Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 225–236 | Cite as

Sensitivity Analysis of Land Unit Suitability for Conservation Using a Knowledge-Based System

  • Hope C. HumphriesEmail author
  • Patrick S. Bourgeron
  • Keith M. Reynolds
Article

Abstract

The availability of spatially continuous data layers can have a strong impact on selection of land units for conservation purposes. The suitability of ecological conditions for sustaining the targets of conservation is an important consideration in evaluating candidate conservation sites. We constructed two fuzzy logic-based knowledge bases to determine the conservation suitability of land units in the interior Columbia River basin using NetWeaver software in the Ecosystem Management Decision Support application framework. Our objective was to assess the sensitivity of suitability ratings, derived from evaluating the knowledge bases, to fuzzy logic function parameters and to the removal of data layers (land use condition, road density, disturbance regime change index, vegetation change index, land unit size, cover type size, and cover type change index). The amount and geographic distribution of suitable land polygons was most strongly altered by the removal of land use condition, road density, and land polygon size. Removal of land use condition changed suitability primarily on private or intensively-used public land. Removal of either road density or land polygon size most strongly affected suitability on higher-elevation US Forest Service land containing small-area biophysical environments. Data layers with the greatest influence differed in rank between the two knowledge bases. Our results reinforce the importance of including both biophysical and socio-economic attributes to determine the suitability of land units for conservation. The sensitivity tests provided information about knowledge base structuring and parameterization as well as prioritization for future data needs.

Keywords

Sensitivity analysis Map removal Knowledge base Conservation suitability Land suitability Fuzzy logic Ecosystem Management Decision Support 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Primary funding was provided to P.S. Bourgeron and H.C. Humphries by a Science To Achieve Results grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“Multi-scaled Assessment Methods: Prototype Development within the Interior Columbia Basin”). Additional funding to P.S. Bourgeron to complete the work and manuscript was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Analysis and Monitoring program and the International Visiting Blaise Pascal Chair. We thank Frank W. Davis for early discussions on the structure of the knowledge bases. We thank Luis Bojórquez-Tapia, Mark Jensen, and two anonymous reviewers for suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Babiker IS, Mohamed MAA, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Science of the Total Environmental 345:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedward M, Pressey RL, Keith DA (1992) A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biological Conservation 62:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belbin L (1993) Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biological Conservation 66:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Jensen ME (2001) Elements of ecological land classifications for ecological assessments. In: Jensen ME, Bourgeron PS (eds) A guidebook for integrated ecological assessments. Springer, New York, New York, pp 321–337Google Scholar
  5. Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Reynolds KM (2003) Conducting large-scale conservation evaluation and conservation area selection using a knowledge-based system and GIS framework. In BO Parks, Clarke KM, Crane MP (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on integrating geographic information systems and environmental modeling: problems, prospectus, and needs for research. [CD-ROM, ISBN: 0-9743307-0-1]. GIS/EM4 conference; 2000 Sep 2–8, The Banff Centre, Banff. University of Colorado, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  6. DeVelice RL, Martin JR (2001) Assessing the extent to which roadless areas complement the conservation of biological diversity. Ecological Applications 11:1008–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foreman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hann WJ, Jones JL, Karl MG, Hessburg PF, Keane RE, Long DG, Menakis JP, McNicoll CH, Leonard SG, Gravenmier RA, Smith, BG (1997) Landscape dynamics of the Basin. In: TM Quigley, Arbelbide SJ (eds) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume II. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, pp 337–1055Google Scholar
  9. Hemstrom MA, Korol JJ, Hann WJ (2001) Trends in terrestrial plant communities and landscape health indicate the effects of alternative management strategies in the interior Columbia River basin. Forest Ecology and Management 153:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphries HC, Bourgeron PS, Reynolds KM (2008) Suitability for conservation as a criterion in regional conservation network selection. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:467–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson P (1990) Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley Publishers, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen ME, Bourgeron P, Everett R, Goodman I (1996) Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology perspective. Journal American Water Resource Association 32:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Wemple BC, Snyder KU (2000) Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodwick WA, Monson W, Svoboda L (1990) Attribute error and sensitivity analysis of map operations in geographic information systems: suitability analysis. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 4:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahamah DS (1988) Simplified sensitivity analysis applied to a nutrient-biomass model. Ecological Modelling 42:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malczewski J (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning 62:3–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Noss RF, Beier P, Covington WW, Grumbine RE, Lindenmayer DB, Prather JW, Schmiegelow F, Sisk TD, Vosick DJ (2006) Recommendations for integrating restoration ecology and conservation biology in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwestern United States. Restoration Ecology 14:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pressey RL, Logan VS (1998) Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 85:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyke CR (2005) Assessing suitability for conservation action: prioritizing interpond linkages for the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 19:492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ (eds) (1997) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume I. General technical report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  22. Quigley TM, Haynes RW, Hann WJ (2001) Estimating ecological integrity in the interior Columbia River basin. Forest Ecology and Management 153:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reid MS, Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Jensen ME (Eds) (1995) Documentation of the modeling of potential vegetation at three spatial scales using biophysical settings in the Columbia River basin assessment area. Western Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Contract # 53-04H1-6890Google Scholar
  24. Reynolds KM (1999a) EMDS users guide (Version 2.0): knowledge-based decision support for ecological assessment. General technical report PNW-GTR 470. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  25. Reynolds KM (1999b) NetWeaver for EMDS version 2.0 users guide: a knowledge base development system. General Technical report PNW-GTR 471. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds KM (2001) Using a logic framework to assess forest ecosystems sustainability. Journal of Forestry 99:26–30Google Scholar
  27. Reynolds KM, Hessburg PF (2005) Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207:263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reynolds KM, Johnson KN, Gordon SN (2003) The science/policy interface in logic-based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Policy and Economics 5:433–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2001) How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecological Letters 4:602–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodrigues ASL, Gregory RD, Gaston KJ (2000) Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:49–55Google Scholar
  31. Rose KA (1983) A simulation comparison and evaluation of parameter sensitivity methods applicable to large models. In: Lauenroth WK, Skogerboe GV, Flug M (eds) Analysis of ecological systems: state of the art in ecological modelling. Elsevier Science Publishing Co, pp 129–140Google Scholar
  32. Rouget M (2003) Measuring conservation value at fine and broad scales: implications for a diverse and fragmented region, the Agulhas Plain. Biological Conservation 112:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmoldt DL, Rauscher HM (1995) Building knowledge-based systems for natural resource management. Chapman and Hall, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz MW (1999) Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoms DM, Borchert MI, Moritz MA, Davis FW, Church RL (1998) A systematic process for selecting representative research natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 18:338–349Google Scholar
  36. Stoms DM, McDonald JM, Davis FW (2002) Fuzzy assessment of land suitability for scientific research reserves. Environmental Management 29:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Virolainen KM, Virola T, Suhonen J, Kuitunen M, Lammi A, Siikamaki P (1999) Selecting networks of nature reserves: methods do affect the long-term outcome. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1141–1146Google Scholar
  38. Wessels KJ, Reyers B, Van Jaarsveld AS (2000) Incorporating land cover information into regional biodiversity assessments in South Africa. Animal Conservation 3:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hope C. Humphries
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick S. Bourgeron
    • 1
    • 2
  • Keith M. Reynolds
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Arctic and Alpine ResearchUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Center for the EnvironmentPlymouth State UniversityPlymouthUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations