Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us William Sullivan, wcsulliv@uiuc.edu

benefits of forest NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Human-Environ. Res. (217-244-5156)

buffers at the urban Evanston Lab., Univ. of Illinois 

fringe at Urbana-Champaign

2000 Meaning, community, Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Daniel Cook, Dept. dtcook@uiuc.edu

and landscape NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Advertising, Univ. of (217-333-1602)

change in Calumet Evanston Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

2000 Environmental factors Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us David Klenosky, klenosky@purdue.edu

influencing recreation NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Dept. Health and (765-494-0865)

choice in post- Evanston Kinesiology, Purdue

industrial landscapes Univ.

2000 Urban sprawl and a Herbert Schroeder, hschroeder@fs.fed.us James Cantrill, jcantril@nmu.edu

sense of self-in-place: NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x15) Communications and (906-227-2061)

a thematic analysis Evanston Performance Studies,

of compact and metro- Northern Michigan Univ.

politan urban perceptions

2000 Conflict in interface John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Bruce Hull, Dept. of hullrb@vt.edu

forestry: nature, NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) For. Resour., (540-231-7272)

science, landscape Evanston Virginia Tech

change, and forest 

productivity

2000 Midwestern landscapes Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Paul Voss and voss@ssc.wisc.edu

in transition: demo- NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Roger Hammer, (608-262-9526),

graphic characteristics Evanston Dept. Rural Sociol., rhammer@facstaff.

and population and and Volker Radeloff wisc.edu

housing unit projec- and Donald Field, (608-263-2898),

tions in the Midwest Dept. For. Ecol. and radeloff@facstaff.

region Manage., Univ. of wisc.edu

Wisconsin-Madison (608-265-6321), 

drfield@facstaff.

wisc.edu 

(608-263-0853)

49

(Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

2000 People and the landscape: Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Paul Voss, Roger voss@ssc.wisc.edu

county-level net migration NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Hammer, and (608-262-9526),

in the U.S., 1990 to 2000 Evanston Glen Fuguitt, rhammer@facstaff.

with analysis of age- Dept. Rural Sociol., wisc.edu

specific migration Univ. of Wisconsin- (608-263-2898),

selectivity to recreational Madison fuguitt@ssc.

and high amenity counties wisc.edu 

(608-263-2899)

2000 Nest predation and Frank Thompson, frthompson@fs.fed.us Dirk Burhans, Dept. burhansd@missouri. 

nest predators of NC-4154, (573-875-5341) Fish. and Wildl., edu

songbirds along an Columbia Univ. of Missouri (573-875-5341)

urban-rural gradient

2000 Historical impact of Jennifer Juzwik, jjuzwik@fs.fed.us Kathryn Kromroy, krom0001@umn.edu

urbanization on oak Kathy Ward, and (651-649-5114), Dept. Plant Path., (651-292-9222),

forest health in the Paul Castillo, kward01@fs.fed.us and Francis Pfleger, pfleg001@umn.edu 

Minneapolis – St. Paul, NC-4502, (651-649-5100), Dept. Contin. Edu., (612-625-4705)

MN, metro region St. Paul pcastillo01@fs.fed.us Univ. of Minnesota 

(651-649-5115)

2000 Predicting impacts of Jennifer Juzwik, jjuzwik@fs.fed.us Gary Johnson, Alan gjohnson@forestry.

development on oaks NC-4502, (651-649-5114) Ek, Paul Bolstad, umn.edu

in Minnesota peri- St. Paul and Marv Bauer, (612-625-3765),

urban forests Dept. For. Resour., aek@umn.edu 

Univ. of Minnesota (612-624-3400), 

pbolstad@umn.edu 

(612-624-9711), 

mbauer@umn.edu 

(612-624-3703)

2000 Use of amenity indicators Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us

to understand private NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16),

landownership Evanston; and tschmidt@fs.fed.us 

fragmentation in Thomas Schmidt, (651-649-5131)

the Northwoods NC, St. Paul

2000 Predicting oak wilt Jennifer Juzwik, jjuzwik@fs.fed.us

occurrence in urban Paul Castillo, and (651-649-5114), 

areas: geo-statistical Kathy Ward, pcastillo01@fs.fed.us

modeling of the NC-4502, (651-649-5115), 

disease in the St. Paul kward01@fs.fed.us

Minneapolis-St. Paul (651-649-5100)

region

2000 Evaluation of spatial Eric Gustafson, egustafson@fs.fed.us Gerald Niemi, Nat. gniemi@umn.edu

models to predict NC-4153, (715-362-1152) Resour. Res. Inst., Univ. (218-720-4270)

vulnerability of forest Rhinelander of Minnesota-Duluth;

birds to brood parasitism Melinda Knutson, USGS,

by brown-headed cowbirds LaCrosse, WI;

Mary Hammer Fridberg,

Superior National Forest

2000 Landscape change Charles Michler, cmichler@fs.fed.us Purdue Univ. 

in the Upper NC-4157, (765-496-6016)

Wabash watershed West Lafayette

2000 Sustaining natural Charles Michler, cmichler@fs.fed.us Purdue Univ., Univ.

resources on private NC-4157, (765-496-6016) of Tennessee, Univ. 

land in the Central West Lafayette of Missouri

Hardwood Region

2000 Factors affecting bird Frank Thompson, frthompson@fs.fed.us Rebecca Peak, Dept.

communities in forested NC-4154, (573-875-5341) Fish. and Wildl.,

riparian corridors in the Columbia Univ. of Missouri

Midwestern US

50 (Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

2000 Conservation of Frank Thompson, frthompson@fs.fed.us Scott Robinson, Dept. skrobins@uiuc.edu

disturbance-dependent NC-4154 (573-875-5341) Animal Biol., Univ. (217-333-6857),

birds Columbia of Illinois at Urbana- rdegraaf@fs.fed.us

Champaign, Richard (413-545-0357)

DeGraaf, NE-4251, 

Amherst, MA

2001 Land cover change Robert Potts and robertpotts@fs.fed.us Daniel Brown and danbrown@

in the Midwest region Eric Gustafson, (715-362-1113), Kathleen Bergen, umich.edu

NC-4153, egustafson@fs.fed.us School of Nat. (734-963-2195),

Rhinelander (715-362-1152) Resour. and Environ., kbergen@umich.edu

Univ. of Michigan (734-615-8834)

2001 Socioeconomic founda- Pam Jakes, pjakes@fs.fed.us Roger Hammer, rhammer@facstaff.

tions for ozone modeling NC-4803, (651-649-5163), Dept. Rural Sociol., wisc.edu 

St. Paul; and sistewart@fs.fed.us Univ. of Wisconsin- (608-263-2898)

Susan Stewart, (847-866-9311 x13) Madison

NC-4902, 

Evanston

2001 Linking NCRS hotspots Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, Dept. radeloff@facstaff.

analysis and the NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) For. Ecol. and wisc.edu

Northern Global Climate Evanston Manage., Univ. of (608-265-6321)

Change Program Wisconsin-Madison

2001 Demographic trends in Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Kenneth Johnson, kjohnso@luc.edu

national forest, recrea- NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. Sociol., (773-508-3461)

tional, retirement, and Evanston Loyola Univ., Chicago

amenity areas of the 

United States

2001 Effects of housing Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, Dept. radeloff@facstaff.

change on forest NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) of For. Ecol. and wisc.edu

productivity in the Evanston Manage., Univ. of (608-265-6321)

Lake States Wisconsin

2001 Habitat fragmentation Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, Dept. radeloff@facstaff.

due to housing change NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) For. Ecol. and wisc.edu

in the Northwoods: Evanston Manage., Univ. (608-265-6321)

spatial pattern of of Wisconsin-Madison

housing units through

time

2001 Landscape-level habitat William Dijak and wdijak@fs.fed.us Michael Andrew LarsonM@missouri.edu 

suitability models for Frank Thompson, (573-875-5341 Larson and (573-882-9424),

12 species in southern NC-4154, x241), Joshua Millspaugh, MillspaughJ@

Missouri Columbia frthompson@fs.fed. Dept. Fish. and missouri.edu 

us Wildl., Univ. of (573-882-9423)

(573-875-5341) Missouri

2001 Social implications Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Robert Marans, Coll. marans@umich.edu

of landscape change: NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Archit. and Urban (734-763-4583), 

an analysis of survey Evanston Plann., Univ. of vogtc@pilot.

data covering SE Michigan Michigan, Christine msu.edu

Vogt, Dept. Park, (517-353-5190

Recreation and Tourism x128)

Resour., Michigan State 

Univ.

2001 Natural resources Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Rachel Kaplan, rkaplan@snre.

and decisionmaking NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) School of Nat. umich.edu

for local planning Evanston Resour. and Environ., (734-763-1061) 

Univ. of Michigan

2001 Open space and property Robert Haight, rhaight@fs.fed.us Steve Polasky, polas004@umn.edu

values: an urban NC-4803, (651-649-5178) Dept. Appl. Econ., (612-625-9213)

economics model with St. Paul Univ. of Minnesota

application to the Twin 

Cities Region 51

(Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

2001 Landscape change in Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us James LaGro, Jr., jalagro@facstaff.

southern Wisconsin: NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. Urban and wisc.edu

residential preferences Evanston Reg. Plann., Univ. (608-263-6507),

and subdivision of Wisconsin- bjander@uidaho.edu

development beyond Madison, and (208-885-9821)

the urban fringe Barbara Andersen, 

Dept. Landscape 

Archit., Univ. of Idaho

2001 Predicting ecological Pam Jakes, pjakes@fs.fed.us Kristen Nelson, kcn@umn.edu

and social impacts of NC-4803, (651-649-5163) Dept. For. Resour., (612-624-1277)

riparian landuse in a St. Paul Univ. of Minnesota

North Central landscape

2001 3-D visualization of Eric Gustafson, egustafson@fs.fed.us Bo Song, Dept. bosong@clemson.edu

landscape change NC-4153, (715-362-1152) For. Resour., (843-545-5673)

under land management Rhinelander Clemson Univ.

and fire effects

2001 Investigating factors Patrick Zollner, pzollner@fs.fed.us Jonathan Gilbert, jgilbert@glifwc.org

limiting dispersal NC-4153, (715-362-1150) Great Lakes Indian (715-682-6619 x121)

success by Waabizheshi Rhinelander Wildl. and Fish.

(American marten) in Comm.

Wisconsin

2001 Simulation of alternative Thomas Crow, tcrow@fs.fed.us Dave Mladenoff,

landscape change NC-4101, (218-326-7110) Dept. For. Ecol. and 

scenarios for the Boundary Grand Rapids Manage., Univ. of

Waters Canoe Area Wisconsin-Madison

2001 Forest ownership fragmen- Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Mark Rickenbach, mgrickenbach@

tation in northern NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. For. Ecol. facstaff.wisc.edu 

Wisconsin: perceptions Evanston and Manage., Univ. (608-262-0134)

of stakeholder groups of Wisconsin-Madison

2001 Where are the hotspots Robert Potts and robertpotts@fs.fed.us

of landscape change in Eric Gustafson, (715-362-1113),

the Midwest region? NC-4153, egustafson@fs.fed.us

Rhinelander (715-362-1152)

2002 Racial, demographic, and Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Kenneth Johnson, kjohnso@luc.edu

age structure shifts in NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. Sociol., (773-508-3461)

urban, suburban, and rural Evanston Loyola Univ., Chicago

areas of the Midwest 

region: implications for 

recreational and forest 

usage

2002 Land-use decisions on Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Shorna Broussard, srb@fnr.purdue.edu

private lands NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. For. and Nat. (765-494-3603)

Evanston Resour., Purdue Univ.

2002 Modeling the relationship Stephanie Snyder, stephaniesnyder@ Brian Stone, Univ.

between regional land- NC-4803, fs.fed.us of Wisconsinscape change and tropo- St. Paul (651-649-5294) Madison

spheric ozone formation

2002 Housing density and Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, radeloff@facstaff.

the Wildland-Urban NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. For. Ecol. wisc.edu 

Interface across the US Evanston and Manage., Univ. (608-265-6321) 

of WisconsinMadison

2002 Land cover and the Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, radeloff@facstaff.

Wildland-Urban NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. For. Ecol. wisc.edu

Interface across the US Evanston and Manage., (608-265-6321)

Univ. of WisconsinMadison

52 (Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

contact info

2002 Making metropolitan Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Rachel Kaplan, rkaplan@snre.umich. 

areas more livable: NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) School of Nat. Resour. edu

recognizing and enhancing Evanston and Environ., Univ. (734-763-1061)

underappreciated natural of Michigan

resources

2002 Developing GIS simulation Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Daniel Brown, danbrown@umich.edu

for integrating landscape NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) School of Nat. Resour. (734-963-2195)

ecological knowledge into Evanston and Environ., Univ.

landscape designs of Michigan

2002 Identifying key linkages Stephanie Snyder, stephaniesnyder@ Larry Baker and

between water quality NC-4803, fs.fed.us Mary Renwick,

and land development St. Paul (651-649-5294) Univ. of Minnesota

patterns in riparian areas 

in the Midwest region

2002 Tropospheric ozone Warren Heilman, wheilman@fs.fed.us Dept. Energydynamics in the Western NC-4401, (517-355-7740 x27) Battelle Pacific 

Great Lakes Region— East Lansing Northwest Natl. Lab.

developing ozone precursor 

emission projections based 

on future land-use patterns

2002 Integrating social values Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Mimi Wagner, Dept. mimiw@iastate.edu

in landscape change NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Landscape Archit., (515-294-8954)

assessments Evanston Iowa State Univ.

2002 Guides for management John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Deborah Chavez, dchavez@fs.fed.us

of public lands on the NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) PSW-4902, Riverside (909-680-1558)

wildland-urban interface Evanston

2002 The changing Midwest: Robert Potts, robertpotts@fs.fed.us Roger Hammer, Dept. rhammer@facstaff.

density of population, NC-4153, (715-362-1113) Rural Sociol., Univ. wisc.edu

housing, and seasonal Rhinelander of Wisconsin-Madison (608-263-2898)

housing

2002 Why special places are Herbert Schroeder, hschroeder@fs.fed.us

important to people NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x15)

Evanston

2002 The changing Midwest: Robert Potts, robertpotts@fs.fed.us

personal income from NC-4153, (715-362-1113)

wood products, recreation, Rhinelander

and real estate

2002 Managing the risk of Brian Sturtevant, bsturtevant@fs.fed.us

fire on human and NC-4153, (715-362-1105)

ecological communities Rhinelander 

in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface

2002 Monitoring hotspots of David Bengston, dbengston@fs.fed.us David Fan, fanxx002@umn.edu

concern about sprawl NC-4803, (651-649-5162), InfoTrend, (612-624-4718)

St. Paul; and robertpotts@fs.fed.us St. Paul, MN

Robert Potts, (715-362-1113)

NC-4153, 

Rhinelander

2002 Is landscape change Frank Thompson, frthompson@fs.fed.us

driving declines in NC-4154, (573-875-5341),

breeding bird populations Columbia; and robertpotts@fs.fed.us

in the Midwest region? Robert Potts, (715-362-1113)

NC-4153, 

Rhinelander

2002 Impacts of landscape William Mattson, wmattson@fs.fed.us

pattern on genetic NC-4152, (715-362-1174),

diversity and evolutionary Rhinelander; and egustafson@fs.fed.us

processes Eric Gustafson, (715-362-1152)

NC-4153, 

Rhinelander

53

(Table 1 continued on next page)

(Table 1 continued)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

` contact info

2003 Unearthing the benefits Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Christopher DeSousa, desousa@uwm.edu

of brownfield to green NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Dept. Geogr.,

space projects: a study Evanston Univ. of Wisconsinof user and community Milwaukee

perceptions and reactions

2003 Making sense of landscape Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us William Stewart, wstewart@uiuc.edu

change: community NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Dept. Leisure (217-244-4532),

narratives that facilitate Evanston Studies, Univ. of 

planning Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

2003 Comparing perceptions Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Mimi Wagner, Dept. mimiw@iastate.edu

of riparian function to NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Landscape Archit., (515-294-8954)

assessed values and Evanston Iowa State Univ.

conditions: management

in a changing landscape

2003 Metropolitan trout David Bengston, dbengston@fs.fed.us Kristen Nelson, kcn@umn.edu

streams: urban residents' NC-4803, (651-649-5162), Dept. For. Resour., (612-624-1277)

perceptions and manage- St. Paul; and robertpotts@fs.fed.us Univ. of Minnesota

ment of unique urban Robert Potts, (715-362-1113)

resources NC-4153, 

Rhinelander

2003 Restoring native Thomas Crow, tcrow@fs.fed.us Heidi Asbjornsen, hasbjorn@iastate.edu

diversity in agricultural NC-4101, (218-326-7110) Dept. Nat. Resour., (515-294-7703)

landscapes Grand Rapids Ecol., and Manage., 

Iowa State Univ.

2003 Developing a collaborative Lynne Westphal, lwestphal@fs.fed.us Steve Polasky, polas004@umn.edu

modeling approach to NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x11) Dept. Appl. Econ., (612-625-9213)

assess biological and Evanston Univ. of Minnesota

economic effects of 

land use decisions 

2003 Mapping the 1990 Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, radeloff@facstaff.

WUI and 1990-2000 NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. For. Ecol. wisc.edu

WUI change at the Evanston and Manage., Univ. (608-265-6321)

Census Block Level of Wisconsin-Madison

across the United States

2003 Social characteristics of Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Roger Hammer, rhammer@facstaff.

WUI communities in NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. Rural Sociol., wisc.edu

1990 and 2000 across Evanston Univ. of Wisconsin (608-263-2898)

the United States

2003 Analyzing temporal and Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us Volker Radeloff, radeloff@facstaff.

spatial dynamics of the NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13) Dept. For. Ecol. wisc.edu 

WUI from 1940-2030 Evanston and Manage., Univ. of (608-265-6321)

in the Western U.S. Wisconsin-Madison

2003 Valuing rural forest land: Stephanie Snyder, stephaniesnyder@ Mike Kilgore, Dept. mkilgore@umn.edu

a property price approach NC-4803, fs.fed.us For. Resour., (612-624-6298)

St. Paul; and (651-649-5294), Univ. of Minnesota

Susan Stewart, sistewart@fs.fed.us

NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x13)

Evanston

2003 From the logger’s Paul Gobster, pgobster@fs.fed.us Mark Rickenbach, mgrickenbach@

perspective: land tenure NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x16) Dept. For. Ecol. facstaff.wisc.edu

and timber supply in Evanston and Manage., (608-262-0134)

Wisconsin, Michigan’s Univ. of WisconsinUpper Peninsula, and Madison

Indiana

2003 Changing housing Robert Haight, rhaight@fs.fed.us C. Montgomery,

density in the rural NC-4803, (651-649-5178) Oregon State Univ.

Midwest St. Paul

54

(Table 1 continued)

(Table 1 continued on next page)
Year Study title NC contact(s) NC contact info Cooperator(s) Cooperator

` contact info

2003 Water quality as an Thomas Crow, tcrow@fs.fed.us Heidi Asbjornsen, hasbjorn@iastate.edu

indicator of change in the NC-4101, (218-326-7110) Dept. Nat. Resour. (515-294-7703)

Midwestern landscape Grand Rapids Ecol. and Manage.,

Iowa State Univ.

2003 Ozone exposure response Warren Heilman, wheilman@fs.fed.us George Host, Nat. ghost@umn.edu

functions for predicting NC-4401, (517-355-7740 x27) Resour. Res. Inst., (218-720-4264),

ecological risk to East Lansing Univ. of Minnesota- djmladen@facstaff.

Midwestern forests Duluth, David Mladenoff, wisc.edu

Dept. For. Ecol. and (608-262-1992)

Manage., Univ. of 

Wisconsin-Madison

2003 A model for sustaining John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us, David Nowak, NE dnowak@fs.fed.us

natural resources in NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) Research Station- (315-448-3200)

urban and urbanizing areas Evanston Syracuse

2003 The implications of John Dwyer, jdwyer@fs.fed.us Gina Childs, NE gchilds@fs.fed.us

sprawl for resource NC-4902, (847-866-9311 x17) Area, State and (651-649-5296)

management Evanston Private Forestry, 

St. Paul

2003 Scenarios of landscape Warren Heilman, wheilman@fs.fed.us

change effects on NC-4401, (517-355-7740 x27)

tropospheric ozone risk East Lansing

55

(Table 1 continued)
56

Publications

1. Andersen, O.; Crow, T.R.; Lietz,

S.M.; Stearns, F. 1996.

Transformation of a landscape in the

upper mid-west, USA: the history of

the lower St. Croix river valley, 1830

to present. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 35: 247-267.

2. Austin, M.E. 2004.

Resident perspectives of the open

space conservation subdivision in

Hamburg Township, Michigan.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 69:

245-253.

3. Austin, M.E.; Kaplan, R. 2003.

Resident involvement in natural

resource management: open space

conservation design in practice. Local

Environment. 8(2): 141-154.

4. Bengston, D.N.; Fletcher, J.; Nelson,

K.C. 2004.

Public policies for managing urban

growth and protecting open space:

policy instruments and lessons

learned in the United States.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 69:

271-286.

5. Bergen, K.M.; Brown, D.G.;

Rutherford, J.; Gustafson, E. 2002.

Hotspots of land-cover change in the

North-Central Region using USGS

LUDA and NOAA AVHRR. In:

Proceedings, IEEE IGARSS; 2002

June; Toronto. 

6. Brawn, Jeffrey D.; Robinson, Scott

K.; Thompson, Frank R., III. 2001.

The role of disturbance in the ecology

and conservation of birds. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics.

32: 251-276.

7. Brosofske, K.D.; Chen, J.; Crow,

T.R.; Saunders, S.C. 1999.

Vegetation responses to landscape

structure at multiple scales across a

northern Wisconsin, USA, pine barrens landscape. Plant Ecology. 143:

203-218.

8. Brosofske, K.D.; Chen, J.; Crow,

T.R. 2001.

Understory vegetation and site factors: implications for a managed

Wisconsin landscape. Forest Ecology

and Management. 146: 75-87.

9. Brown, D.G.; Duh, J.-D. 2004. 

Spatial simulation for translating from

land use to land cover. International

Journal of Geographical Information

Science. 18(1): 35-60.

10. Burhans, D.E.; Dearborn, D.;

Thompson, F.R.; Faaborg, J. 2002.

Factors affecting predation at songbird nests in old fields. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 66(1): 240-

249.

11. Cifaldi, R.; Allan, J.D.; Duh, J.-D.;

Brown, D.G. 2004.

Spatial patterns in land cover of exurbanizing watersheds in southeastern

Michigan. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 66: 107-123.

12. Crow, T.R.; Host, G.E.; Mladenoff,

D.J. 1999.

Ownership and ecosystem as

sources of spatial heterogeneity in a

forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA.

Landscape Ecology. 14: 449-463.

13. Dwyer, J.F.; Chavez, D.J. [In

press].

The challenges of managing public

lands on the wildland urban interface. In: Duryea, M.L.; Vince, S.W.,

eds. The wildland-urban interface:

sustaining forests in a changing landscape. Gainesville, FL: University of

Florida.

14. Dwyer, J.F.; Nowak, D.J.; Noble,

M.H. 2003.

Sustaining urban forests. Journal of

Arboriculture. 29(1): 49-55.

15. Dwyer, J.F.; Nowak, D.J.; Noble,

M.H.; Sisinni, S.M. 2000.

Connecting people with ecosystems

in the 21st century: an assessment

of our nation’s urban forests. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 493 p.

16. Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E. 2000.

Simulations of ozone in the Great

Lakes Region. In: 24th conference on

biometeorology and aerobiology;

2000 August 14-18; Davis, CA.

Boston, MA: American

Meteorological Society: 176-177.

17. Fast, J.D.; Heilman. W.E. 2002a.

The effect of lake temperatures and

emissions on ozone exposure in the

western Great Lakes region. Journal

of Applied Meteorology. 42(9): 1197-

1217.

18. Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E. 2002b.

The effect of lake temperatures on

ozone in the western Great Lakes

region. In: 25th conference on agricultural and forest meteorology; 2002

May 20-24; Norfolk, VA. Boston, MA:

American Meteorological Society:

J66-J67.

19. Fast, J.D.; Heilman, W.E.; Bian, X.

1998.

Weather patterns associated with

high ozone concentrations in the

Great Lakes Region. In: 23d conference on agricultural and forest meteorology; 1998 November 2-6;

Albuquerque, NM. Boston, MA:

American Meteorological Society:

333-336.

20. Gobster, P.H. 2001. 

Visions of nature: compatibility and

conflict in urban park restoration.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 56(1-

2): 35-51.

Table 2.—Landscape change publications and related products
57

21. Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B. 2001.

Restoring nature: continuing the conversation. Ecological Restoration.

19(4): 225-226.

22. Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B., eds.

2000.

Restoring nature: perspectives from

the social sciences and humanities.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 320 p.

23. Gobster, P.H.; Rickenbach, M.G.

2004.

Private forestland parcelization and

development in Wisconsin’s

Northwoods: perceptions of

resource-oriented stakeholders.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 69:

165-182.

24. Gobster, P.H.; Schmidt, T.L. 2000.

The use of amenity indicators in

anticipating private forestland

parcelization: a look at the Lake

States’ Northwoods. In: DeCoster, L.,

ed. Proceedings, Fragmentation

2000: a conference on sustaining private forests in the 21st century; 2000

September 17-20; Annapolis, MD.

Alexandria, VA: The Sampson Group:

170-181.

25. Gobster, Paul H.; Haight, Robert

G.; Shriner, Dave. 2000a.

Landscape change in the Midwest:

an integrated research and development program. Journal of Forestry.

98(3): 9-14.

26. Gobster, P.H.; Haight, R.G.;

Shriner, D.S. 2000b.

Integrated research on midwestern

landscape change: a program description and progress report. In:

DeCoster, L., ed. Proceedings,

Fragmentation 2000: a conference on

sustaining private forests in the 21st

century; 2000 September 17-20;

Annapolis, MD. Alexandria, VA: The

Sampson Group: 375-382.

27. Gustafson, E.J.; Knutson, M.G.;

Niemi, G.J.; Friberg, M.H. 2002. 

Evaluation of spatial models to predict vulnerability of forest birds to

brood parasitism by brown-headed

cowbirds. Ecological Applications.

12(2): 412-426.

28. Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.;

Winkler, R.; Radeloff, V.C.; Voss,

P.R. 2004.

Characterizing spatial and temporal

residential density patterns from

1940-1990 across the North Central

United States. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 69: 183-199.

29. Hull, R. Bruce; Gobster, Paul H.

2000.

Restoring forest ecosystems: the

human dimension. Journal of

Forestry. 98(8): 32-36.

30. Hull, R. Bruce; Stewart, Susan I.

2002. 

Social consequence of change in the

Urban Wildland Interface. In: Macie,

Edward A.; Hermansen, L. Annie,

eds. 2002 Human influences on forest ecosystems: the southern wildland-urban interface assessment.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-55. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research

Station: 115-129.

31. Johnson, K.M. 2002.

The rural rebound of the 1990s and

beyond. In: Levitt, James N., ed.

Conservation in the Internet age:

threats and opportunities.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 63-82.

32. Johnson, K.M.; Stewart, S.I. 2001. 

Recreation and amenity migration in

urban proximate areas: report of survey results. Working Papers of

Recreation and Amenity Migration

Project. No. 1, 2001. Chicago, IL:

Loyola University, Department of

Socioloy and Anthropology. 47 p.

33. Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E. 2004.

Out in the country: sprawl and the

quest for nature nearby. Landscape

and Urban Planning. 69: 235-243.

34. Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E.; Kaplan,

S. [In press]. 

Open space communities: resident

perception, nature benefits, and terminological problems. Journal of the

American Planning Association.

35. Marans, Robert W. 2003.

Understanding environmental quality

through quality of life studies: the

2001 DAS and its use of subjective

and objective indicators. Landscape

and Urban Planning. 65: 73-83.

36. Pagen, R.W.; Thompson, F.R.;

Burhans, D.E. 2001.

A comparison of point-count and

mist-net detections of songbirds by

habitat and time-of-season. Journal

of Field Ornithology. 73(1): 53-59. 

37. Peak, R.G. 2002.

Factors affecting avian species richness, density, and nest success in

riparian corridors. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri-Columbia. 72

p. M.S. thesis.

38. Peak, R.G.; Thompson, F.R., III;

Shaffer, T.L. 2004.

Factors affecting songbird nest survival in riparian forests in a

Midwestern agricultural landscape.

The Auk. 121(3): n.p.

39. Ribe, Robert G.; Armstrong,

Edward T.; Gobster, Paul H.

2002.

Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape: visualizing and testing

the role of visual resources in

ecosystem management.

Landscape Journal. 21(1): 42-66.

40. Rickenbach, M.G.; Gobster, P.H.

2003.

Stakeholders’ perceptions of

parcelization in Wisconsin’s

Northwoods. Journal of Forestry.

101(6): 18-23.

41. Ruliffson, J.A.; Gobster, P.H.;

Haight, R.G.; Homans, F.R. 2002.

Niches in the urban forest: organizations and their role in acquiring metropolitan open space. Journal of

Forestry. 100(6): 16-23.
58

42. Ruliffson, J.A.; Haight, R.G.;

Gobster, P.H.; Homans, F.R. 2003.

Metropolitan natural area protection to

maximize public access and species

representation. Environmental Science

and Policy. 6: 291-299.

43. Sabor, A.A.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer,

R.B.; Stewart, S.I. 2003.

Relationships between housing density

and timber harvest in the Upper Lake

States. In: Buse, L.J.; Perera, A.H.,

comps. Meeting emerging ecological,

economic, and social challenges in the

Great Lakes region: popular summaries. For. Res. Inf. Pap. 155. Sault

Ste. Marie, ON: Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources, Ontario Forest

Research Institute: 80-82.

44. Schmidt, T.L.; McWilliams, W.H.

2000.

Current status and trends of privately

owned northern USA timberlands. In:

DeCoster, L., ed. Proceedings,

Fragmentation 2000: a conference on

sustaining private forests in the 21st

century; 2000 September 17-20;

Annapolis, MD. Alexandria, VA: The

Sampson Group, Inc.: 64-72.

45. Schroeder, H.W. 2000.

What makes a place special?

Interpretation of written survey

responses in natural resource planning.

In: Bengston, D., ed. Applications of

computer-aided text analysis in natural

resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-211. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North

Central Research Station: 7-11.

46. Schroeder, H.W. 2002.

Experiencing nature in special places.

Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.

47. Stewart, S.I. 2002. 

Amenity migration. In: Luft, K.;

MacDonald, S., comps. Trends 2000:

shaping the future, 5th Outdoor recreation and tourism trends symposium;

2000 September 17-20; Lansing, MI.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University: 369-378.

55. Vogt, Christine A.; Marans, Robert

W. 2002.

Understanding landscape change in

open space neighborhoods: views

from developers and residents. In:

Schuster, Rudy, comp., ed.

Proceedings, 2002 Northeastern recreation research symposium; 2002 April

13-16; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-302. Newtown Square, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Research

Station: 72-78.

56. Vogt, Christine A.; Marans, Robert

W. 2001.

The role, use and benefits of natural

recreation areas within and near residential subdivisions. In: Todd, Sharon,

ed. Proceedings, 2001 Northeastern

recreation research symposium. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NE-289. Newtown Square,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Research

Station: 208-213. 

57. Vogt, C.A.; Marans, R.W. 2003.

Open space neighborhoods: residents’

views of new forms of development.

Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 21(4): 49-69. 

Related products

Juzwik, J.; Cook, S.; Haugen, L.;

Elwell, J. 2004.

Oak wilt: people and trees—a community approach to management. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-240. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Research

Station. CD-Rom version 2004 v 1.3. 

Potts, R.S. 2003.

The changing midwest: an atlas of

landscape change. Available on line at:

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/

48. Stewart, S.I.; Radeloff, V.C.;

Hammer, R.B. 2003. 

Characteristics and location of the

Wildland-Urban Interface in the United

States. In: Proceedings, 2d

International wildland fire ecology and

fire management workshop; 2003

November 16-20; Orlando, FL. 6 p.

49. Stewart, W.P.; Liebert, D.; Larkin,

K.W. 2004.

Community identities as visions for

landscape change. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 69: 315-334. 

50. Thompson, Frank R., III. 2000. 

Fragmented Midwestern forests and

songbird populations: where do we go

from here? In: McCabe, Richard E.;

Loos, Samantha E., eds. Transactions

of the 65th North American wildlife

and natural resource conference; 2000

March 24-28; Rosemont, IL.

Washington, DC: Wildlife

Management Institute: 238-251.

51. Thompson, F.R.; Burhans, D.E.

2003.

Predation of songbird nests differs by

predator and between field and forest

habitats. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 67(2): 408-416.

52. Thompson, F.R., III; DeGraaf, R.M.

2001.

Conservation approaches for woody,

early successional communities in the

eastern United States. Wildlife Society

Bulletin. 29: 483-494.

53. Thompson, F.R.; Burhans, D.E.;

Root, B. 2002.

Effects of point count protocol on bird

abundance and variability estimates

and power to detect population

trends. Journal of Field Ornithology.

73(2): 141-150.

54. Vigmostad, K.E. 2003.

Michigan real estate developer perspectives on development, sustainability, and nature: an autoethnography.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University. 130 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
59

Table 3.—NCRS investments in landscape change research

Fiscal year IP funds RWU funds Total NCRS Leveraged Total funding

funds for FY

1999 $30,000 $403,636 $433,636 $289,115 $722,751

2000 $50,000 $910,676 $960,676 $738,610 $1,699,286

2001 $120,000 $778,888 $898,888 $564,817 $1,463,705

2002 $154,363 $659,569 $813,932 $391,490 $1,205,422

2003 $215,000 $637,356 $852,356 $501,014 $1,353,370

Total $569,363 $3,390,125 $3,959,488 $2,485,046 $6,444,534
60

For Profit

InfoTrend

Government

Department of Energy

Battelle Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory

USDA Forest Service

NE Area, State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Research Station, Amherst

Northeastern Research Station, Syracuse

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside

Rocky Mountain Research Station

USGS

Tribal

Great Lakes Indian Wildlife and 

Fisheries Commission

University

Clemson University

Dept. Forest Resources

Iowa State University

Dept. Landscape Architecture

Dept. Natural Resource Ecology and 

Management

Loyola University Chicago

Dept. Sociology and Anthropology

Michigan State University

Dept. Community, Agriculture, Recreation

and Resource Studies

Northern Michigan University

Communications and Performance Studies

Oregon State University

Purdue University

Dept. Forestry and Natural Resources

Dept. Health and Kinesiology

State University of New York-Syracuse

College of Environmental Science and Forestry

University of Idaho

Dept. Landscape Architecture

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Dept. Leisure Studies

Human-Environment Research Laboratory

Dept. Advertising

Dept. Animal Biology

University of Michigan

College of Architecture and Urban Planning

School of Natural Resources & Environment

University of Minnesota

Dept. Applied Economics

Dept. Continuing Education

Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife

Dept. Forest Resources

Dept. Plant Pathology

University of Minnesota-Duluth

Natural Resources Research Institute

University of Missouri

Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife

University of Tennessee

University of Utah

David Eccles School of Business

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dept. Landscape Architecture

Dept. Urban and Regional Planning

Dept. Forest Ecology and Management

Dept. Rural Sociology

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Dept. Geography

Virginia Tech

Dept. of Forest Resources

Table 4.—Partner organizations
We believe the good life has its roots in clean air, sparkling water, rich soil,

healthy economies and a diverse living landscape. Maintaining the good life for

generations to come begins with everyday choices about natural resources. The

North Central Research Station provides the knowledge and the tools to help

people make informed choices. That’s how the science we do enhances the quality of people’s lives.

For further information contact:

MISSION STATEMENT

Or visit our web site:

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us

North Central 

Research Station

USDA Forest Service

1992 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recyclable paper.
Gobster, Paul H.; Haight, Robert G.

2004. From landscapes to lots: understanding and managing Midwestern landscape change. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-245. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 60 p.

Reports on activities, progress, and highlights of research findings for the first

5 years (1999-2003) of the North Central Research Station’s Landscape Change

Integrated Research and Development Program.

KEY WORDS: landscape patterns, drivers of change, land use change, land cover

change, impacts, policy
General Technical Report NC-245

North Central Research Station

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us