SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 13
Download to read offline
Examining Spatial Correlation
of Resident’s Wildlife-friendly
landscaping in Residential Tran-
sects in Chicago
                           Mike Bularz
                          Amy Belaire
                       BIOS 399 - Inde-
                         pentent Study
Final draft mikebularz
Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects
                                                                                                            3
 Examining Spatial Correlation of Residents’ Wildlife-friendly landscaping
               in Forest-residential transects in Chicago.
                               Mike Bularz

1.	Introduction

1.1	    Residential Urban Ecology

Studies in urban ecology have traditionally focused on availability and quality of open space in
urbanized regions in the context of public spaces such as parks, forest preserves, and right of ways
(Rowntree, 2008). While this accounts for some of the wildlife habitat in urban areas, recent studies
in urban ecology have suggested that the design and composition of residential areas may also benefit
local wildlife species. Researchers have attempted to define the distribution patterns of yard vegetation
and wildlife-friendly features on privately-owned property in residential areas (Zmyslony and Gagnon,
1997; Daniels and Kirpatrick, 2006). Previous studies on these patterns indicate that neighbor mimicry
or the idea of “keeping up with the Joneses” may be a powerful motivation for certain types of yard
designs (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997; Daniels and Kirpatrick, 2006; Kirpatrick et al., 2006; Nassauer
et al., 2009; Goddard et al., 2012).

Urban ecological researchers in residential systems have examined the distribution patterns and
plausible causes of yard design from a few different perspectives: spatial proximity of like features,
social or socioeconomic factors, or both.
Studies focusing on spatial proximity of wildlife-friendly features look at geographic concentrations
of features such as bird feeders, bird houses, water features, multiple layers of vegetation, and
native-plant landscaping. For example, Zmyslony and Gagnon analyze distance between properties
and similarities using Mantel Correlograms, while Daniels and Kirpatrick break down front-yard
composition of flora and man-made landscape features such as walkways and driveways. Statistically
significant concentrations of these features can indicate the degree of how one property affects
adjacent neighbors’ gardening habits. (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997).

Studies increasingly seem to suggest spatial proximity affects the distribution of these features to
some degree, both positively and negatively. Research considering social factors affecting neighbor
similarities is adding another dimension to our understanding of yard compositions in urban
landscapes. For instance, research by Nassauerand others implies that social factors and similarity
of neighbors’ cultural background are being made and are leading to research into why neighbors or
social trends in greater society impact residents to conform, imitate, or sometimes contradict their
neighbors (Nassauer et al.; 2009). Further, studies by assert that broader socioeconomic indicators
of social stratification affect the quality of neighborhood landscape characteristics and yard upkeep
(Grove et al., 2006).




 We further examine the question of whether neighbors’ gardening habits affect each other by
examining similarities and differences between the landscaping of properties within residential
transects. Our study addresses the following research questions:
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
4

     1) 	    Are front yards and back yards more alike between nearby neighbors than between more
    distant neighbors? We compare the number of vegetative layers between neighboring properties’ front
    and back yards to determine this. We hypothesized that there might be notable differences between
    back yard care and front, as these offer different degrees of privacy.

     2) 	 Do neighbors affect each other’s yard landscaping in other respects, such as their adoption
    of wild-life friendly features? We hypothesized that nearby neighbors have an affect on each others’
    implementation of wildlife-friendly features.

    Understanding these fine-scale differences will help inform social aspect of neighborhood
    characteristics, such as whether back or front yards are more likely to mimic each other. This study
    helps explain the mechanisms that drive residents to design their yards in various ways, which
    ultimately has implications for biodiversity in urban ecosystems. We addressed these questions
    through interdisciplinary methods including a social survey instrument, GIS (Geographic Information
    Systems), and statistical packages such as PC Ord and Passage to calculate spatial statistics on the
    property characteristics.


    2.	Methods

    2.1	    Study Sites

    Our study sites are 1km transects in residential areas near forest preserves in Cook County, Illinois
    (Figure 1). The study sites were chosen to represent relatively homogenous residential transects
    (Figure 2). We selected sites where land use was primarily residential with a canopy cover of greater
    than 15% (determined using the USDA / USGS National Land Cover Dataset, 2006). We looked for
    transect sites adjacent to forest preserves of uniform size and shape as well as minimal variation in
    other characteristics such as streams.
Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects
                                                                                                         5
 Figure 1: Transect Sites




 Transect sites, titled after the street name which they follow: Sibley, Lemai, Bloomingdale, Hull,
 Southcote, 44th, Bonita, Wildwood, Lawn, Augusta, Cleveland, Everett, Linden, Forest, Ash, Wilmette,
 Bristol, Clausen, Oak, Delaplaine, Grant, Lindenwood, Keota, Central, Gage, Keystone.

                                          Fig2. Transect bounds




  Common structure of a Residential Transect. Paths follow the road direction out to 1km from a forest
 preserve and are 50m wide from the road centerline.


2.2	    Survey Method
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
6
    Necessary information about residents’ yards was collected through a survey instrument, delivered in
    a DOPU (Drop-off, Pick-up) method at transect residents’ homes (SEE APPENDIX). Questions were
    asked in 4 broad categories: 1) Respondent’s yard management practices and vegetation composition
    of front and back yard, 2) Presence of wildlife-friendly features such as bird feeders, 3) perception
    / attitudes towards birds and nature, and 4) demographic details. The collected information used for
    the purpose of this study includes the number of vegetation layers (to quantify vegetation structural
    diversity) and wildlife-friendly features.

    2.3	     Analysis Method

    2.3.1 Data Preparation
    Survey responses were coded into special survey software and were then appended to parcel (property
    boundary) shapefiles of Cook County in GIS. Parcel centroids (central point in the property) were
    determined in ArcGIS, and then geographic distances between all pairs of properties were calculated
    using the Geospatial Modeling Environment tool (Geospatial Modeling Environment tool).

    Corresponding tables for the properties were generated representing our comparison variables: 1)
    Structural Diversity in front yards, 2) Strucutral Diversity in backyards, 3) Wildlife Friendliness Index,
    and 4) Simple WFI

    For front and back yards, we determined the difference in yard vegetation structural diversity for pairs
    of yards within each transect. This was done by calculating the difference between yard pairs by adding
    up number of vegetative layers respondents reported in their front and back yards. These were used as
    an input distance matrix in Mantel tests.

    For WFI and Simple WFI, we used indices devised to compare wildlife-friendliness of properties. Our
    primary Wildlife – Friendliness Index (WFI) consisted of totaling the number of the following of self-
    reported features: flowers, fruit-yielding vegetation, shrubs, evergreen trees, deciduous trees, vegetation
    planted with the goal of attracting birds, native plant species, water features, brush pile / open compost,
    birdhouses, and bird feeders. The WFI value for a particular parcel, then, could range from zero to 11,
    depending on the number of features a respondent reported in the survey. A second index was devised
    from a subset of these features that are easier and less time-intensive to implement: water features,
    brush pile/open compost areas, birdhouses, and bird feeders. We termed this second index, “Simple
    WFI”.

    2.3.2	   Mantel Test

    We used Mantel tests to determine the relationship between geographic distance and differences
    between yards. In other words, Mantel tests reveal whether yards that are closer together are more
    similar in terms of our four indices: front yard vegetation structural diversity, back yard vegetation
    structural diversity, WFI, and Simple WFI.

    The Mantel test compares the values between the matrices and summarizes the relationship with an
    R-value (and associated p-value) indicating level of correlation. The Mantel test will indicate the degree
    of spatial correlation of the four feature distributions we are examining, and can help us determine
    whether neighbors affect each others’ back and front yards, as well as wildlife-friendliness of the
    property.

    The tests were repeated for each transect, providing a localized statistic. A global calculation for all
    transects overall was not performed as we’re not testing a correlation between neighborhoods far
    removed throughout the study area. Instead, we aggregated the level of correlation by calculating the
    average R-value across the whole set of local results, this gives an overall representation of the degree
Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects
                                                                                                           7
of similarity or dissimilarity in neighbors yards.
    Figure 3: Calculated Matrices and Three Mantel Tests




2.3.3	   Mantel Correlelograms

Mantel Correlelograms depict Mantel scores over increasing distances between yards. Producing
Mantel Correlograms further enhanced our result set by illustrating variation Mantel R- values across
60 distance classes (Figures 6-10). Distance classes, measured about 16.67m each for the transects. This
distance was chosen because it was an average between nearest neighbors. Breaking down the degree
of correlation by distance classes helped visualize the extent of neighbor likeness and at what distance
neighbor effect ceases to have influence on yard composition.

3.	RESULTS

3.1 	    Mantel Scores for Transects

When examining spatial dependency at the transect level, overall correlation was low, with R-value
either close to 0, or negative on average. The highest score a Mantel test for correlation can
theoretically achieve is 1. Front yards, on average across all transects, achieved an R- score of 0.023,
and back yards 0.035. There were transects which consistently showed higher scores, such as Wilmette,
Southcote, and Clausen, as well as some that had a high discrepancy between front and back yard
scores: Keystone, Gage, Central, and Keota.

 Overall, Mantel R-values for WFI scores were low, except for Wilmette and 44th transects. The Simple
WFI score aligns with the overall WFI score for the most part, with slightly less distance from 0 than
the overall index.
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
8
    Figure 4a: Mantel R Scores between Front Yards,    Figure 4c: Mantel R Scores for Wildlife-
                      per Transect                                Friendliness Index




    Figure 4b: Mantel R Scores between Back Yards       Figure 4d: Mantel R scores for Easily-
                                                      Implementable Wildlife-Friendly Features
Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects
                                                                                                           9


    3.2 	   Mantel Correlograms (select transects illustrating typical patterns):

Figure 6: Wilmette Transect Mantel Correlograms




                                                                            6b: Front Yard
                  6a: Back Yard




                                                   6c:
                       WFI
                                                                            6d: WFI - Easy
    Wilmette carried higher R-value across longer distance classes than other data sets. The R-score
    maintains a higher value overall, but does go below 0 (meaning no correlation) or negative (negative
    correlation) within the first 10-15 distance classes. Back yards maintain a higher score than front
    yards, and the WFI doesn’t reach negative or 0 until the farthest distance classes.
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
10




      Figure 9: Everett Transect Mantel Correlograms




                                                                              9b: Front Yard
                        9a: Back Yard




                           9c: WFI                                           9d: WFI - Easy

     The Everett Transect has WFI scores close to 0, with high variation between back yard scores as
     compared to the rest of the measures.




         V
Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects
                                                                                                              11
  Figure10: Lawn Transect Mantel Correlograms




                     Back Yard                                           Front Yard




                                                                         WFI - Easy

                        WFI

Lawn Transect has high variation in back yard scores, as compared to front yards. The WFI and easy WFI for Lawn reach
high scores compared to the overall scores of all transects within the first 10 to 15 distance classes.
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
12


                                   Figure 11: Average of all Mantel Correlograms




     The above is an average of corellograms for all transects. Front and back yards overall stay above 0,
     while the WFI and WFI easy vary greatly, and often fall into the negative. The average of all of these
     measures is represented as the thick black line.



     3.	DISCUSSION

     A substantial number of transect received higher R-values for front yard correlation than back yards.
     This might suggest that front yards are more curated to appeal to neighbors and neighborhood. This
     reaffirms studies suggesting that the front yard is designed as a face to the outer world, and is considered
     more of a public space than a back yard. Comparison of neighbors based on further indicators, such as
     socio-economic status, preferences for / against birds, and other methods to compare likelihood may
     further explain these results. Future study of similarity of neighbors yards and similarity of neighbors
     themselves should be undertaken with the data we collected. It would also be valuable to determine
     which factor, such as income, profession, value of wildlife, and other indicators collected have the
     highest effect on presence / absence of features through relating these factors to WFI.

     The Mantel Correlelograms highlight how rapidly the Mantel value drops over distance classes for the
     majority of transects. This may suggests that only the closest neighbors affect each other. For certain
     Transects, the R-value maintains a higher score over further distance classes. Examining indicators for
     these, whether they be socioeconomic or values-based may tell if there is an underlying cause for this,
     and may also explain rapid drops below zero and overall negative R-values for certain other transects.
BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz
13

     The Simple WFI did not seem to have significant difference from the regular WFI, other than that it
     was often lower. This may be because features that are harder to implement, such as large trees and
     shrubs, may be part of a neighborhood’s general composition, and not present because neighbors were
     mimicking each other. Examining the other features only may indicate neighborhood age and stability
     from change over time.

     REFERENCES

     Daniels, G.D., and J.B. Kirpatrick. “Comparing the Characteristics of Front and Back Domestic
     Gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.” Landscape and Urban Planning78.4 (2006): 344-52. Print.

      Daniels, G.D., and J.B. Kirpatrick, and T. Zagorski. “Explaining variation in front gardens between
     suburbs

     of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia” Landscape and Urban Planning79.3-4 (2007): 314-22. Web.

     Grove, J. M., A. R. Troy, J. P. M. O’Neil-Dunne, W. R. Burch, Jr., M. L. Cadenasso, and S. T.
     A. Pickett. “Characterization of Households and Its Implications for the Vegetation of Urban
     Ecosystems.” Ecosystems 9 (2006): 578-97. Print.

     Hunter, Mary Carol R., and Daniel G. Brown. Landscape and Urban Planning 105.3 (2012): 407-16.
     Print.

     Nassauer, Joan Iverson, Zhifang Wang, and Erik Dayrell. “What Will the Neighbors Think? Cultural
     Norms and Ecological Design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92.3-4 (2009): 282-92. Web.

More Related Content

What's hot

Baker_Sussman_Report
Baker_Sussman_ReportBaker_Sussman_Report
Baker_Sussman_ReportThomas Baker
 
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139Publication of mine gtr_nrs139
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139Bernadette Grafton
 
Rhizosphere by Design
Rhizosphere by DesignRhizosphere by Design
Rhizosphere by DesignChris Collins
 
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...Courtney Miller
 
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...Innspub Net
 
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)Rachel Karlov
 
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...National Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)Austin McBrady
 
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...National Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...grssieee
 
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)Carlos Alberto Monteiro
 
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentation
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentationGenetic aspects of forest fragmentation
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentationMADHAB BEHERA
 
Controls on the Stability of Soils
Controls on the Stability of SoilsControls on the Stability of Soils
Controls on the Stability of SoilsChris Collins
 
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...National Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)Carlos Alberto Monteiro
 

What's hot (20)

UBC BLISS talk 2016
UBC BLISS talk 2016UBC BLISS talk 2016
UBC BLISS talk 2016
 
Baker_Sussman_Report
Baker_Sussman_ReportBaker_Sussman_Report
Baker_Sussman_Report
 
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139Publication of mine gtr_nrs139
Publication of mine gtr_nrs139
 
Rhizosphere by Design
Rhizosphere by DesignRhizosphere by Design
Rhizosphere by Design
 
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...
Peatnet - 2nd International Symposium Peatlands in the Global Carbon Cycle (2...
 
U-GRASS Sprin 2016
U-GRASS Sprin 2016U-GRASS Sprin 2016
U-GRASS Sprin 2016
 
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...
Species Diversity and Above-ground Carbon Stock Assessments in Selected Mangr...
 
Improved N Retention Through Plant-Microbe Interactions
Improved N Retention Through Plant-Microbe InteractionsImproved N Retention Through Plant-Microbe Interactions
Improved N Retention Through Plant-Microbe Interactions
 
02. Mendez - Research Proposal
02. Mendez - Research Proposal02. Mendez - Research Proposal
02. Mendez - Research Proposal
 
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)
Karlov_GIS_Mapping_Final (2)
 
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...
Soil Microbial Communities: Key Indicators of Soil Carbon Transformations Whe...
 
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)
McBrady, A_QFM_FinalPaper_2015 (3)
 
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...
Efficacy, Constraints and Uncertainties of Constructed Wetlands and Bioreacto...
 
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...
WE1.L09 - DESDYNI BIODIVERSITY AND HABITAT KEY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR...
 
ESA 2011 Austin, TX
ESA 2011 Austin, TXESA 2011 Austin, TX
ESA 2011 Austin, TX
 
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)
Seminário 3 cottenie_et_al-2003_zooplankton (1)
 
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentation
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentationGenetic aspects of forest fragmentation
Genetic aspects of forest fragmentation
 
Controls on the Stability of Soils
Controls on the Stability of SoilsControls on the Stability of Soils
Controls on the Stability of Soils
 
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...
Towards assessing climate sensitivity of microbial processes and its effect o...
 
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)
Seminário 5 mc_cauley 2007_dragonfly (2)
 

Viewers also liked

The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...
The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...
The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...Steve Zavestoski
 
Mis panas del colegio
Mis panas del colegioMis panas del colegio
Mis panas del colegiojcsalina
 
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015Jukka Huhtamäki
 
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 mason
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 masonThree years on, reflections on publication 103 mason
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 masonLeishman Associates
 
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1maclean liu
 
Plantilla 3 +
Plantilla 3 +Plantilla 3 +
Plantilla 3 +bugatito
 
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...Leishman Associates
 
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础 诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础 maclean liu
 
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart Homes
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart HomesCross-sectoral innovation in Smart Homes
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart HomesMarcel van Hest
 
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法maclean liu
 
Myeloma conference presentation november 2012
Myeloma conference presentation   november 2012Myeloma conference presentation   november 2012
Myeloma conference presentation november 2012Jason Potts
 
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念maclean liu
 
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg sklIrma Muthiara Sari
 

Viewers also liked (20)

The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...
The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...
The bee swarm model of social change: How do institutions and grassroots push...
 
CSS3
CSS3CSS3
CSS3
 
Mis panas del colegio
Mis panas del colegioMis panas del colegio
Mis panas del colegio
 
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015
Accessing Indiegogo Data | Academic Mindtrek 2015
 
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 mason
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 masonThree years on, reflections on publication 103 mason
Three years on, reflections on publication 103 mason
 
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1
使用Oracle osw analyzer工具分析oswbb日志,并绘制系统性能走势图1
 
Plantilla 3 +
Plantilla 3 +Plantilla 3 +
Plantilla 3 +
 
BPM & KM: They Converge Quite Nicely
BPM & KM: They Converge Quite NicelyBPM & KM: They Converge Quite Nicely
BPM & KM: They Converge Quite Nicely
 
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...
An integrated experimental and computational approach for the study of low ra...
 
Adjetivos (avanzado)
Adjetivos (avanzado)Adjetivos (avanzado)
Adjetivos (avanzado)
 
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础 诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础
诗檀软件 Oracle开发优化基础
 
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart Homes
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart HomesCross-sectoral innovation in Smart Homes
Cross-sectoral innovation in Smart Homes
 
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法
Oracle中加速索引创建或重建的方法
 
Opening- Gregory
Opening- GregoryOpening- Gregory
Opening- Gregory
 
COLEGIO GUILLERMO QUINTERO CALDERON
COLEGIO GUILLERMO QUINTERO CALDERONCOLEGIO GUILLERMO QUINTERO CALDERON
COLEGIO GUILLERMO QUINTERO CALDERON
 
Myeloma conference presentation november 2012
Myeloma conference presentation   november 2012Myeloma conference presentation   november 2012
Myeloma conference presentation november 2012
 
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念
【Maclean liu技术分享】深入了解oracle asm(一)基础概念
 
Svithjod
SvithjodSvithjod
Svithjod
 
Mariam Abdelhady
Mariam AbdelhadyMariam Abdelhady
Mariam Abdelhady
 
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl
01. b. salinan lampiran permendikbud no. 54 tahun 2013 ttg skl
 

Similar to Final draft mikebularz

Gray et al. 2016 LUP
Gray et al. 2016 LUPGray et al. 2016 LUP
Gray et al. 2016 LUPMorgan Gray
 
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_report
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_reportGEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_report
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_reportKimberly Frye
 
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)Carlos Alberto Monteiro
 
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, Ohio
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, OhioEcological Connectivity in Delaware, Ohio
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, OhioStefanie Hauck
 
Root experiment FORECOMAN
Root experiment FORECOMANRoot experiment FORECOMAN
Root experiment FORECOMANLiam Donnelly
 
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 Complete
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 CompleteDJW Poster Symposium 2016 Complete
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 CompleteDanny Wilson
 
i    R o b b i n s    An Analysis of Urban G.docx
i    R o b b i n s     An Analysis of Urban G.docxi    R o b b i n s     An Analysis of Urban G.docx
i    R o b b i n s    An Analysis of Urban G.docxsheronlewthwaite
 
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystem
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystemApplication of remote sensing in forest ecosystem
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystemaliya nasir
 
Urban Forest management - chapter 2
Urban Forest management - chapter 2Urban Forest management - chapter 2
Urban Forest management - chapter 2Giovanni Poletti
 
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-Report
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-ReportBTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-Report
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-ReportBilly Armstrong
 
Road impact area - Capstone Thesis
Road impact area - Capstone ThesisRoad impact area - Capstone Thesis
Road impact area - Capstone ThesisGraham Pritchard
 
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental Analysis
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental AnalysisMeasures Of Plant Physification And Environmental Analysis
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental AnalysisVictoria Dillard
 
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote Valley
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote ValleyBarriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote Valley
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote ValleyColleen Henn
 

Similar to Final draft mikebularz (20)

Gray et al. 2016 LUP
Gray et al. 2016 LUPGray et al. 2016 LUP
Gray et al. 2016 LUP
 
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_report
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_reportGEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_report
GEO242_Win0607_LPTree_final_report
 
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)
Seminário 1 collins et all 2002_plant community (2)
 
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, Ohio
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, OhioEcological Connectivity in Delaware, Ohio
Ecological Connectivity in Delaware, Ohio
 
Root experiment FORECOMAN
Root experiment FORECOMANRoot experiment FORECOMAN
Root experiment FORECOMAN
 
ESA poster
ESA posterESA poster
ESA poster
 
The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces
The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood SpacesThe Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces
The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces
 
Seminário 1
Seminário 1Seminário 1
Seminário 1
 
Seminário 1
Seminário 1Seminário 1
Seminário 1
 
198 Final report
198 Final report198 Final report
198 Final report
 
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 Complete
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 CompleteDJW Poster Symposium 2016 Complete
DJW Poster Symposium 2016 Complete
 
i    R o b b i n s    An Analysis of Urban G.docx
i    R o b b i n s     An Analysis of Urban G.docxi    R o b b i n s     An Analysis of Urban G.docx
i    R o b b i n s    An Analysis of Urban G.docx
 
Syndromes
SyndromesSyndromes
Syndromes
 
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystem
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystemApplication of remote sensing in forest ecosystem
Application of remote sensing in forest ecosystem
 
Urban Forest management - chapter 2
Urban Forest management - chapter 2Urban Forest management - chapter 2
Urban Forest management - chapter 2
 
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-Report
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-ReportBTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-Report
BTPD-Habitat-Suitability-Final-Report
 
Road impact area - Capstone Thesis
Road impact area - Capstone ThesisRoad impact area - Capstone Thesis
Road impact area - Capstone Thesis
 
AvalonPosterFinal
AvalonPosterFinalAvalonPosterFinal
AvalonPosterFinal
 
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental Analysis
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental AnalysisMeasures Of Plant Physification And Environmental Analysis
Measures Of Plant Physification And Environmental Analysis
 
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote Valley
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote ValleyBarriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote Valley
Barriers to Wildlife Migration Coyote Valley
 

More from Michal Bularz

ChiefEngineersAd2016draft
ChiefEngineersAd2016draftChiefEngineersAd2016draft
ChiefEngineersAd2016draftMichal Bularz
 
Villaggio - November at a Glance Email
Villaggio - November at a Glance EmailVillaggio - November at a Glance Email
Villaggio - November at a Glance EmailMichal Bularz
 
Prioritization Survey Results
Prioritization Survey ResultsPrioritization Survey Results
Prioritization Survey ResultsMichal Bularz
 
LiDAR Data Processing and Classification
LiDAR Data Processing and ClassificationLiDAR Data Processing and Classification
LiDAR Data Processing and ClassificationMichal Bularz
 
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening Analysis
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening AnalysisUrban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening Analysis
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening AnalysisMichal Bularz
 
Public Health Disparities in Southern Illinois
Public Health Disparities in Southern IllinoisPublic Health Disparities in Southern Illinois
Public Health Disparities in Southern IllinoisMichal Bularz
 
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in Illinois
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in IllinoisILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in Illinois
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in IllinoisMichal Bularz
 

More from Michal Bularz (7)

ChiefEngineersAd2016draft
ChiefEngineersAd2016draftChiefEngineersAd2016draft
ChiefEngineersAd2016draft
 
Villaggio - November at a Glance Email
Villaggio - November at a Glance EmailVillaggio - November at a Glance Email
Villaggio - November at a Glance Email
 
Prioritization Survey Results
Prioritization Survey ResultsPrioritization Survey Results
Prioritization Survey Results
 
LiDAR Data Processing and Classification
LiDAR Data Processing and ClassificationLiDAR Data Processing and Classification
LiDAR Data Processing and Classification
 
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening Analysis
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening AnalysisUrban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening Analysis
Urban Habitat Chicago - Community Gardening Analysis
 
Public Health Disparities in Southern Illinois
Public Health Disparities in Southern IllinoisPublic Health Disparities in Southern Illinois
Public Health Disparities in Southern Illinois
 
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in Illinois
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in IllinoisILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in Illinois
ILFFJC - Clustering and Food Hubs in Illinois
 

Final draft mikebularz

  • 1. Examining Spatial Correlation of Resident’s Wildlife-friendly landscaping in Residential Tran- sects in Chicago Mike Bularz Amy Belaire BIOS 399 - Inde- pentent Study
  • 3. Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects 3 Examining Spatial Correlation of Residents’ Wildlife-friendly landscaping in Forest-residential transects in Chicago. Mike Bularz 1. Introduction 1.1 Residential Urban Ecology Studies in urban ecology have traditionally focused on availability and quality of open space in urbanized regions in the context of public spaces such as parks, forest preserves, and right of ways (Rowntree, 2008). While this accounts for some of the wildlife habitat in urban areas, recent studies in urban ecology have suggested that the design and composition of residential areas may also benefit local wildlife species. Researchers have attempted to define the distribution patterns of yard vegetation and wildlife-friendly features on privately-owned property in residential areas (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997; Daniels and Kirpatrick, 2006). Previous studies on these patterns indicate that neighbor mimicry or the idea of “keeping up with the Joneses” may be a powerful motivation for certain types of yard designs (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997; Daniels and Kirpatrick, 2006; Kirpatrick et al., 2006; Nassauer et al., 2009; Goddard et al., 2012). Urban ecological researchers in residential systems have examined the distribution patterns and plausible causes of yard design from a few different perspectives: spatial proximity of like features, social or socioeconomic factors, or both. Studies focusing on spatial proximity of wildlife-friendly features look at geographic concentrations of features such as bird feeders, bird houses, water features, multiple layers of vegetation, and native-plant landscaping. For example, Zmyslony and Gagnon analyze distance between properties and similarities using Mantel Correlograms, while Daniels and Kirpatrick break down front-yard composition of flora and man-made landscape features such as walkways and driveways. Statistically significant concentrations of these features can indicate the degree of how one property affects adjacent neighbors’ gardening habits. (Zmyslony and Gagnon, 1997). Studies increasingly seem to suggest spatial proximity affects the distribution of these features to some degree, both positively and negatively. Research considering social factors affecting neighbor similarities is adding another dimension to our understanding of yard compositions in urban landscapes. For instance, research by Nassauerand others implies that social factors and similarity of neighbors’ cultural background are being made and are leading to research into why neighbors or social trends in greater society impact residents to conform, imitate, or sometimes contradict their neighbors (Nassauer et al.; 2009). Further, studies by assert that broader socioeconomic indicators of social stratification affect the quality of neighborhood landscape characteristics and yard upkeep (Grove et al., 2006). We further examine the question of whether neighbors’ gardening habits affect each other by examining similarities and differences between the landscaping of properties within residential transects. Our study addresses the following research questions:
  • 4. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 4 1) Are front yards and back yards more alike between nearby neighbors than between more distant neighbors? We compare the number of vegetative layers between neighboring properties’ front and back yards to determine this. We hypothesized that there might be notable differences between back yard care and front, as these offer different degrees of privacy. 2) Do neighbors affect each other’s yard landscaping in other respects, such as their adoption of wild-life friendly features? We hypothesized that nearby neighbors have an affect on each others’ implementation of wildlife-friendly features. Understanding these fine-scale differences will help inform social aspect of neighborhood characteristics, such as whether back or front yards are more likely to mimic each other. This study helps explain the mechanisms that drive residents to design their yards in various ways, which ultimately has implications for biodiversity in urban ecosystems. We addressed these questions through interdisciplinary methods including a social survey instrument, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), and statistical packages such as PC Ord and Passage to calculate spatial statistics on the property characteristics. 2. Methods 2.1 Study Sites Our study sites are 1km transects in residential areas near forest preserves in Cook County, Illinois (Figure 1). The study sites were chosen to represent relatively homogenous residential transects (Figure 2). We selected sites where land use was primarily residential with a canopy cover of greater than 15% (determined using the USDA / USGS National Land Cover Dataset, 2006). We looked for transect sites adjacent to forest preserves of uniform size and shape as well as minimal variation in other characteristics such as streams.
  • 5. Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects 5 Figure 1: Transect Sites Transect sites, titled after the street name which they follow: Sibley, Lemai, Bloomingdale, Hull, Southcote, 44th, Bonita, Wildwood, Lawn, Augusta, Cleveland, Everett, Linden, Forest, Ash, Wilmette, Bristol, Clausen, Oak, Delaplaine, Grant, Lindenwood, Keota, Central, Gage, Keystone. Fig2. Transect bounds Common structure of a Residential Transect. Paths follow the road direction out to 1km from a forest preserve and are 50m wide from the road centerline. 2.2 Survey Method
  • 6. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 6 Necessary information about residents’ yards was collected through a survey instrument, delivered in a DOPU (Drop-off, Pick-up) method at transect residents’ homes (SEE APPENDIX). Questions were asked in 4 broad categories: 1) Respondent’s yard management practices and vegetation composition of front and back yard, 2) Presence of wildlife-friendly features such as bird feeders, 3) perception / attitudes towards birds and nature, and 4) demographic details. The collected information used for the purpose of this study includes the number of vegetation layers (to quantify vegetation structural diversity) and wildlife-friendly features. 2.3 Analysis Method 2.3.1 Data Preparation Survey responses were coded into special survey software and were then appended to parcel (property boundary) shapefiles of Cook County in GIS. Parcel centroids (central point in the property) were determined in ArcGIS, and then geographic distances between all pairs of properties were calculated using the Geospatial Modeling Environment tool (Geospatial Modeling Environment tool). Corresponding tables for the properties were generated representing our comparison variables: 1) Structural Diversity in front yards, 2) Strucutral Diversity in backyards, 3) Wildlife Friendliness Index, and 4) Simple WFI For front and back yards, we determined the difference in yard vegetation structural diversity for pairs of yards within each transect. This was done by calculating the difference between yard pairs by adding up number of vegetative layers respondents reported in their front and back yards. These were used as an input distance matrix in Mantel tests. For WFI and Simple WFI, we used indices devised to compare wildlife-friendliness of properties. Our primary Wildlife – Friendliness Index (WFI) consisted of totaling the number of the following of self- reported features: flowers, fruit-yielding vegetation, shrubs, evergreen trees, deciduous trees, vegetation planted with the goal of attracting birds, native plant species, water features, brush pile / open compost, birdhouses, and bird feeders. The WFI value for a particular parcel, then, could range from zero to 11, depending on the number of features a respondent reported in the survey. A second index was devised from a subset of these features that are easier and less time-intensive to implement: water features, brush pile/open compost areas, birdhouses, and bird feeders. We termed this second index, “Simple WFI”. 2.3.2 Mantel Test We used Mantel tests to determine the relationship between geographic distance and differences between yards. In other words, Mantel tests reveal whether yards that are closer together are more similar in terms of our four indices: front yard vegetation structural diversity, back yard vegetation structural diversity, WFI, and Simple WFI. The Mantel test compares the values between the matrices and summarizes the relationship with an R-value (and associated p-value) indicating level of correlation. The Mantel test will indicate the degree of spatial correlation of the four feature distributions we are examining, and can help us determine whether neighbors affect each others’ back and front yards, as well as wildlife-friendliness of the property. The tests were repeated for each transect, providing a localized statistic. A global calculation for all transects overall was not performed as we’re not testing a correlation between neighborhoods far removed throughout the study area. Instead, we aggregated the level of correlation by calculating the average R-value across the whole set of local results, this gives an overall representation of the degree
  • 7. Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects 7 of similarity or dissimilarity in neighbors yards. Figure 3: Calculated Matrices and Three Mantel Tests 2.3.3 Mantel Correlelograms Mantel Correlelograms depict Mantel scores over increasing distances between yards. Producing Mantel Correlograms further enhanced our result set by illustrating variation Mantel R- values across 60 distance classes (Figures 6-10). Distance classes, measured about 16.67m each for the transects. This distance was chosen because it was an average between nearest neighbors. Breaking down the degree of correlation by distance classes helped visualize the extent of neighbor likeness and at what distance neighbor effect ceases to have influence on yard composition. 3. RESULTS 3.1 Mantel Scores for Transects When examining spatial dependency at the transect level, overall correlation was low, with R-value either close to 0, or negative on average. The highest score a Mantel test for correlation can theoretically achieve is 1. Front yards, on average across all transects, achieved an R- score of 0.023, and back yards 0.035. There were transects which consistently showed higher scores, such as Wilmette, Southcote, and Clausen, as well as some that had a high discrepancy between front and back yard scores: Keystone, Gage, Central, and Keota. Overall, Mantel R-values for WFI scores were low, except for Wilmette and 44th transects. The Simple WFI score aligns with the overall WFI score for the most part, with slightly less distance from 0 than the overall index.
  • 8. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 8 Figure 4a: Mantel R Scores between Front Yards, Figure 4c: Mantel R Scores for Wildlife- per Transect Friendliness Index Figure 4b: Mantel R Scores between Back Yards Figure 4d: Mantel R scores for Easily- Implementable Wildlife-Friendly Features
  • 9. Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects 9 3.2 Mantel Correlograms (select transects illustrating typical patterns): Figure 6: Wilmette Transect Mantel Correlograms 6b: Front Yard 6a: Back Yard 6c: WFI 6d: WFI - Easy Wilmette carried higher R-value across longer distance classes than other data sets. The R-score maintains a higher value overall, but does go below 0 (meaning no correlation) or negative (negative correlation) within the first 10-15 distance classes. Back yards maintain a higher score than front yards, and the WFI doesn’t reach negative or 0 until the farthest distance classes.
  • 10. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 10 Figure 9: Everett Transect Mantel Correlograms 9b: Front Yard 9a: Back Yard 9c: WFI 9d: WFI - Easy The Everett Transect has WFI scores close to 0, with high variation between back yard scores as compared to the rest of the measures. V
  • 11. Spatial Correlation of Wildlife Friendly Habitats in Residential Transects 11 Figure10: Lawn Transect Mantel Correlograms Back Yard Front Yard WFI - Easy WFI Lawn Transect has high variation in back yard scores, as compared to front yards. The WFI and easy WFI for Lawn reach high scores compared to the overall scores of all transects within the first 10 to 15 distance classes.
  • 12. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 12 Figure 11: Average of all Mantel Correlograms The above is an average of corellograms for all transects. Front and back yards overall stay above 0, while the WFI and WFI easy vary greatly, and often fall into the negative. The average of all of these measures is represented as the thick black line. 3. DISCUSSION A substantial number of transect received higher R-values for front yard correlation than back yards. This might suggest that front yards are more curated to appeal to neighbors and neighborhood. This reaffirms studies suggesting that the front yard is designed as a face to the outer world, and is considered more of a public space than a back yard. Comparison of neighbors based on further indicators, such as socio-economic status, preferences for / against birds, and other methods to compare likelihood may further explain these results. Future study of similarity of neighbors yards and similarity of neighbors themselves should be undertaken with the data we collected. It would also be valuable to determine which factor, such as income, profession, value of wildlife, and other indicators collected have the highest effect on presence / absence of features through relating these factors to WFI. The Mantel Correlelograms highlight how rapidly the Mantel value drops over distance classes for the majority of transects. This may suggests that only the closest neighbors affect each other. For certain Transects, the R-value maintains a higher score over further distance classes. Examining indicators for these, whether they be socioeconomic or values-based may tell if there is an underlying cause for this, and may also explain rapid drops below zero and overall negative R-values for certain other transects.
  • 13. BIOS 399 - INDEPENDENT STUDY - Mike Bularz 13 The Simple WFI did not seem to have significant difference from the regular WFI, other than that it was often lower. This may be because features that are harder to implement, such as large trees and shrubs, may be part of a neighborhood’s general composition, and not present because neighbors were mimicking each other. Examining the other features only may indicate neighborhood age and stability from change over time. REFERENCES Daniels, G.D., and J.B. Kirpatrick. “Comparing the Characteristics of Front and Back Domestic Gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.” Landscape and Urban Planning78.4 (2006): 344-52. Print. Daniels, G.D., and J.B. Kirpatrick, and T. Zagorski. “Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia” Landscape and Urban Planning79.3-4 (2007): 314-22. Web. Grove, J. M., A. R. Troy, J. P. M. O’Neil-Dunne, W. R. Burch, Jr., M. L. Cadenasso, and S. T. A. Pickett. “Characterization of Households and Its Implications for the Vegetation of Urban Ecosystems.” Ecosystems 9 (2006): 578-97. Print. Hunter, Mary Carol R., and Daniel G. Brown. Landscape and Urban Planning 105.3 (2012): 407-16. Print. Nassauer, Joan Iverson, Zhifang Wang, and Erik Dayrell. “What Will the Neighbors Think? Cultural Norms and Ecological Design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92.3-4 (2009): 282-92. Web.