Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Objectives of the Study
Part 1 Introduction
Definition and Objectives
Definition and Scope
Objectives of the Evaluation
What Objective of Ecological Evaluation?
Reviewing the Literature
Baseline Study
Summary
Conclusions
Boundary of the Study Area
Available Data
Land-Cover Mapping of the Study Area
The Adopted Methodology
Introduction
Application of McE to the Case Study
Basic Sensitivity Analysis
Uncertainty in the Baseline Study
Discussion
Advantages and Limitations
Results of the Case Study
References
All Topics
Geography

Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment

Profile image of Davide GenelettiDavide Geneletti

2002, ITC Dissertation

visibility

…

description

213 pages

link

1 file

Related papers

Integrat Ing ecosystem serv Ices I nto assessment of dIfferent management opt Ions In a protected area: a del Iberate mult I-cr Iter Ia decIs Ion analys Is approach
Dorina Grazhdani

2014

GrazhDani, D., 2014. integrating ecosystem services into assessment of different management options in a protected area: a deliberate multi-criteria decision analysis approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Use of GIS techniques to visualize multiple options for nature protection options for nature protection measures and to analyze ecological efficiency of different policies
Michael Glemnitz
View PDFchevron_right
Developing a system of reference for ecological evaluation in the frame of landscape and restoration planning processes
Nuno Guiomar, João Paulo Fernandes

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Reference states of forest ecosystem types and feasibility of biocenotic indication of ecological soil condition as part of ecosystem integrity and services assessment
Winfried Schröder

Environmental Sciences Europe

Background Structures and functions of ecosystems and, subsequently, their services for human societies may be influenced by climate change and atmospheric deposition. Jenssen et al. (UBA Texte 87/2013: 1–381, 2013) developed a spatially explicit evaluation system enabling the evaluation of ecosystems’ integrity. This methodology is based on a spatially explicit ecosystem classification of forests. Based on the six ecological functions, the methodology enables to compare the ecosystem type-specific integrity at different levels of ecological hierarchy for a reference state (1961–1990) with the further development of the forest ecosystem types as measured for the years 1991–2010 and as modelled for the period 2011–2070. The present study aimed at deepening the methodology and developing it into a practical system for assessing and mapping forest ecosystem integrity and services. The objectives of this advanced investigation were: (1) to quantify the reference conditions for a total o...

View PDFchevron_right
How individual scores affect the final expert-based assessments of ecosystem services: Range and mean scores analysis of natural heritage supply maps
Desislava Varadzhakova

European Journal of Geography, 2022

Ecosystems representing the Natural Heritage (NH) are considered in this study as an important source of ecosystem goods and services for human well-being. On that spatial base, we conducted an expert-based assessment and mapping of their potential to provide ecosystem services (ES) for recreational purposes in Bulgaria. Twelve experts participated in the expert-based assessment by filling individual matrices for the potential of the NH to provide ES. We analysed the results i.e. individual scores by comparing them, and calculating the minimum, the maximum and the range scores between them. We calculated the mean individual experts' scores by ecosystem types and subtypes for nine prioritized ecosystem services for recreation-2 provisioning, 2 regulating and 5 cultural. The results show that individual experts have different perceptions for some ecosystems and their services due to their different scientific expertise. This follows from the quite high ranges i.e., 4 or 5 units between maximum and minimum score per spatial unit. There are: (i) significant variations in scoring of Grasslands, Wetlands, Croplands, Rivers and lakes, and Urban ecosystems; and (ii) considerable similarities about Woodland and forest, Sparsely vegetated lands and Marine ecosystems. To compare the spatial discrepancies between the experts' scores, we map them individually. A final integrated map represents the potential of the NH in Bulgaria to provide ecosystem services for recreation with an average score above 3.00. The main outcomes of our study are the analyses we made on the individual and the group experts' scores. Highlights:-Experts have different perceptions for some ecosystems and ES due to different scientific expertise-There are significant variations when scoring Grasslands, Wetlands, Croplands, Rivers and lakes, and Urban ecosystems-There are considerable similarities when scoring Woodland and forest, Sparsely vegetated lands, and Marine ecosystems

View PDFchevron_right
Supplementary material 1 from: Hatziiordanou L, Fitoka E, Hadjicharalampous E, Votsi N, Palaskas D, Malak D (2019) Indicators for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition and of the ecosystem service habitat maintenance in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. One Ecosystem 4: e32...
Nefta Votsi

A systematic approach to map and assess the "maintenance of nursery populations and habitats" ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called "habitat maintenance") has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ §

View PDFchevron_right
White Paper Integrated Ecosystem Assessments
Gary Matlock
View PDFchevron_right
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services-An analytical framework for ecosystem assessmentsunder action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
Patrick Degeorges
View PDFchevron_right
National Ecosystem Assessment follow-on phase . Work Package Report 6
Johanne Orchard-Webb

2014

Citation for published version (APA): Kenter, J. O., Reed, M. S., Irvine, K. N., O'Brien, L., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Hockley, N., Fazey, I., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Ryan, M., & Watson, V. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment follow-on phase. Work Package Report 6: Shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. UNEP-WCMC.

View PDFchevron_right
Use of ecological value analysis for prioritizing areas for nature conservation and restoration
SIMAY KIRCA

Forestist, 2018

Many studies made in recent years revealed the fact that nature conservation and restoration practises have been required in our forests, whose natural structure has been degraded or destroyed by anthropogenic interference, containing a high level of biodiversity and situated in three different phyto-geographical regions. Considering the recent developments on these subjects mainly in Europe and North America, it is necessary to carry on nature conservation and restoration studies by applying different planning methodology for various landscape types. It was aimed with this study to develop a new planning concept for determining nature conservation and restoration priority areas based on the basic principles of "ecological value analysis", which is widely used today in many developed countries. Yedigöller National Park (Bolu) was selected as study area. Ecological value analysis was performed with the assessment of data collected from 80 sample plots related to 16 parameters, which are the rarity of plant communities and their spatial distribution, hemeroby degrees, diversity and rarity of plant taxa, endemic plant taxa, some components of forest structure (layerness, stand age, mixture type, mixture rate, canopy closure) and deadwood amount by using relation matrices and direct scoring. The results revealed that; (1) there is a rather variable landscape structure depending on naturalness, diversity of habitats, species diversity, rarity and endemism, (2) 90% of the study area has "medium" ecological value, (3) detailed ecological value scale scores ranges between 15-30, (4) anthropogenic disturbance is mainly determined in the area close to the lakes, (5) use of many parameters as possible considering the landscape structure improved the sensitivity of the analysis as well as providing the sophisticated analysis of the study area.

View PDFchevron_right

References (235)

  1. ACTON, S.T. (1996), On unsupervised segmentation of remotely sensed imagery using non-linear regression. International Journal of Remote Sensing 7(17), pp. 1407-1415.
  2. ANDREIS, C. (1996), L'analisi della componente floristico-vegetazionale nel quadro ecosistemico delle procedure di VIA. In: Vismara R. and A. Zavatti, eds., Indicatori e scale di qualità. Bologna: Pitagora, pp. 243-266.
  3. ANTUNES, P., R. SANTOS, L. JORDÃO (2001), The application of geographical information systems to determine environmental impact significance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21, pp. 511-535.
  4. AQUILA, C., E. PADOA-SCHIOPPA (1997), Studio dell'ecotessuto forestale del Gariglione. In: Ingegnoli V., ed., Esercizi di ecologia del paesaggio. Milano: Città Studi, pp. 43-71.
  5. ARCE, R., N. GULLÓN (2000), The application of strategic environmental assessment to sustainability assessment of infrastructure development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, pp. 393-402.
  6. ATKINSON, S.F., S. BHATIA, F. SCHOOLMASTER, A.W.T. WALLER (2000), Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(4), pp. 271-282.
  7. AUSTIN, M.P., C.R. MARGULES (1986), Assessing representativeness. In: Usher M.B., ed., Wildlife conservation evaluation. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 45-67.
  8. AWIMBO, J.A., D.A. NORTON, F.B. OVERMARS (1996), An evaluation of representativeness for nature conservation, Hokitika Ecological District, New Zealand. Biological Conservation 75, pp. 177-186.
  9. BANAI, R. (1993), Fuzziness in geographical information systems: contributions from the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7(4), pp. 315- 329.
  10. BASKENT, E.Z. (1999), Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscape management. Landscape Ecology 14, pp. 83-97.
  11. BEHRENS, T., ET AL. (2001), Study site selection and gradient detection in complex landscapes using an automated patch detection tool (PaDS). In: Belward A. et al., eds., Proceedings of the international workshop on geo-spatial knowledge processing for natural resource management, Varese, pp. 217-220.
  12. BEINAT, E. (1997), Value functions for environmental management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  13. BEINAT, E., M. BRESSAN, M. JONES, K. FABBRI (1999), Geographical information systems and environmental impact assessment. UNIGIS Module, Faculty of Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  14. BEINAT, E., P. NIJKAMP, eds. (1998), Multicriteria analysis for land-use management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  15. BEINAT, E., P. NIJKAMP, P. RIETVELD (1994), Multicriteria value functions for evaluating soil pollution: a new assessment procedure and its applications. In: Guariso G. and B. Page, eds., Computer support for environmental impact assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 209- 220.
  16. BENNET, A.F. (1991), Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: a review. In: Saunders D.A. and R.J. Hobbs, eds., Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty, pp. 99-117.
  17. BISSET, R., P. TOMLINSON (1988), Monitoring and auditing of impacts. In: Wathern P., ed., Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 117-128.
  18. BOGAERT, J., P. VAN HECKE, D.S. VAN EYSENRODE, I. IMPENS (2000), Landscape fragmentation assessment using a single measure. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4), pp. 875-881.
  19. BONTE, R. ET AL. (1998), Multicriteria analysis: making subjectivity explicit. In: New experiences on EIA in The Netherlands. Utrecht: MER Commissie, pp. 23-30.
  20. BRIDGEWATER, P.B. (1993), Landscape ecology, geographic information systems and nature conservation. In: Haines-Young R., D.R. Green. and S. Cousins, eds., Landscape ecology and geographic information systems. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 23-36.
  21. BUCKLEY, R. C. (1991), How accurate are environmental impact predictions? Ambio 20, pp.3-5.
  22. BURGESS, R.L., D.M. SHARPE (1981), Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. New York: Springer.
  23. BURKE, V. J. (2000), Landscape ecology and species conservation. Landscape Ecology 15, pp. 1- 3.
  24. BURROUGH, P.A. (1986), Principles of geographic information systems for land resource assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. BURROUGH, P.A., R. MCDONNELL (1998), Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. BURROUGH, P.A., R.A. MCMILLAN, W. V. DEURSEN (1992), Fuzzy classification methods for determining land suitability from soil profile observations and topography. Journal of Soil Science 43, pp. 193-210.
  27. BYRON, H.J. (1999), Biodiversity issues in road environmental impact assessments: guidance and case studies. In: Evink G.L., P. Garrett and D. Zeigler, eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  28. BYRON, H.J. ET AL. (2000), Road developments in the UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between 1993 and 1997. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1), pp. 71-97.
  29. CAGGIATI, P., A. RAGAZZONI (2000), La valutazione dell'ambiente. Metodologie di analisi e casi di studio. Bologna: Pitagora.
  30. CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY (1996), A guide on biodiversity and environmental impact assessment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
  31. CANTER, L.W. (1995), Environmental impact assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  32. CANTERS, K., ed. (1997), Habitat fragmentation and infrastructure. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
  33. CEC (COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) (1985), Council Directive (85/337/EEC) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of the European Communities L175 of 5 July 1985.
  34. CEC (COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) (1992), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities L206 of 22 July 1992.
  35. CEC (COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) (1997), Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of the European Communities LO73 of 14 March 1997.
  36. CEC (COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) (2001), Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal of the European Communities L197 of 21 July 2001.
  37. CEQ (COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY) (1978), National environmental policy act - Regulations. Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 230, Nov. 29, 1978. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  38. CEQ (COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY) (1993), Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the national environmental policy act. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  39. CHEN, J., J.F. FRANKLIN, T.A. SPIES (1992), Vegetation response to edge environment in old growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 2, pp. 387-396.
  40. CODORNI, A., S. MALCEVSCHI, eds. (1994), Guida agli studi di impatto ambientale. Paderno Dugnano: Regione Lombardia.
  41. COOK, E.A. (2000), Ecological networks in urban landscapes. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
  42. COOPER, C.F., P.H. ZEDLER (1980), Ecological assessment for regional development. Journal of Environmental Management 10, pp. 285-296.
  43. CROSS, A.M., D.C. MASON, S.J. DRURY (1988), Segmentation of remotely sensed images by a split-and-merge process. International Journal of Remote Sensing 8(9), pp. 1329-1345.
  44. CSUTI, B., A.R. KIESTER (1996), Hierarchical gap analysis for identifying priority areas for biodiversity. In: Scott J.M., T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis, eds., Gap analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Bethesda: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, pp. 25-37.
  45. CULHANE, P.J., H.P. FRIESEMA, J.A. BEECHER (1987), Forecasts and environmental decisionmaking. London: Westview Press.
  46. CUPERUS, R., M.M.G.J. BAKERMANS, H.A.U. DE HAES, K.J. CANTERS (2001), Ecological compensation in Dutch highway planning. Environmental Management 27(1), pp. 75-89.
  47. CUPERUS, R., K.J. CANTERS, H. A.U. DE HAES, D.S. FRIEDMAN (1999), Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation 90: 40-51.
  48. DALAL-CLAYTON, B. (1992), Modified EIA and indicators of sustainability: first steps towards sustainability analysis. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
  49. DALE, V.H. ET AL. (1998), Assessing land-use impacts on natural resources. Environmental Management 22(2), pp. 203-211.
  50. DAVIDSON, A.D. (1992), The evaluation of land resources. Harlow: Longman.
  51. DE AMICIS, M., D. GENELETTI, C. RAVAZZI, A. ZANCHI (1999), Environmental impact assessment in a natural park: the case of a motorway construction in the "Parco dei Colli di Bergamo" (Italy). In: Orombelli G., ed., Studi geografici e geologici in onore di Severino Belloni. Genova: Glauco Brigati, pp. 303-323.
  52. DEFINIENS IMAGING (2001), eCognition User Guide 2.1. Berlin: Definiens Imaging.
  53. DE GROEVE, T., K. LOWELL (2001), Boundary uncertainty assessment from a single forest-type map. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 67(6), pp. 717-726.
  54. DE JONGH, P. (1988), Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathern P., ed., Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 62-84.
  55. DE MARCHI, M. (2000), La biodiversità. In: Diamantini, C., ed., Progetto per lo sviluppo sostenibile del Trentino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Università degli Studi di Trento.
  56. DEE, N. ET AL. (1972), Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.
  57. DIAMANTINI, C., B. ZAMBON (2000), Planning the urban sustainable development. The case of the plan for the province of Trento, Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, pp. 299-310.
  58. DOT (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT) (1993), Design manual for roads and bridges. London: HMSO.
  59. DOUVEN, W. (1997), Improving the accessibility of spatial information for environmental management. An application to pesticide risk management. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
  60. DUINKER, P.N., G.E. BEANLANDS (1986), The significance of environmental impacts: an exploration of the concept. Environmental Management 10(1), pp. 1-10.
  61. EDWARDS-JONES, G., B. DAVIES, S. HUSSAIN (2000), Ecological Economics. An introduction. Cornwall: Blackwell Science.
  62. EPA (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) (1999), Considering ecological processes in environmental impact assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Office of Federal Activities. ERDAS (1991), ERDAS Imagine field guide. Atlanta: ERDAS.
  63. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1993), Corine land cover: technical guide. Brussels: Directorate - General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
  64. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1994), Environmental impact assessment review checklist. Brussels: Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
  65. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1995 a), Environmental impact assessment: guidance on screening. Brussels: Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1995 b), Scoping in environmental impact assessment. A practical guide. Brussels: Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
  66. EVINK, G.L., P. GARRETT, D. ZEIGLER, J. BERRY, eds. (1996), Proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  67. EVINK, G.L., P. GARRETT, D. ZEIGLER, J. BERRY, eds. (1998), Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  68. EVINK, G.L., P. GARRETT, D. ZEIGLER, eds. (1999), Proceedings of the third international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  69. FABBRI, A. ET AL. (in press), Geomorphologic assets in an environmental context. In: Fabbri A.G., T. van Asch and D. Castaldini, eds., Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment of transportation systems. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies.
  70. FANDIÑO, M. (1996), Framework for ecological evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Enschede: ITC publication 45.
  71. FAO (1976), A Framework for land evaluation. Rome: FAO.
  72. FERNANDES, J.P. (2000), Landscape ecology and conservation management -Evaluation of alternatives in a highway process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, pp. 665-680.
  73. FISHER, P. (1997), The pixel: a snare and a delusion. International Journal of Remote Sensing 18(3), pp. 679-685.
  74. FLATHER, C.H., S.J. BRADY, D.B. INKLEY (1992), Regional habitat appraisals of wildlife communities: A landscape-level evaluation of a resource planning model using avian distribution data. Landscape Ecology 7, pp. 137-147.
  75. FOPPEN, R., J.P. CHARDON (1998), LARCH-EUROPE, a model to assess biodiversity potential in fragmented European ecosystems. Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, IBN-research report 98/4, Wageningen.
  76. FORMAN, R.T.T. (1995), The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  77. FORMAN, R.T.T. (1998), Road ecology: a solution for the giant embracing us. Landscape Ecology 13, pp. iii-v.
  78. FORMAN, R.T.T. (1999), Spatial models as an emerging foundation of road system ecology and a handle for transportation planning and policy. In: Evink G.L., P. Garrett and D. Zeigler, eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  79. FORMAN, R.T.T. (2000), Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14(1), pp. 31-35.
  80. FORMAN, R.T.T., L.E. ALEXANDER (1998), Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29, pp. 207-231.
  81. FORMAN, R.T.T., R.D. DEBLINGER (2000), The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14(1), pp. 36-46.
  82. FORMAN, R.T.T., M. GODRON (1986), Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley.
  83. FRANKLIN, S.E., B.A. WILSON (1991), Spatial and spectral classification for remote-sensing imagery. Computers and Geosciences 8(17), pp. 1151-1172.
  84. FRISINGHELLI, M., F. FESTI, F. PROSSER, A. SARZO (1997), Flora e vegetazione del biotopo "Foci dell'Avisio". Trento: Museo Civico di Rovereto/Servizio Parchi Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  85. GEHLBACH, F.R. (1975), Investigation, evaluation, and priority ranking of natural areas. Biological Conservation 8, pp. 79-88.
  86. GENELETTI, D. (1997), Studio dell'impatto del terzo tratto (2 o stralcio) della S.S. n. 42 sulle componenti geologiche-geomorfologiche, vegetazionali e paesaggistiche del Parco dei Colli di Bergamo, Tesi di laurea, DISAT, University of Milano.
  87. GENELETTI, D. (2000 a), Using classification and spatial index techniques on remotely sensed data for environmental impact assessment. Proceedings of the 28th international symposium on remote sensing of the environment, Cape Town.
  88. GENELETTI, D. (2000 b), GIS, dati telerilevati e sistemi di supporto alla decisione applicati alla valutazione di impatto ambientale. GEOmedia 6, pp. 16-21.
  89. GENELETTI, D. (in press), Using satellite imagery and ancillary data for land-cover mapping in the central part of the Autonomous Province of Trento (northern Italy). In: Fabbri A.G., T. van Asch and D. Castaldini, eds., Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment of transportation systems. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies.
  90. GENELETTI, D., A.G. FABBRI, A. MOLTRER (in press), Assessing environmental sensitivity for impact studies on transportation systems. In: Fabbri A.G., T. van Asch and D. Castaldini, eds., Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment of transportation systems. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies.
  91. GENELETTI, D., B.G.H. GORTE (in press), A method for object-oriented land cover classification combining Landsat TM data and aerial photographs. International Journal of Remote Sensing.
  92. GENELETTI, D., A. PISTOCCHI (2001), Landscape ecology for sustainable land use planning: a GIS approach in a man-dominated landscape. In: Belward A. et al., eds., Proceedings of the international workshop on geo-spatial knowledge processing for natural resource management, Varese, pp. 244-248.
  93. GEORGE, C. (1999), Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19, pp. 175-200.
  94. GEORGE, C. (2000 a), Environmental impact prediction and evaluation. In: Lee N. and C. George, eds., Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 85-110.
  95. GEORGE, C. (2000 b), Environmental monitoring, management and auditing. In: Lee N. and C. George, eds., Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 177-193.
  96. GEORGE, C. (2001), Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19(2), pp. 95-106.
  97. GILES, R.H., M.K. TRANI (1999), Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management 23(4), pp. 477-481.
  98. GOLDSMITH, F.B. (1975), The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes. Biological Conservation 8, pp. 89-96.
  99. GORTE, B.G.H. (1996), Multi-spectral quadtree based image segmentation. Proceedings of the 18th ISPRS Congress, ASPRS, Vienna, July 9-19 1996.
  100. GORTE, B.G.H. (1998), Probabilistic segmentation of remotely sensed images. PhD thesis, University of Twente. Enschede: ITC publication 63.
  101. GÖTMARK, F. (1992), Naturalness as an evaluation criterion in nature conservation: a response to Anderson. Conservation Biology 6, pp. 455-458.
  102. GULINCK, H., O. WALPOT, P. JANSSENS (1993), Landscape structural analysis of central Belgium using SPOT data. In: Haines-Young R., D.R. Green, and S. Cousins, eds., Landscape ecology and geographic information systems. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 129-139.
  103. HAAF, B. (1996), Environmental impact assessment applied to landforms in the Vosges area, France. In: Panizza M., A.G. Fabbri, M. Marchetti and A. Patrono, eds., Geomorphologic analysis and evaluation in environmental impact assessment. Enschede: ITC publication 32.
  104. HAINES-YOUNG, R., D.R. GREEN, S. COUSINS, eds. (1993), Landscape ecology and geographic information systems. London: Taylor & Francis.
  105. HAMILTON, R.S., R.M. HAMILTON, eds. (1991), Highway pollution. Studies in environmental sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  106. HANNSON, H., P. ANGELSTAM (1991), Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology 5(4), pp. 191-201.
  107. HARRIS, L.D. (1984), The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  108. HEINRICH, D., M. HERGT (1996), Atlante di ecologia. Milano: Hoepli.
  109. HERWIJNEN, M. VAN (1999), Spatial decision support for environmental management. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
  110. HEUVELINK, G.B.M, M.J.P.M. LEMMENS (Eds) (2000), Accuracy 2000: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences. Delft: Delft University Press.
  111. HICKIE, D., M. WADE (1998), Development of guidelines for improving the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18(3), pp. 267-287.
  112. HUNTER, M.L. (1996), Fundamentals of conservation biology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
  113. IAIA (INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (2001), Proposed conceptual and procedural framework for the integration of biological diversity consideations with national systems for impact assessment. Utrecht: Commissie voor de milieueffectrapportage. ILWIS (1997), ILWIS User's guide. Enschede: ITC.
  114. INGEGNOLI, V., ed. (1997), Esercizi di ecologia del paesaggio. Milano: Città Studi. JANSSEN, L.L.F., ed. (2000), Principles of remote sensing. Enschede: ITC.
  115. JANSSEN, L.L.F., F.G.M. V.D. WEL (1994), Accuracy assessment of satellite derived land-cover data: a review. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 60(4), pp. 419-426.
  116. JANSSEN, R. (1992), Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  117. JANSSEN, R. (2001), On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10, pp. 101-109.
  118. JANSSEN, R., M. V. HERWIJNEN, E. BEINAT (2001), DEFINITE. Case studies and user manual. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, R-01/01.
  119. JENNINGS, M.D. (1993), Natural terrestrial cover classification: assumptions and definitions. Moscow, Id.: Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.
  120. JOHNSSON, K. (1994), Segment-based land-use classification from SPOT satellite data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60(1), pp. 47-53.
  121. JONGMAN, R. (1995), Ecological network in Europe. Congruent Development. In: Arts G.H.P. et al., eds, Ecological networks. Special Issue Landschap 95-3, pp. 3-10.
  122. KEENEY, R.L. (1992), Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge: Harward University Press.
  123. KEENEY, R.L., H. RAIFFA (1976), Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
  124. KLINGEBIEL, A.A., P.H. MONTGOMERY (1961), Land capability classification. Washington D.C.: USDA Soil Conservation Service.
  125. KNAAPEN, J.P., M. SCHEFFER, B. HARMS (1992), Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23, pp. 1-16.
  126. KOLHOFF, A. (2000), Biodiversity in EIA. An overview and assessment of the present situation and recommendations for integration. Paper submitted to The 20th conference event of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Hong Kong.
  127. KONTIC, B. (2000), Why are some experts more credible than others? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, pp. 427-434.
  128. LAFORTEZZA, R., D. MARTIMUCCI (2000), Lo studio ecologico del paesaggio mediterraneo con l'ausilio di un sistema informativo geografico. Atti della 4 a Conferenza Nazionale ASITA, Genova. LAHDELMA, R., P. SALMINEN, J. HOKKANEN (2000), Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 26(6), pp. 595-605.
  129. LANGEVELDE, F. VAN (1999), Habitat connectivity and fragmented nuthatch populations in Agricultural Landscapes. Phd thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.
  130. LANZAVECCHIA, S. (1986), Guida pratica alle valutazioni di impatto ambientale. Corso di formazione sulla valutazione ambientale, Unpublished lecture notes. Milano: Settore Energia, CNR.
  131. LAURANCE, W.F., E. YENSEN (1991), Predicting the impacts of the edge effects in fragmented habitats. Biological Conservation 55, pp. 77-92.
  132. LEE, J. T., M.J. ELTON, S. THOMPSON (1999), The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using land-use-based criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Land Use Policy 16, pp. 23-32.
  133. LEE, N. (2000), Reviewing the quality of environmental assessments. In: Lee N. and C. George, eds., Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 137-148.
  134. LEE, N., C. GEORGE, eds. (2000), Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley.
  135. LEOPOLD, L.B., F.E. CLARKE, B.B.HANSHAW, J.R. BALSLEY (1971), A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geological Survey Circular 645. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
  136. LESSLIE, R., B. MACKEY, K.L. PREECE (1988), A computer-based method of wilderness evaluation. Environmental Conservation 15(3), pp. 225-232.
  137. LOVEJOY, T.E., D.C. OREN (1981), The minimum critical size of ecosystems. In: Burgess R.L. and D.M. Sharpe, eds., Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 7-12.
  138. MALCEVSCHI, S., L.G. BISOGNI, A. GARIBOLDI (1996), Ecological networks and habitat restoration. Theory and application. Milano: Il Verde Editoriale.
  139. MALCZEWSKI, J. (1999), GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: Wiley.
  140. MARGULES, C.R., M.B. USHER (1981), Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21, pp. 79-109.
  141. MAURER, M.E. (1999), Development of a community-based, landscape-level terrestrial mitigation decision support system for transportation planners. In: Evink G.L., P. Garrett and D. Zeigler, eds., Proceedings of the third international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
  142. MCCOLD, L., J. HOLMAN (1995), Cumulative impacts in environmental assessments: how well are they considered? The Environmental Professional 17, pp. 2-8.
  143. MCGARIGAL, K., W.H. ROMME, M. CRIST, E. ROWORTH (2001), Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA). Landscape Ecology 16, pp. 327-349.
  144. MERRIAM, G. (1991), Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. In: Saunders D.A. and R.J. Hobbs, eds., Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty, pp. 133-142.
  145. METTERNICHT, G.I. (1996), Detecting and monitoring land degradation features and processes in the Cochabamba Valleys, Bolivia. PhD thesis, University of Gent. Enschede: ITC publication 41. NIJKAMP, P., P. RIETVELD, H. VOOGD (1990), Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  146. NILSSON, C., G. GRELSSON (1995), The fragility of ecosystems: a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, pp. 677-692.
  147. NOSS, R.F. (1983), A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33(11), pp. 700-706.
  148. NOSS, R.F. (1987), From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41, pp. 11-37.
  149. NOSS, R.F., A.Y. COOPERRIDER (1994), Saving nature's legacy. protecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
  150. NOSS, R.F., M.A. O'CONNELL, D.D. MURPHY, D. (1997), The science of conservation planning: habitat-based conservation under the endangered species act. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  151. OECD (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT) (1994), Environmental impact assessment of roads. Paris: OECD.
  152. O'NEILL, R.V., ET AL. (1988), Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1(3), pp. 153-162.
  153. PALMERI, F., M.G. GIBELLI (1997), Valutazione di impatto ambientale e paesaggio: il caso della ferrovia Trento-Malè. In: Ingegnoli V., ed., Esercizi di ecologia del paesaggio. Milano: Città Studi, pp. 169-201.
  154. PARTIDÁRIO, M. (1999), Strategic environmental assessment -Principles and potential. In: Petts J., ed., Handbook on environmental impact assessment. London: Blackwell.
  155. PAT (PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO) (1993), Piano generale forestale. Trento: Servizio Foreste, Caccia e Pesca, PAT.
  156. PAT (PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO) (1998), Piano urbanistico provinciale (PUP). Trento: PAT. PATRONO, A. (1993), A study in environmental impact assessment. MSc Thesis, ITC, Enschede.
  157. PATRONO, A. (1998), Multi-criteria analysis and Geographic Information Systems: analysis of natural areas and ecological distributions. In: Beinat E. and P. Nijkamp, eds., Multicriteria analysis for land-use management. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 271-291.
  158. PATRONO, A., A. SALDANA (1997), Modeling with neighbourhood operators. In: ILWIS 2.1 Application Guide. Enschede: ITC, pp. 201-212.
  159. PATRONO, A., F. DE FRANCHESCH, M. MARCHETTI, A. MOLTRER (2001), GIS applications for environmental impact assessment. An analysis of the effects of a motorway project in an Alpine valley. In: Marchetti M. and V. Rivas, eds., Geomorphology and environmental Impact assessment. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 207-221.
  160. PEARCE, D., ET AL. (1993), Blueprint 3. Measuring sustainable development. London: Earthscan. PEDROTTI, F. (1981),Carta della vegetazione del foglio Trento. Rome: CNR.
  161. PEDROTTI, F. (1982),Carta della vegetazione del foglio Mezzolombardo. Rome: CNR.
  162. PERCO, F. (1990), Progetto fauna. Trento: Servizio Foreste, Caccia e Pesca, Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  163. PLOEG, S.W.F. VAN DER, L. VLIJM (1978), Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with particular reference to methods used in The Netherlands. Biological Conservation 14, pp. 197-221.
  164. POLDINI, L., M. PERTOT (1989), Criteri di indicizzazione del valore naturalistico sull'esempio del Carso triestino-goriziano. Informatore Botanico Italiano 21, pp. 1-9.
  165. PRESSEY, R.L., A.O. NICHOLLS (1989), Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation 50, pp. 199-218.
  166. PROSSER, F. (2000), La distribuzione delle entità endemiche "strette" in Trentino alla luce delle piu' recenti esplorazioni floristiche. Annali Museo Civico di Rovereto 14, pp. 31-64.
  167. PUGH, S.A., R.G. CONGALTON (2001), Applying spatial autocorrelation analysis to evaluate error in New England forest-cover-type maps derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 67(5), pp. 613-620.
  168. RATCLIFFE, D.A. (1971), Criteria for the selection of natural reserves. Advancement of Science 27, pp. 294-296.
  169. RATCLIFFE, D.A. (1977), A Nature conservation review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  170. RECKHOW, K.H. (1994), Importance of scientific uncertainty in decision making. Environmental Management 18(2), pp. 161-166.
  171. RIBAUT, J. (1995), Ecological networks. Experience gained by the Council of Europe. In: Arts G.H.P. et al., eds., Ecological networks. Special issue Landschap 95-3, pp. 11-16.
  172. RICHARDS, J.A. (1993), Remote sensing digital image analysis. An introduction. Berlin: Springer.
  173. RIJNEN, R., R. FOPPEN, C. T. BRAAK, J. THISSEN (1995), The effect of car traffic on breeding bird population in woodland. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, pp. 187-202.
  174. RIVAS, V. ET AL. (1995), The use of indicators for the assessment of environmental impacts on geomorphological features. In: Marchetti M., M. Panizza, M. Soldati and D. Barani, eds., Geomorphology and environmental impact assessment. Quaderni di Geodinamica Alpina e Quaternaria, 3. Milano: CNR, pp. 157-180.
  175. RIVAS, V. ET AL. (1996), Assessing impacts on landforms. In: Panizza M., A.G. Fabbri, M. Marchetti and A. Patrono, eds., Geomorphologic analysis and evaluation in environmental impact assessment. Enschede: ITC publication 32.
  176. ROOME, N.J. (1984), Evaluation in nature conservation decision-making. Environmental Conservation 11(3), pp. 247-152.
  177. ROWE, J.S. (1998), Biodiversity at the landscape level. In: Bunnel F.L. and J.F. Johnson, eds., Policy and practices for biodiversity in managed forests: the living dance. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 82-95.
  178. ROY, B. (1985), Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision. Paris: Economica.
  179. SANKOH, O.A. ET AL. (1993), Finding and assessing route alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 38, pp. 323-334.
  180. SAUNDERS, D.A., R.J. HOBBS, eds. (1991), Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty.
  181. SAUNDERS, D.A., R.J. HOBBS, C.R. MARGULES (1991), Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5(1), pp. 18-32.
  182. SCHOLTEN, H.J. (1991). Het vakgebied der Ruimtelijke Informatica: de wetenschappelijke en maatschappelijke relevantie van de ruimtelijke component van informatie. Rede uitgesproken ter aanvaarding van het ambt als hoogleraar in de ruimtelijke informatica aan de faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
  183. SCOTT, J. M., T.H. TEAR, F.W. DAVIS, eds. (1996), Gap analysis. A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Bethesda: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
  184. SEILER, A., I.M. ERIKSSON (1995), New approaches for ecological consideration in Swedish road planning. In: Canters K.J., ed., International conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Maastricht and The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
  185. SLUIS, T. VAN DER (2001), How to define European ecological networks. In: Villacampa Y., C.A. Brebbia and J.L. Usó, eds., Ecosystem and sustainable development III. Southampton: WIT press.
  186. SMITH, P.G.R., J.B. THEBERGE (1986), A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environmental Management 10(6), pp. 715-734.
  187. SMITH, P.G.R., J.B. THEBERGE (1987), Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice. Environmental Management 11(4), pp. 447-460.
  188. SMITH, B. (1990), Nature conservation and transport. Landscape Design, May 1990, pp. 51-53.
  189. SOULÉ, M.E., B.A. WILCOX, eds. (1980), Conservation biology: an ecological-evolutionary perspective. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer.
  190. SOUTHERLAND, M.T. (1995), Conserving biodiversity in highway development projects. The Environmental Professional 17, pp. 226-242.
  191. SPELLEMBERG, I.F. (1992), Evaluation and assessment for conservation. London: Chapman and Hall.
  192. SPELLEMBERG, I.F. (1994), The biological content of environmental assessments. Biologist 41(3), pp. 126-128.
  193. SPFD (SERVIZIO PARCHI E FORESTE DEMANIALI) (1997 a), I biotopi tutelati. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  194. SPFD (SERVIZIO PARCHI E FORESTE DEMANIALI) (1997 b), Monitoraggio faunistico 1996: Foci dell'Avisio. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  195. SPFD (SERVIZIO PARCHI E FORESTE DEMANIALI) (1997 c), Relazione sulla fauna vertebrata del biotopo di interesse provinciale La Rocchetta. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento. SPFD (SERVIZIO PARCHI E FORESTE DEMANIALI) (1997 d), Relazione sulla fauna vertebrata del biotopo di interesse provinciale La Rupe. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  196. STEIN, A., F. V.D. MEER, B.G.H. GORTE, eds. (1999), Spatial statistics for remote sensing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  197. STOMS, D.M. (2000), GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 15, pp. 21-33.
  198. TEN HEUVELHOF, E., C. NAUTA (1997), The effects of environmental impact assessment in The Netherlands. Project Appraisal 12(1), pp. 25-30.
  199. THEOBALD, D.M. ET AL. (2000), Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15, pp. 35-45.
  200. THOMPSON, S., J.R. TREWEEK, N. VEICTH, D.J. THURLING (1997), The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of environmental Planning and Management 40(2), pp. 157-171.
  201. TREWEEK, J. (1996), Ecology and environmental impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, pp. 191-199.
  202. TREWEEK, J. ET AL. (1998), Scope for strategic ecological assessment of trunk-road development in England with respect to potential impacts on lowland heathland, the Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Journal of Environmental Management 53, pp. 147-163.
  203. TREWEEK, J.R., S. THOMPSON, N. VEICHT, C. JAPP (1993), Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 36(3), pp. 295-307.
  204. TREWEEK, J., N. VEITCH (1996), The potential application of GIS and remotely sensed data to the ecological assessment of proposed new road schemes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5, pp. 249-257.
  205. TROMBULAK, S.C., C.A. FRISSELL (2000), Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1), pp. 18-30.
  206. TROUMBIS, A. (1995), Ecological networks in Greece. In: Arts G.H.P. et al., eds., Ecological networks, Special issue Landschap 95-3, pp. 51-62.
  207. TUBBS, C.R., J.W. BLACKWOOD (1971), Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes. Biological Conservation 3(3), pp. 169-172.
  208. TURNER, M.G. (1989), Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, pp. 171-197.
  209. TURNER, M.G., R.H. GARDNER (1991), Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. New York: Springer.
  210. UNCED (UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT) (1992), Convention on biological diversity. UNCED, Rio de Janeiro.
  211. UNITED NATIONS (1992), Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development. UNCED, Report A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1 13 June 1992, Agenda 21 14 June 1992.
  212. USHER, M.B. (1985), Implications of species-area relationhsips for wildlife conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 21, pp. 181-191.
  213. USHER, M.B. (1986), Wildlife conservation evaluation. London: Chapman & Hall.
  214. USHER, M.B. (1989), Nature conservation in the U.K. Journal of Applied Ecology 26, pp. 813- 824.
  215. VIOLA, F. (1995), Progetto biotopi. Una strategia di sviluppo compatibile. Trento: Servizio Parchi e Foreste Demaniali, Provincia Autonoma di Trento.
  216. VROM (1985), Handling uncertainty in environmental impact assessment. Leidschendam: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands.
  217. VROM (1994), The quality of environmental impact statements. Zoetemeer: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.
  218. WATHERN, P. (1988), An introductory guide to EIA. In: Wathern P., ed., Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 3-30.
  219. WATHERN, P., S.N. YOUNG, I.W. BROWN, D.A. ROBERTS (1987), Assessing the environmental impacts of policies: a generalised framework for appraisal. Landscape and Urban Planning 14, pp. 321-336.
  220. WHITE, D., ET AL. (1997), Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape changes. Conservation Biology 11(2), pp. 349-360.
  221. WICKHAM, J.D., J. WU, D.F. BRADFORD (1997), A conceptual framework for selecting and analyzing stressor data to study species richness at large spatial scales. Environmental Management 21(2), pp. 247-257.
  222. WINTERFELDT, D., W. EDWARDS (1986), Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  223. WITTIG, R., M.T. ARMITAGE, M.T. FIRSE, D. MOSS (1983), A quick method for assessing the importance of open spaces in towns for urban nature conservation. Biological Conservation 26, pp. 57-64.
  224. WOOD, C. (1988), EIA in plan making. In: Wathern P., ed., Environmental impact assessment. Theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 98-113.
  225. WOOD, C. (2000), Screening and scoping. In: Lee N. and C. George, eds., Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 71-84.
  226. WOOD, C., A. BARKER, C. JONES, J. HUGHES (1996), Evaluation of the performance of the EIA process. Manchester: EIA Centre, University of Manchester.
  227. WOOD, C., B. DIPPER, C. JONES (2000), Auditing the assessment of the environmental impacts of planning projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1), pp. 23-47.
  228. WRBKA, T. ET AL. (1999), Landscape structure derived from satellite images as indicator for sustainable landuse. In: Nieuwenhuis G.J.A., R.A. Vaughan and M. Molenaar, eds., Operational remote sensing for sustainable development. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 119-128.
  229. WRIGHT, D.F. (1977), A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves. Biological Conservation 11, pp. 293-305.
  230. WRIGHT, R.G. (1985), Principles of new park area planning as applied to the Wrangell-St Elias region of Alaska. Environmental Conservation 12(1), pp. 59-66.
  231. ZADEH, L.A. (1965), Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3), pp. 338-353.
  232. ZEE, D. V.D., I.S. ZONNEVELD (Eds.) (2001), Landscape ecology applied in land evaluation, development and conservation. Some worldwide selected examples. Enschede: ITC publication 81.
  233. ZONNEVELD, I.S. (1995), Land ecology. An introduction to landscape ecology as a base for land evaluation, land management and conservation. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing.
  234. ZURLINI, G. ET AL. (2001), Assessing multi-scale fragility of landscapes: concepts, methods and recent results of the map of Italian nature. In: Belward A. et al., eds., Proceedings of the international workshop on geo-spatial knowledge processing for natural resource management, Varese, pp. 153-159.
  235. Figure6.9 Map of the natural ecosystems occurring within the study area 1662500 5125000 5 Km 5120000 5115000 1657500

Related papers

Quick Assessment Protocols for Measuring Relative Ecological Significance of Terrestrial Ecosystems
Audrey Mayer

2008

View PDFchevron_right
2.2.2 Inventories of Ecosystem Components 2.2.3 Numerical Simulation Models 2.2.4 Indicators of Ecosystem Condition and Services
Agustin Arcenas

2013

Analytical Approaches for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Human Well-being Main Messages Many tools are available to assess ecosystem condition and support policy decisions that involve trade-offs among ecosystem services. Clearing forested land, for example, affects multiple ecosystem services (such as food production, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and watershed protection), each of which affects human well-being (such as increased income from crops, reduced tourism value of biodiversity, and damage from downstream flooding). Assessing these trade-offs in the decision-making process requires scientifically based analysis to quantify the responses to different management alternatives. Scientific advances over the past few decades, particularly in computer modeling, remote sensing, and environmental economics, make it possible to assess these linkages. The availability and accuracy of data sources and methods for this assessment are unevenly distributed for different ecosystem services and geographic regions. Data on provisioning services, such as crop yield and timber production, are usually available. On the other hand, data on regulating, supporting, and cultural services such as nutrient cycling, climate regulation, or aesthetic value are seldom available, making it necessary to use indicators, model results, or extrapolations from case studies as proxies. Systematic data collection for carefully selected indicators reflecting trends in ecosystem condition and their services would provide an improved basis for future assessments. Methods for quantifying ecosystem responses are also uneven. Methods to estimate crop yield responses to fertilizer application, for example, are well developed. But methods to quantify relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being, such as the effects of deteriorating biodiversity on human disease, are at an earlier stage of development. Ecosystems respond to management changes on a range of time and space scales, and careful definition of the scales included in analyses is critical. Soil nutrient depletion, for example, occurs over decades and would not be captured in an analysis based on a shorter time period. Some of the impact of deforestation is felt in reduced water quality far downstream; an analysis that only considers the forest area itself would miss this impact. Ideally, analysis at varying scales would be carried out to assess trade-offs properly. In particular, it is essential to consider nonlinear responses of ecosystems to perturbations in analysis of trade-offs, such as loss of resilience to climate variability below a threshold number of plant species. Ecosystem condition is only one of many factors that affect human wellbeing, making it challenging to assess linkages between them. Health outcomes, for example, are the combined result of ecosystem condition, access to health care, economic status, and myriad other factors. Interpretations of trends in indicators of well-being must appropriately account for the full range of factors involved. The impacts of ecosystem change on well-being are often subtle, which is not to say unimportant; impacts need not be drastic to be significant. A small increase in food prices resulting from lower yields will affect many people, even if none starve as a result. Tracing these impacts is often difficult, particularly in aggregate analyses where the signal of the effect of ecosystem change is often hidden by multiple confounding factors. Analyses linking well-being and ecosystem condition are most easily carried out at a local scale, where the linkages can be most clearly identified. Ultimately, decisions about trade-offs in ecosystem services require balancing societal objectives, including utilitarian and non-utilitarian objectives, short-and long-term objectives, and local-and global-scale objectives. The analytical approach for this report aims to quantify, to the degree possible, the most important trade-offs within different ecosystems and among ecosystem services as input to weigh societal objectives based on comprehensive analysis of the full suite of ecosystem services.

View PDFchevron_right
A roadmap for a quantitative ecosystem-based environmental impact assessment
Jean-Marc Guarini

Ices Journal of Marine Science, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
Importance of impacts on forest ecosystems for a sustainable use and maintenance of biodiversity
H. Vacik

A study was carried out to describe and quantify the impacts on biological diversity in forest ecosystems and their working complexes not just of a sectoral point of view but with regards to an ecosystem approach. For this complex, multi-criteria decision problem the methodology of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was incorporated. Structuring and systematizing aimed to identify all relevant impact factors, their sources and their qualitative and quantitative importance without considering the source of impact. Six main groups of impact factors could be identified, which had been further decomposed in a hierarchical structure. The impacts are provoked by several sources including forestry, agriculture, industries, trade, traffic, tourism, hunting and nature conservancy. The geometric mean is used to synthesize the individual judgments of 14 experts for each impact factor and for all impact sources. The problems with an operative definition of biodiversity, the lack of objective information on the importance of various impact factors on the sustainable use and maintenance of biodiversity in forest ecosystems and the generally known problem of the inaccuracy of the verbal comparison scale are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment Matrix Based Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Relation to Land Use Change Scenarios
Balázs Duray

2013

The research was co-financed by 'TAMOP-4.2.2/B-10/1-2010-0023', 'TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/ KMR-2010-0005' and 'VITAL LANDSCAPES (2CE 164P3)' projects. We would like to thank Márton Kiss who provided valuable comments to the study.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Geography
  • Environmental Science
  • Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved