Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1353–1369 | Cite as

Spatial road disturbance index (SPROADI) for conservation planning: a novel landscape index, demonstrated for the State of Brandenburg, Germany

  • Lisa Freudenberger
  • Peter R. Hobson
  • Slaven Rupic
  • Guy Pe’er
  • Martin Schluck
  • Julia Sauermann
  • Stefan Kreft
  • Nuria Selva
  • Pierre L. Ibisch
Research Article


The expansion of roads, and the subsequent changes to the surrounding landscape not only lead to landscape fragmentation but also have been shown to be a key driver of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. Local declines of species abundance as well as changes in animal behaviour have drawn attention to wider ecosystem effects including altered species composition and a degradation of ecosystem functioning. However, methods for measuring and quantifying the distribution and environmental impacts of roads are not yet fully developed. We present a new technique for assessing the potential impacts of roads on biodiversity using a spatial road disturbance index (SPROADI). The index is calculated from three sub-indices: traffic intensity as a measure of traffic volume per time and space; vicinity impact, which is the assessment of edge effect of roads on adjacent habitats (the road-effect zone); and fragmentation grade, which provides an indication of the degree to which the landscape is intersected by roads. SPROADI was then tested using data from the Federal State of Brandenburg in north-eastern Germany. A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the results to assess the robustness of the index. The findings revealed expected patterns of high road disturbance in urban and peri-urban landscapes surrounding Berlin. Less obvious were the high levels of road density and impacts in forest plantations across the southern region of Brandenburg, and low levels of road disturbance in agricultural crop lands of the north-western region. Results were variable for areas under some form of protection. The only national park displayed substantially lower SPROADI values in contrast to the surrounding non-protected areas whilst other protected area categories, which were landscape conservation areas and nature parks, revealed SPROADI values that were equally high as those for non-protected areas. The results of this study demonstrate the strengths and potential applications of SPROADI as a quantitative means for identifying low-traffic areas in the context of conservation and sustainable transport planning.


Buffer effect Landscape indices Landscape fragmentation Road impact Roadless areas Traffic volume Traffic disturbance Road ecology 



This research project was part of the ‘roadless areas initiative’ of the Policy Committee of the Society for Conservation BiologyEurope Section and has been partially carried out within the framework of the cooperative graduate program ‘Adaptive Nature Conservation under Climate Change’. We would like to thank all funding partners and collaborators. The research project was partially funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and Culture of the Federal State of Brandenburg with resources from the European Social Fund. It has also been developed in the context of the project on climate change adaptation in nature conservation, Innovation Network Climate Change Adaptation Brandenburg Berlin (INKA BB), funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. We are grateful to Wolfgang Cramer for comments on an earlier version of this paper. The leader and supervisor of the research team (PLI) acknowledges the awarding of the research professorship “Biodiversity and natural resource management under global change” by Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development. We appreciate the comments by two anonymous reviewers and the editor Jochen Jaeger, which greatly improved our paper.


  1. Alkemade R, Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, ten Brink B (2009) GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12(3):374–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amusan A, Bada, ASB, Salami, AT (2009) Effect of traffic density on heavy metal content of soil and vegetation along roadsides in Osun state, Nigeria. W Afr J Appl Ecol 4(1):107–114Google Scholar
  3. Benitez-Lopez A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143(6):1307–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BfN (2008) Natura 2000—Sachdaten. Bundesamt für NaturschutzGoogle Scholar
  5. BfN (2009) Schutzgebietskataster. Bundesamt für NaturschutzGoogle Scholar
  6. Biber D, Freudenberger L (2011) INSENSA-GIS: an open-source software tool for GIS index development and sensitivity analysis. Accessed 28 Sept 2012
  7. BMU (2007) Nationale Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und ReaktorsicherheitGoogle Scholar
  8. BNatSchG (2010) Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege—Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, i.d.F. vom 1.3.2010Google Scholar
  9. Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (BKG) (2006) ATKIS DLM 250Google Scholar
  10. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1993) Contrasting microclimates among clearcut edge, and interior of old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agric For Meterol 63:219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cousins SA (2006) Plant species richness in midfield islets and road verges—the effect of landscape fragmentation. Biol Conserv 127(4):500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crist MR, Wilmer B, Aplet GH (2005) Assessing the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve strategy: biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the northern Rockies. J Appl Ecol 42(1):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DDS Digital Data Services GmbH (2010a) Digital Data Streets Brandenburg: Spezifikation GIS, DDS Digital Data Services GmbH, Stumpfstr. 1, 76131 Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. DDS Digital Data Services GmbH (2010b) FAW-FREQUENZATLAS BrandenburgGoogle Scholar
  15. EEA (2011) Landscape fragmentation in Europe; joint EEA-FOEN report. EEA reportGoogle Scholar
  16. EEA and ETC–SIA (2013) NOISE, Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe maintained by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Spatial Information and Analysis (ETC-SIA, previously ETC-LUSI) on behalf of the European Commission in accordance with the European Directive 2002/49/EC Accessed 22 March 2013
  17. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario. Can Ecol Soc 14(1):24Google Scholar
  18. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Environ 6(8):439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ESRI (2008) Arc GIS, Version 9.3.1 Environmental Systems Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (2010) Green infrastructure. Publications Office, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2007) The effect of fragment shape and species’ sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conserv Biol 21(4):926–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fahrig L, Rytwinski T (2009) Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14(1):21Google Scholar
  23. Forman RTT, Deblinger RD (2000) The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conserv Biol 14(1):36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman CR, Heanue K, Jones J, Swanson F, Turrentine T, Winter TC (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Girvetz EH, Thorne JH, Berry AM, Jaeger JAG (2008) Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: a statewide multi-scale case study for California, USA. Landscape Urban Plan 86:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC (2004) Roads and landscape pattern in northern Wisconsin based on a comparison of four road data sources. Conserv Biol 18(5):1233–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holderegger R, Di Giulio M (2010) The genetic effects of roads: a review of empirical evidence. Basic Appl Ecol 11(6):522–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoskin CJ, Goosem MW (2010) Road impacts on abundance, call traits, and body size of rainforest frogs in northeast Australia. Ecol Soc 15(3):15Google Scholar
  29. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15(2):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaeger JAG, Raumer HS, Esswein H, Mueller M, Schmidt-Luettman M (2007) Time series of landscape fragmentation caused by transportation infrastructure and urban development: a case study from Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Ecol Soc 12(1):22Google Scholar
  31. Joly M, Pascale B, Gbangou RY, White MC, Dubé J, Lavoie C (2011) Paving the way for invasive species: road type and the spread of common rageweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Environ Manage 48:514–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jump AS, Peñuelas J (2005) Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecol Lett 8(9):1010–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Köhler P, Chave J, Riera B, Huth A (2003) Simulating the long-term response of tropical wet forests to fragmentation. Ecosystems 6(2):114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kunze B, Kreft S, Ibisch PL (2013) Naturschutz im Klimawandel: Risiken und generische Handlungsoptionen für einen integrativen Naturschutz. In: Vohland K, Badeck F, Böhning-Gaese K, Ellwanger G, Hanspach J, Ibisch PL, Klotz S, Kreft S, Kühn I, Schröder E, Trautmann S, Cramer W (eds) Schutzgebiete Deutschlands im Klimawandel—Risiken und Handlungsoptionen. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), BonnGoogle Scholar
  35. Laurance SGW, Stouffer PC (2004) Effects of road clearings on movement patterns of understory rainforest birds in central Amazonia. Conserv Biol 18(4):1099–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LBG (2008) Basis-DLM, ATKIS: Verkehr: Strasse, Weg, Strassenkörper, Fahrbahn, Rollbahn. Landesvermessung und Geobasisinformation Brandenburg (LBG), PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu SL, Cui BS, Dong SK, Yang ZF, Yang M, Holt K (2008) Evaluating the influence of road networks on landscape and regional ecological risk—a case study in Lancang River Valley of Southwest China. Ecol Eng 34(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malhi Y, Aragão LEOC, Galbraith D, Huntingford C, Fisher R, Zelazowski P, Sitch S, McSweeney C, Meir P (2009) Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106(49):20610–20615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser B, Jaeger JAG, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Eiselt B (2007) Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landscape Ecol 22:44–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nepstad D, Carvalho G, Barros AC, Alencar A, Capobianco JP, Bishop J, Moutinho P, Lefebvre P, Silva UL, Prins E (2001) Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. For Ecol Manage 154(3):395–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecol 18:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parris KM, Schneider A (2009) Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of roadside habitats. Ecol Soc 14(1):29Google Scholar
  43. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rico A, Kindelmann P, Sedlacek F (2007) Barrier effects of roads on movements of small mammals. Folia Zool Praha 56(1):1Google Scholar
  45. Riley SPD, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot RM, York EC, Bromley C, Fuller TK, Wayne RK (2006) A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mol Ecol 15(7):1733–1741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodrigues P, Aubrecht C, Gil A, Longcore T, Elvidge C (2012) Remote sensing to map influence of light pollution on Cory’s shearwater in São Miguel Island, Azores Archipelago. Eur J Wildl Res 58(1):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saisana M, Saltelli A (2010) Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of the 2010 Environmental Performance Index. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24269 EN 2010 Joint Research Centre European Commission, Institute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenGoogle Scholar
  48. Saisana M, Srebotnjak T (2006) Robustness assessment for composite indicators of environmental control policies. 17th annual meeting of the International Environmetrics Society, Kalmar-Sweden, 18–22 June 2006Google Scholar
  49. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52(10):891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selva N, Kreft S, Kati V, Schluck M, Jonsson B, Mihok B, Okarma H, Ibisch PL (2011) Roadless and low-traffic areas as conservation targets in Europe. Environ Manage 48(5):865–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Selva N, Switalski A, Kreft S, Ibisch PL (in prep) Why keep areas road free? the importance of roadless areas. In: van der Ree R, Grilo C, Smith D (eds.) Ecology of roads: a practitioners guide to impacts and mitigationGoogle Scholar
  52. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M, McRae BH, Scribner KI (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19(17):3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strittholt JR, Dellasala D (2001) Importance of roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested ecosystems: case study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion of the United States. Conserv Biol 15(6):1742–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takahata C, Amin R, Sarma P, Banerjee G, Oliver W, Fa JE (2010) Remotely-sensed active fire data for protected area management: eight-year patterns in the Manas National Park, India. Environ Manage 45(2):414–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor BD, Goldingay RL (2010) Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife management in Australia. Wildl Res 37(4):320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theobald DM (2008) Network and accessibility methods to estimate the human use of ecosystems. 11th AGILE international conference on geographic information science 2008Google Scholar
  57. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14(1):18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Umweltbundesamt (2009) CORINE Land Cover (CLC2006). DLR-DFDGoogle Scholar
  59. UNEP (2001) Globio: global methodology for mapping human impacts on the biosphere the Arctic 2050 scenario and global application. UNEP-DEWA, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  60. van der Ree R, Jaeger JAG, van der Grift EA, Clevenger AP (2011) Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecol Soc 16(1):48Google Scholar
  61. van Langevelde F, van Dooremalen C, Jaarsma CF (2009) Traffic mortality and the role of minor roads. J Environ Manage 90(1):660–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. von der Lippe M, von der Kowarik I (2007) Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 21(4):986–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watkins RZ, Chen JQ, Pickens J, Brosofske KD (2003) Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conserv Biol 17(2):411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilkie D, Shaw E, Rotberg F, Morelli G, Auzel P (2000) Roads, development, and conservation in the Congo basin. Conserv Biol 14(6):1614–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zurita GA, Pe’er G, Hansbauer MM, Bellocq (2012) Edge effects and the suitability of anthropogenic habitats for forest birds: taking a continuous approach. J Appl Ecol 49:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Freudenberger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter R. Hobson
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  • Slaven Rupic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guy Pe’er
    • 4
  • Martin Schluck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julia Sauermann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefan Kreft
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Nuria Selva
    • 5
    • 6
  • Pierre L. Ibisch
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Centre for Econics and Ecosystem ManagementEberswaldeGermany
  2. 2.Eberswalde University for Sustainable DevelopmentEberswaldeGermany
  3. 3.Writtle CollegeChelmsfordUK
  4. 4.Department of Conservation BiologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)LeipzigGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of SciencesKrakowPoland
  6. 6.Policy Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology, European SectionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations