If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||
![]() Annals of the Association of American GeographersVolume 97 Issue 4, Pages 739 - 754 Published Online: 13 Nov 2007 © 2007 by Association of American Geographers
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 246K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Frontier Land Use Change: Synthesis, Challenges, and Next Steps Copyright © 2007 by Association of American Geographers KEYWORDS agent-based models • case comparisons • frontier • land use change • population dynamics ABSTRACTProfound social, economic, and environmental changes that include new land management practices are often associated with advancing agricultural frontiers. We argue that existing approaches to case studies do not allow for clear generalization or the systematic testing of hypotheses. As an alternative, our study uses Mill's method of agreement approach to synthesize results from seven long-term case studies of land cover change in frontier areas. We identify a number of generalizations that hold across the specific case studies. We also identify changes in the spatial organization of land use in agricultural frontier areas, which are typically characterized by agricultural expansion, growing population, and transportation improvements. We then evaluate the methodological strengths and weaknesses of Mill's method of agreement based on use in this study. Finally, we argue that agent-based models, using virtual landscapes and the logic of demographic standardization, are an important next step to facilitate methodologically defensible comparisons across case studies. Initial submission, March 2006; revised submissions, October 2006 and April 2007; final acceptance, May 2007 |