Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Evidence of urban land teleconnections and impacts on
hinterlands
Burak Güneralp1, Karen C Seto2 and Mahesh Ramachandran2
That urban and rural places are connected through trade,
people, and policies has long been recognized. The urban land
teleconnections (ULT) framework aims advancing conventional
conceptualizations of urbanization and land. The conceptual
framework thus opens way to identify and examine the
processes that link urbanization dynamics and associated land
changes that are not necessarily colocated. In this paper, we
review recent literature on four manifestations of urbanization
that, along the lines of the ULT framework, highlight the
importance of process-based conceptualizations of
urbanization and land along a continuum of land systems. We
then discuss potential approaches to improve the knowledge
base on how and where urbanization is driving land change.
Addresses
1
Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843, USA
2
Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195
Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
Corresponding author: Güneralp, Burak (bguneralp@tamu.edu)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
This review comes from a themed issue on Human settlements and
industrial systems
Edited by Peter H Verburg, Ole Mertz, Karl-Heinz Erb and Giovana
Espindola
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Received 13 January 2013; Accepted 22 August 2013
Available online 12th September 2013
1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.08.003
Introduction
The urban land teleconnections (ULT) framework is a
theoretical response to the need to advance current
conceptualizations of urbanization and land that are
increasingly inadequate to understand how changes in
urban places affect nonurban places and vice versa [1].
One of the central tenets of the ULT framework is to
understand how changes in urban locations are linked to
distant, and sometimes, multiple places through a com-
plex set of processes. In this context, the conceptual
framework re-examines three themes in the current land
change literature: the traditional system of land categor-
ization, place-based relationships, and implicit assump-
tions about deterministic progression of land change.
The conventional system of land classification calls for
www.sciencedirect.com
assigning land parcels into discrete units. The ULT
framework argues that this system ignores the nuances
in the quality, uses, and functions of land. The focus on
place-based characterizations of land similarly ignores
the connections between places, in particular, between
urban and rural land uses [2]. Finally, accepting a given
progression of land change as universally valid ignores
the differences in how the land is conceptualized, used,
and governed in different geographical and cultural con-
texts [3].
The ULT conceptual framework argues that by making
the linkages between processes and places explicit, the
multiple (and sometimes unintended) consequences of
urbanization and land changes can be explored. With its
emphasis on processes, the ULT framework goes beyond
an aggregated hinterland approach used by indicator-
based concepts such as the ecological footprint [4].
The purpose of this paper is twofold: First, we review
recent literature for four examples of specific pathways
through which urban processes affect hinterlands. Sec-
ond, we discuss several approaches to improve the knowl-
edge base on how and where urbanization is driving land
change in hinterlands.
Four examples of the ULT
We provide four examples of how processes are con-
nected through urbanization and discuss their implica-
tions for exploring the concept of ULT. An important
consideration in this respect is that teleconnections can
extend from short-distances such as the continuum be-
tween a central urban area and peri-urban areas to longer-
distances such as those between places across nations or
continents (Figure 1).
We selected four examples that illustrate unexpected
linkages between the urban and the hinterland and which
span a range of topics: from perceptions of people about
places they have never or rarely been (willingness to pay,
WTP, for ecosystem services in distant locations) to
physical movement of materials (mining of raw materials
to construct the built environment), people (migration,
tourism and lifestyle mobility), and money (remittances)
between urban and nonurban places.
Example 1: urban payments for ecosystem
services and biodiversity conservation
Several recent studies show that WTP for certain eco-
system services and species preservation tends to
increase with increases in income [5–7]. Because
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
446 Human settlements and industrial systems

Figure 1

(a)
Example of Urban Land Short-distance (peri-urban, Long distance (inter-
Teleconnections suburban, regional) regional, international)

Urban payments for [21] Jakarta and Bogor, Indonesia

[20] Norwich, UK
ecosystem services and Lazio, Lombardy,
biodiversity conservation Gunang National Park, Indonesia and Tuscany, Italy
[22] Cities in Ejina Valley, China
Amazonia, Brazil
Ejina Valley, China

Raw materials [32] Aligarh, India

to construct .
[29 ] Xalapa, Mexico City, and
the built environment Peri-urban areas around Aligarh Monterrey, Mexico

[35] Cities in Kathmandu Valley,

Nepal Central Veracruz, Mexico

Other examples: [25-27]

Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

Other examples: [34,36]

Migrants and remittances . [37] Gulf States, Persian Gulf

[45 ] Rural land
near the city of São Gabriel da
Cachoeira in Northwest Alut Henegama, Sri Lanka
Amazonia
Other examples: [43-44]

[57] Northern Europe

Lifestyle mobility and
second homes [53] Multiple urban locations,
Australia Central and Eastern Europe
.
[58 ] Multiple urban locations,
Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, Britain
Australia

Golden Triangle, Algarve,

Portugal
Other examples: [53,54 ,56]
.

(b)

0 2,500 5,000 km

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Four examples of the ULT representative of different types of processes. (a) The breakdown of the case studies is illustrative of one defining aspect of
teleconnections, that is, distance; (b) the teleconnections in the selected case studies highlight the continuum across space.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451 www.sciencedirect.com

 Urban land teleconnections Güneralp, Seto and Ramachandran 447
economic activities tend to agglomerate in urban areas
[8,9], per capita urban incomes are typically higher than
per capita rural incomes. This urban–rural income
inequality is one of the major drivers of rural to urban
migration and is most pronounced in Sub-Sahara Africa
and Asia [10–13] but is also present in OECD countries
such as Germany [14] and the U.S. [15]. Taken together,
these studies suggest that WTP for ecosystem services is
likely to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas.
A series of surveys conducted in the U.S. in 1970s
indicated that urban residents generally ranked environ-
mental protection higher than rural respondents [5].
Urban residents in the U.S. also tended to show stronger
affective attitudes toward nonhuman species than rural
residents [16]. It has long been claimed that, at least in the
U.S., the positive association between urban residence
and concern for environmental quality may be due to two
factors: first, urban residents may be exposed to various
types of environmental degradation and second, rural
residents tend to hold more utilitarian views toward
the natural environment because of their occupations
that are more directly linked to natural resources such
as farming and logging [17]. However, more recent evi-
dence suggests that the place of socialization also influ-
ences a person’s attitude toward the environment [9].
According to a survey across eight regions in Spain, the
differences in preferences for ecosystem services be-
tween urban and rural residents are driven by several
factors such as income, age, education, gender, and life-
style [18]. In the South Platte River basin near Denver,
Colorado, urban and suburban dwellers are more likely
than rural dwellers to favor the restoration, conservation,
and economic valuation of ecosystem services [19]. Urban
residents also have a higher WTP for conservation of
biodiversity in distant locations. For example, urban
dwellers in the city of Norwich, UK and Lazio, Lombardy
and Tuscany, Italy were willing to pay $43.97 per year
toward a program that protected 5% of the Amazonian
rainforest in Brazil [20]. These values are considered
‘existence values,’ since the people paying for biodiver-
sity conservation may never visit or otherwise directly use
it, yet are still willing to pay for their existence. There is
evidence that a high WTP among urban dwellers for land
conservation and biodiversity protection is not solely a
Western phenomenon. For instance, residents of the
cities of Jakarta and Bogor, Indonesia, have an estimated
five times higher WTP than rural residents for the pro-
tection and preservation of biodiversity at Indonesia’s
Gunang National Park [21]. Similarly, residents of cities
in the Ejina Valley, China have a higher WTP for bio-
diversity protection than rural residents [22] (Figure 1).
These studies imply that the preferences and ability to
pay have important implications for specific ecosystem
services targeted by conservation initiatives. With
www.sciencedirect.com
urbanization and associated increases in income, conser-
vation strategies and land use policies may be increasingly
determined by urban residents who have a higher WTP
for green spaces, forests, water quality, and biodiversity.
Example 2: raw materials to construct the built
environment
Mining activities for construction materials are a major
driver of land change in rural places. As areas urbanize,
they require growing amounts of raw materials and energy
to construct the built environment. Some of these con-
struction materials may be available locally at first, but as
urban areas expand and the demand for materials exceeds
the quantity or quality of the local supply, the source of
these materials shifts to increasingly distant places.
Of all the construction materials, cement, steel, and
timber are among those to travel the longest distances
to reach their final destination [23–27]. One estimate
suggests that globally almost half of the steel put in
use goes to construction [25]. However, in the case of
timber, illegal trade makes accurate characterization of
the flow of this resource especially challenging [28].
These studies highlight a knowledge gap in information
on destinations and origins of material flows to construct
the built environment.
One example of linkages between specific urban places
and specific extraction sites is in Perote Valley, Mexico,
where the demand for pumice (tepetzil) initially came
from the nearby city of Xalapa, the capital of Veracruz
State [29]. Eventually, demand came from more distant
metropolitan areas such as Mexico City and Monterrey.
Among the many factors that compel farmers to convert
their lands into mines are increased prices for aggregates
and declining returns to agriculture. In many cases, after
being used as mines, the land loses its capacity to
support agriculture forcing many farmers to take off-
farm jobs in nearby cities. Thus, an unintended and
overlooked linkage between off-farm work and urban-
ization is the process of mining and its consequences for
agricultural land use.
Often, the basic raw materials such as clay, sand, and
gravel required for construction are available within short-
distances of cities which reduces transportation costs [30–
32]. For example, high levels of urban development can
drive an increase in demand for bricks and encourage
brick production to occur near the places where they are
ultimately used [32–34]. Since early 1980s, the area
surrounding the city of Aligarh, India, has experienced
extensive loss of farmland through quarrying of fertile top
soil to make bricks [32]. As the demand for bricks grows
due to the growth of the city, many farmers lease their
land to brick-makers. Similar to pumice extraction
dynamics in the Perote Valley, Mexico, however, at the
end of the lease period, the lands become degraded,
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
448 Human settlements and industrial systems
which then either become unused as wasteland or used
for purposes other than agriculture. Most of the farmers
who once leased their land abandon farming, some
become brick-makers themselves, in a process that helps
perpetuate land changes around the city (Figure 1).
Brick-making can also indirectly affect land use through
its adverse impact on nearby vegetation. In Peshawar,
Pakistan, fluoride emissions from poorly regulated brick
kilns outside the city have damaged nearby orchards,
causing significant impacts on the livelihoods of farmers
in the peri-urban areas [33]. Similar problems have been
reported elsewhere in Vietnam [34], Kathmandu Valley,
Nepal [35], and Khartoum, Sudan [36]. In all cases, the
availability of fertile alluvial soils in the immediate hin-
terland of the cities, which reduces transport costs, rapid
financial returns from brick-making over farming, and
nonexistent or poorly enforced regulations allowed for
the concentration of the brick-making around the cities.
Example 3: migrants and remittances
Migrants create connections between their places of
origin and destination, while affecting land changes in
both places [37]. Migrants to urban centers in search of
employment require shelter, which can lead to land use
changes due to construction of formal and informal hous-
ing [38,39]. The land change implications of rural–urban
migration in places of origin tend to be more context-
specific depending on such factors as existing land use
practices, economic incentives, personal preferences of
migrants as well as of those they leave behind, and the
local and national institutional frameworks [37,40,41].
Remittances from migrants are a significant factor in
setting off changes in land use and land cover in their
places of origin [40]. Remittances can influence agricul-
tural intensification, or decrease agricultural activity,
depending on the geographic location, agricultural com-
modities in question, and preferences of the recipients
[40,42,43]. In the Philippines, female migration allows
men to plant input-intensive commercial crops overriding
their wives’ preference for more ecologically sustainable
ones [44]. Remittances can also change residential land
use in rural areas; savings from Sri Lankan migrants who
work in the Persian Gulf have prompted the construction
of new, larger houses or extensions to existing homes in
their rural homeland of Alut Henegama [37]. In some
cases, it is the rural institutions that adapt to new realities.
Near the city of São Gabriel da Cachoeira in the state of
Amazonas, Brazil, indigenous land tenure arrangements
change due to urbanization and new kinds of land use
practices [45] (Figure 1).
Rural to urban migration can also have implications for
biodiversity conservation. In the state of Amazonas,
Brazil, the depopulation of remote areas due to rural–
urban migration presents the opportunity to demarcate
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
protected areas such as biological reserves to stave off
further exploitation of these lands; however, it also raises
the prospects of illegal land grabs and overharvesting of
wildlife [46]. On the other hand, in Spain, increases in
biomass were observed in natural and semi-natural areas
as the rural populations declined due to migration to
urban centers [47]. In Columbia, forced human displace-
ment from rural to urban places due to violent conflict
resulted in forest regrowth in some areas but not in areas
with rich gold deposits and those appropriate for cattle
grazing [48]. Higher yields from modern agricultural
systems can promote the abandonment of marginal
agricultural lands, which may in turn favor ecosystem
recovery [49], but can also lead to intensification in areas
particularly suitable for agriculture [40,47]. Alternately,
it could cause degradation of the landscape with localized
declines in biodiversity [50]. In Amazonia, the demand
for timber in urban construction, particularly for construc-
tion in squatter settlements has induced the cultivation of
fast-growing timber species on agricultural fallows [51].
Example 4: lifestyle mobility and second
homes
When tourists become residents (permanent or seasonal),
they create unique patterns of residential development
and land use. For example, ‘tourism urbanization,’ has
determined the spatial pattern of development in the
Gold Coast of Australia [52]. These ‘cities for pleasure,’
first developed for Australians and later for international
visitors, have created land use and infrastructure patterns
that promote consumption and are different from other
Australian cities [53] (Figure 1).
Increases in personal income and the growing availability
of vacation and foreign real estate for sale over the last half
century have resulted in the growing phenomenon of
foreign owners buying secondary properties, thereby
shaping land use in these locations [54]. The buyers
are often urban residents in search of rurality, or ‘lifestyle
migration’ [55], and there are discernible patterns be-
tween the geographic origins of the buyers and their
preferred destinations. For example, British and German
nationals comprise 30% and 25%, respectively, of the
foreign-occupied housing in coastal Spain [56], and there
is a growing demand by Northern Europeans for second
homes in Central and Eastern Europe from Estonia to
Turkey, and countries in between such as Poland, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro
and Bulgaria [57].
Often the arrival of the lifestyle migrants from the urban
areas of Northern Europe causes urbanization of the
pastoral landscapes they seek to escape to [58]. While
the amount of land converted for holiday home devel-
opment has not been quantified, there is consensus in the
real estate market that this is a growing phenomenon
[54], with increasing occurrences of land use conflicts
www.sciencedirect.com
 Urban land teleconnections Güneralp, Seto and Ramachandran 449
between the urban ‘visitors’ or ‘seasonal residents’ and
rural ‘permanent residents’ [59].
Improving the knowledge base
The four sets of examples here highlight the importance
of process-based conceptualizations of urbanization and
land change. Collectively, they demonstrate the diversity
of ULT. Mining for construction materials on farmlands
may force farmers who end up with depleted soils in their
lands to migrate to urban areas [29,32]. Migration, in
turn, influences land change in rural places of origin
[45,47] but it can also play a role in formation of a range
of attitudes among urban residents toward environmental
protection and biodiversity conservation [9]. Similarly,
lifestyle migration, which may transform rural places of
destination [54,58,59], is not something that is afford-
able or desirable for any urban resident [54,57,58].
In order for the ULT framework to be fully implemented,
more research is required to identify appropriate meth-
odological approaches. Spatially explicit life-cycle assess-
ment (LCA) and commodity chains analysis are two
examples of analytical methods that can capture the
linkages between processes by tracking the flows and
accumulations of materials and information [1]. There
are several other methodological approaches such as
material flow analysis (MFA) and consequential LCA
that can be employed to study the ULT. Among these
approaches, MFA, the assessment of the stocks and flows
of materials within a system, has been used to quantify
the amount of raw materials used in the construction of
the built environment [60,61]. On the other hand, con-
sequential LCA unites LCA and economic modeling
approaches to identify the environmental consequences
of resource use, many of which can be economic in nature
such as changes in demand, substitution effects, and
economies of scale [62,63].
Most of these methods have complementary aspects,
which, once brought together, can be used for the pur-
poses of the ULT. For example, urban metabolism can be
very detailed in tracking resource flows and accumu-
lations within a city [64,65] but it is not concerned about
the sources of the resources they depend upon and sinks
of their wastes. On the other hand, spatially explicit LCA
targets the locations of production and consumption
[66,67]. MFA has similarly been used to identify sources
and sinks, or places of production and consumption of
various metals [68]. Coupling spatially explicit (conse-
quential) LCA or MFA with urban metabolism would
advance the implementation of the ULT concept by
helping to identify linkages between specific urban pro-
cesses and land change. Such a coupling between LCA
approaches and urban metabolism can help avoid unin-
tended consequences of decisions on resource use that
may result from stand-alone — and essentially a place-
based — implementation of the latter [69].
www.sciencedirect.com
It is also important to acknowledge other conceptual frame-
works that approach the linkages among multiple places
from different perspectives than that of the ULT. As an
example, translocality, concerned with socio-spatial
dynamics such as processes of identity formation that trans-
cend boundaries of specific locations [70], has parallels to
the ULT; the opportunities for cross-fertilization between
the two concepts deserve to be explored. Such cross-ferti-
lization would prove the most useful for concurrently exam-
ining social and physical processes in migrations (rural–urban
as well as lifestyle migration) or for more in-depth study of
formation of attitudes toward environmental protection and
biodiversity conservation. However, it could also be
employed to analyze the social and cultural dynamics under-
pinning the flow of commodities and raw materials that link
multiple places. After all, moving closer to sustainability
requires achieving the right balance in studying the social,
economic, and biophysical processes governing the inter-
actions between urbanization and land change.
Acknowledgements
We thank Nick B Allen for his assistance in preparing the map in Figure 1.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG, Fragkias M, Haase D,
 Langanke T, Marcotullio P, Munroe DK, Olah B, Simon D: Urban
land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A 2012, 109:7687-7692.
This paper introduces urban land teleconnections as a conceptual frame-
work that explicitly links land changes to underlying urbanization
dynamics.
2. Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF, Erb K-H, Hertel TW: Globalization of land
use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement
of land use. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:438-444.
3. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P: Land use transitions: socio-ecological
feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy
2010, 27:108-118.
4. Rees WE, Wackernagel M: Urban ecological footprints: why
cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to
sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1996, 16:223-248.
5. Lowe GD, Pinhey TK, Grimes MD: Public support for
environmental protection: new evidence from national
surveys. Pacific Sociol Rev 1980, 23:423-445.
6. Lindhjem H, Tuan TH: Valuation of species and nature
conservation in Asia and Oceania: a meta-analysis. Environ
Econ Policy Stud 2012, 14:1-22.
7. Brander L, Florax RGM, Vermaat J: The empirics of wetland
valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of
the literature. Environ Resour Econ 2006, 33:223-250.
8. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N: Are there income effects on global
willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ
Resour Econ 2009, 43:137-160.
9. Huddart-Kennedy E, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S:
Rural–urban differences in environmental concern in Canada.
Rural Sociol 2009, 74:309-329.
10. Fosu AK: The effect of income distribution on the ability of
growth to reduce poverty: evidence from rural and urban
African economies. Am J Econ Sociol 2010, 69:1034-1053.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
450 Human settlements and industrial systems
11. Kanbur R, Zhuang J: Urbanization and inequality in Asia. Asian
Dev Rev 2013, 30:131-147.
12. Nguyen BT, Albrecht JW, Vroman SB, Westbrook MD: A quantile
regression decomposition of urban–rural inequality in
Vietnam. J Dev Econ 2007, 83:466-490.
13. Sicular T, Ximing Y, Gustafsson B, Shi L: The urban–rural income
gap and inequality in China. Rev Income Wealth 2007, 53:93-126.
14. Kosfeld R, Eckey H-F: Market access, regional price level and
wage disparities: the German case. Jahrbuch für
Regionalwissenschaft 2010, 30:105-128.
15. Wu JJ, Gopinath M: What causes spatial variations in economic
development in the United States. Am J Agric Econ 2008,
90:392-408.
16. Kellert SR, Berry JK: Phase III. Knowledge, Affection and Basic
Attitudes Toward Animals in American Society. Washington, DC:
United States Government Printing Office; 1980, .
17. Tremblay KR Jr, Dunlap RE: Rural–urban residence and
concern with environmental quality: a replication and
extension. Rural Sociol 1978, 43:474-491.
18. Martı́n-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı́a-Llorente M, Palomo I,
 Casado-Arzuaga I, Garcı́a Del Amo D, Gómez-Baggethun E,
Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B et al.:
Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social
preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e38970.
A study of the social–cultural dimension of ecosystem services in Spain.
Among others, it presents evidence of an important rural–urban gradient
in preferences toward ecosystem services, which has implications for
land management strategies in areas with significant ecosystem services
or biodiversity.
19. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A: Measuring the
total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an
impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation
survey. Ecol Econ 2000, 33:103-117.
20. Horton B, Colarullo G, Bateman IJ, Peres CA: Evaluating non-
user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation
programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation
study. Environ Conserv 2003, 30:139-146.
21. Nuva R, Shamsudin M, Radam A, Shuib A: Willingness to pay
towards the conservation of ecotourism resources at Gunung
Gede Pangrango National Park, West Java, Indonesia. J
Sustain Dev 2009, 2:173.
22. Zhongmin X, Guodong C, Zhiqiang Z, Zhiyong S, Loomis J:
Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total
economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina
region. Ecol Econ 2003, 44:345-358.
23. Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O: Growth in emission
transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 2011, 108:8903-8908.
24. Wang T, Mao J, Johnson J, Reck B, Graedel T: Anthropogenic
metal cycles in China. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 2008,
10:188-197.
25. Wang T, Müller DB, Graedel TE: Forging the anthropogenic iron
cycle. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41:5120-5129.
26. Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF: Forest transitions, trade, and
the global displacement of land use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2010, 107:20917-20922.
27. Steinberger JK, Krausmann F, Eisenmenger N: Global patterns of
materials use: a socioeconomic and geophysical analysis.
Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1148-1158.
28. Katsigris E, Bull GQ, White A, Barr C, Barney K, Bun Y, Kahrl F,
King T, Lankin A, Lebedev A et al.: The China forest products
trade: overview of Asia-Pacific supplying countries, impacts
and implications. Int Forest Rev 2004, 6 237–253, 346–347, 350.
29. Fry M: From crops to concrete: urbanization,
 deagriculturalization, and construction material mining in
central Mexico. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2011, 101:1285-1306.
The author traces the cycle created by the interaction of urbanization,
construction material mining, deagriculturalization, and rural–urban
migration in Perote Valley in Central Mexico.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451
30. Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Chen C, Jullien A: Development of a
depletion indicator for natural resources used in concrete.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2010, 54:364-376.
31. Price O, Milne D, Tynan C: Poor recovery of woody vegetation
on sand and gravel mines in the Darwin region of the Northern
Territory. Ecol Manage Restor 2005, 6:118-123.
32. Singh AL, Asgher MS: Impact of brick kilns on land use/
landcover changes around Aligarh city, India. Habitat Int 2005,
29:591-602.
33. Ahmad MN, Van Den Berg LJL, Shah HU, Masood T, Büker P,
Emberson L, Ashmore M: Hydrogen fluoride damage to
vegetation from peri-urban brick kilns in Asia: a growing but
unrecognised problem? Environ Pollut 2012, 162:319-324.
34. Co HX, Dung NT, Le HA, An DD, van Chinh K, Oanh NTK:
Integrated management strategies for brick kiln emission
reduction in Vietnam: a case study. Int J Environ Stud 2009,
66:113-124.
35. Haack BN, Khatiwada G: Rice and bricks: environmental issues
and mapping of the unusual crop rotation pattern in the
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Environ Manage 2007, 39:774-782.
36. Abdalla I, Abdalla SB, El-Siddig K, Möller D, Buerkert A: Effects of
red brick production on land use, household income, and
greenhouse gas emissions in Khartoum, Sudan. J Agric Rural
Dev Trop Subtrop 2012, 113:51-60.
37. Hewage P, Kumara C, Rigg J: Connecting and disconnecting
people and places: migrants, migration, and the household in
Sri Lanka. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2011, 101:202-219.
38. Numbasa G, Koczberski G: Migration, informal urban
settlements and non-market land transactions: a case study
of Wewak, East Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea. Aust
Geogr 2012, 43:143-161.
39. Wang YP, Wang Y, Wu J: Urbanization and informal
development in China: urban villages in Shenzhen. Int J Urban
Reg Res 2009, 33:957-973.
40. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P: Global land use change, economic
 globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A 2011, 108:3465-3472.
The authors argue for recognizing land systems as open systems with
large flows of goods, people, and capital that connect local–land use with
global–scale factors to increase land use efficiency and prevent uncon-
trolled land use expansion.
41. Moran-Taylor MJ, Taylor MJ: Land and leña: linking
transnational migration, natural resources, and the
environment in Guatemala. Popul Environ 2010, 32:198-215.
42. Hecht S: The new rurality: globalization, peasants and the
paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:161-169.
43. VanWey LK, Guedes GR, D’Antona ÁO: Out-migration and land-
use change in agricultural frontiers: insights from Altamira
settlement project. Popul Environ 2012, 34:44-68.
44. McKay D: Reading remittance landscapes: female migration
and agricultural transition in the Philippines. Geografisk
Tidsskrift 2005, 105:89-99.
45. Eloy L, Lasmar C: Urbanisation and transformation of
 indigenous resource management: the case of upper Rio
Negro (Brazil). Int J Sustain Soc 2012, 4:372-388.
The authors examine how land tenure arrangements feature a new kind of
resource management in peri-urban areas of São Gabriel da Cachoeira,
Northwest Amazonia in Brazil.
46. Parry L, Peres CA, Day B, Amaral S: Rural–urban migration
brings conservation threats and opportunities to Amazonian
watersheds. Conserv Lett 2010, 3:251-259.
47. Stellmes M, Röder A, Udelhoven T, Hill J: Mapping syndromes of
land change in Spain with remote sensing time series,
demographic and climatic data. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:685-702.
48. Sánchez-Cuervo AM, Aide TM: Consequences of the armed
conflict, forced human displacement, and land abandonment
on forest cover change in Colombia: a multi-scaled analysis.
Ecosystems 2013:1-19.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Urban land teleconnections Güneralp, Seto and Ramachandran 451
49. Grau HR, Aide M: Globalization and land-use transitions in
Latin America. Ecol Soc 2008, 13.
50. Robson JP, Berkes F: Exploring some of the myths of land use
change: can rural to urban migration drive declines in
biodiversity? Global Environ Change 2011, 21:844-854.
51. Padoch C, Brondizio E, Costa S, Pinedo-Vasquez M, Sears RR,
Siqueria A: Urban forest and rural cities: multi-sited
households, consumption patterns, and forest resources in
Amazonia. Ecol Soc 2008, 13.
52. Mullins P: Tourism urbanization. Int J Urban Reg Res 1991,
15:326-342.
53. Mullins P: Cities for pleasure: the emergence of tourism
urbanization in Australia. Built Environ 1993, 18:187-198.
54. Åkerlund U: Selling a place in the sun: international property
 mediation as production of lifestyle mobility. Anatolia 2012,
23:251-267.
A study of the property mediation as a production process of lifestyle
mobility that links the buyers and sellers in different sets of countries.
55. Benson M, O’Reilly K: Migration and the search for a better way
of life: a critical exploration of lifestyle migration. Sociol Rev
2009, 57:608-625.
56. Bramwell B (Ed): Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and
Sustainable Development in Southern Europe. Clevedon, UK:
Channel View Publications; 2004.
57. Barnett R: Central and Eastern Europe: real estate
development within the second and holiday home markets. J
Retail Leisure Property 2007, 6:137-142.
58. Torkington K: Place and lifestyle migration: the discursive
 construction of ‘glocal’ place-identity. Mobilities 2012, 7:71-92.
The paper highlights the various ways British lifestyle migrants in the
Golden Triangle area of the Algarve, Portugal identify their connection to
the land they settled.
59. Farstad M, Rye JF: Second home owners, locals and their
perspectives on rural development. J Rural Stud 2013, 30:41-51.
www.sciencedirect.com
60. Sartori I, Bergsdal Hv, Muller DB, Bratteb ÃH: Towards modelling
of construction, renovation and demolition activities:
Norway’s dwelling stock, 1900–2100. Build Res Inform 2008,
36:412-425.
61. Hodson M, Marvin S, Robinson B, Swilling M: Reshaping urban
infrastructure: material flow analysis and transitions analysis
in an urban context. J Ind Ecol 2012, 16:789-800.
62. Kløverpris JH, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH: Life cycle inventory
modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2010, 15:90-103.
63. Earles JM, Halog A: Consequential life cycle assessment: a
review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011, 16:445-453.
64. Huang S-L, Chen C-W: Urbanization and socioeconomic
metabolism in Taipei. J Ind Ecol 2009, 13:75-93.
65. Brunner PH: Reshaping urban metabolism. J Ind Ecol 2007,
11:11-13.
66. Fthenakis V, Kim HC: Land use and electricity generation: a life-
cycle analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13:1465-1474.
67. Steinberger JK, Friot D, Jolliet O, Erkman S: A spatially explicit
life cycle inventory of the global textile chain. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2009, 14:443-455.
68. Rauch JN: Global mapping of Al, Cu, Fe, and Zn in-use stocks
and in-ground resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009,
106:18920-18925.
69. Chester M, Pincetl S, Allenby B: Avoiding unintended tradeoffs
by integrating life-cycle impact assessment with urban
metabolism. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:451-457.
70. Greiner C, Sakdapolrak P: Translocality: concepts, applications
 and emerging research perspectives. Geogr Compass 2013,
7:373-384.
This review traces the emergence of the idea of translocality and sum-
marizes the key characteristics that are typically associated with the term.
They propose several key areas where a translocal approach may help
generate new insights on socio-spatial dynamics.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:445–451