Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 368–383 | Cite as

Spatial Rule-Based Assessment of Habitat Potential to Predict Impact of Land Use Changes on Biodiversity at Municipal Scale

  • Rocco ScolozziEmail author
  • Davide Geneletti


In human dominated landscapes, ecosystems are under increasing pressures caused by urbanization and infrastructure development. In Alpine valleys remnant natural areas are increasingly affected by habitat fragmentation and loss. In these contexts, there is a growing risk of local extinction for wildlife populations; hence assessing the consequences on biodiversity of proposed land use changes is extremely important. The article presents a methodology to assess the impacts of land use changes on target species at a local scale. The approach relies on the application of ecological profiles of target species for habitat potential (HP) assessment, using high resolution GIS-data within a multiple level framework. The HP, in this framework, is based on a species-specific assessment of the suitability of a site, as well of surrounding areas. This assessment is performed through spatial rules, structured as sets of queries on landscape objects. We show that by considering spatial dependencies in habitat assessment it is possible to perform better quantification of impacts of local-level land use changes on habitats.


Habitat suitability Urban planning Alpine valley Land-use change Ecological impact assessment GIS 



Bernardino Romano (University of L’Aquila), Astrid van Teeffelen and Rogier Pouwels (ALTERRA Institute, Wageningen), Chiara Deflorian and Paolo Pedrini (Museo Tridentino Scienze Naturali, Trento) provided valuable suggestions. Heidi Hoffer (FEM-IASMA) reviewed the text. Two anonymous reviewers contributed to improve the quality of this manuscript.


  1. Akcakaya HR, Sjogren-Gulve P (2000) Population viability analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecologial Bulletins, Swedish Natural Science Research Council 48:9–22Google Scholar
  2. Amici V, Geri F, Battisti C (2010) An integrated method to create habitat suitability models for fragmented landscapes. Journal for Nature Conservation 18:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellamy PE, Brown NJ, Enoksson B, Firbank LG, Fuller RJ, Hinsley SA, Schotman AGM (1998) The influences of habitat landscape structure and climate on local distribution patterns of the nuthatch (Sitta europaea L.). Oecologia 115:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg L, Berg A (1998) Nest site selection by the dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius in two different landscapes. Annales Zoologici Fennici 35:115–122Google Scholar
  5. Boitani L, Corsi F, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Marzetti I, Masi M, Montemaggiori A, Ottaviani D, Reggiani G, Rondinini C (2002) Rete Ecologica Nazionale. Un approccio alla conservazione dei vertebrati italiani. Accessed 25 May 2009
  6. Brambilla M, Rubolini D, Guidali F (2007) Between land abandonment and agricultural intensification: habitat preferences of Red-backed Shrikes Lanius collurio in low-intensity farming conditions. Bird Study 54:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bright PW (1998) Behaviour of specialist species in habitat corridors: arboreal dormice avoid corridor gaps. Animal Behaviour 56:1485–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bright PW, Mitchell P, Morris PA (1994) Dormouse distribution: survey techniques, insular ecology and selection of sites for conservation. The Journal of Applied Ecology 31:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L, MaÑosa S, Estrada J (2004) Modelling the effects of irrigation schemes on the distribution of steppe birds in Mediterranean farmland. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1039–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger A, Page R (2007) The need for biological realism in habitat modeling: a reinterpretation of Zharikov et al. (2006). Landscape Ecology 22:1273–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies CE, Moss D, Hill MO (2004) EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, Dorchester, UK. p 310Google Scholar
  12. Doncaster CP, Rondinini C, Johnson PCD (2001) Field test for environmental correlates of dispersal in hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus. Journal of Animal Ecology 70:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geneletti D (2006) Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geneletti D (2008) Incorporating biodiversity assets in spatial planning: methodological proposal and development of a planning support system. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentile FF, De Bernardi F (2004) Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: the community structure is related to habitat features and isolation. Biological Conservation 119:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González-Varo J, López-Bao J, Guitián J (2008) Presence and abundance of the Eurasian nuthatch Sitta europaea in relation to the size, isolation and the intensity of management of chestnut woodlands in the NW Iberian Peninsula. Landscape Ecology 23:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I, Beverton RJH (1994) Spatial scale, patchiness and population dynamics on land [and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 343:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirzel AH, Helfer V, Metral F (2001) Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecological Modelling 145:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirzel AH, Le Lay G, Helfer V, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecological Modelling 199:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huijser MP, Bergers PJM (2000) The effect of roads and traffic oh hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) populations. Biological Conservation 95:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jingan S, Jiupai N, Chaofu W, Deti X (2005) Land use change and its corresponding ecological responses: a review. Journal of Geographical Sciences 15:305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. La Morgia V, Bona F, Badino G (2008) Bayesian modelling procedures for the evaluation of changes in wildlife habitat suitability: a case study of roe deer in the Italian Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal Species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee JT, Thompson S (2005) Targeting sites for habitat creation: an investigation into alternative scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindenmayer D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Alexandra J, Bennett A, Burgman M, Cale P, Calhoun A, Cramer V, Cullen P, Driscoll D, Fahrig L, Fischer J, Franklin J, Haila Y, Hunter M, Gibbons P, Lake S, Luck G, MacGregor C, McIntyre S, Nally RM, Manning A, Miller J, Mooney H, Noss R, Possingham H, Saunders D, Schmiegelow F, Scott M, Simberloff D, Sisk T, Tabor G, Walker B, Wiens J, Woinarski J, Zavaleta E (2007) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecological Letters 10:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Löfvenhaft K, Runborg S, Sjögren-Gulve P (2004) Biotope patterns and amphibian distribution as assessment tools in urban landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:403–427Google Scholar
  29. Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Feitelson E (2005) Planning for biodiversity: the role of ecological impact assessment. Conservation Biology 19:1254–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthysen E (1999) Nuthatches (Sitta europaea: aves) in forest fragments: demography of a patchy population. Oecologia 119:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthysen E, Schmidt KH (1987) Natal dispersal in the Nuthatch. Ornis Scandinavica 18:313–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McRae BH, Schumaker NH, McKane RB, Busing RT, Solomon AM, Burdick CA (2008) A multi-model framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change. Ecological Modelling 219:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mouton AM, De Baets B, Goethals PLM (2009) Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management. Environmental Modelling & Software 24:982–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Opdam P, van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2001) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16:767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ortigosa GR, De Leo GA, Gatto M (2000) VVF: integrating modelling and GIS in a software tool for habitat suitability assessment. Environmental Modelling and Software 15:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papadimitriou F (2009) Modelling spatial landscape complexity using the Levenshtein algorithm. Ecological Informatics 4:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter AKH (2001) Dispersal rates and distances in adult water frogs, Rana lessonae, R ridibunda, and their hybridogenetic associate R. esculenta. Herpetologica 57:449–459Google Scholar
  41. PostgreSQL Global Development Group (2009) PostgreSQLGoogle Scholar
  42. Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Jones KB (1997) Assessing habitat suitability at multiple scales: a landscape-level approach. Biological Conservation 81:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romero-Calcerrada R, Luque S (2006) Habitat quality assessment using weights-of-evidence based GIS modelling: the case of Picoides tridactylus as species indicator of the biodiversity value of the Finnish forest. Ecological Modelling 196:62–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rondinini C, Doncaster CP (2002) Roads as barriers to movement for hedgehogs. Functional Ecology 16:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy PS, Tomar S (2000) Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using geospatial modelling technique. Biological Conservation 95:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seoane J, Justribó JH, García F, Retamar J, Rabadán C, Atienza JC (2006) Habitat-suitability modelling to assess the effects of land-use changes on Dupont’s lark Chersophilus duponti: a case study in the Layna important bird area. Biological Conservation 128:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith AM, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swenson DP, Ambrose RF (2007) A spatial analysis of cumulative habitat loss in Southern California under the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Takács V, Kuźniak S, Tryjanowski P (2004) Prediction of changes in population size of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) in Poland: population viability analysis. Biological Letters 41:119–133Google Scholar
  50. Telleria JL, Santos T (1993) Distributional patterns of insectivorous passerines in the Iberian Forests: does abundance decrease near the border? Journal of Biogeography 20:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Langevelde F (2000) Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Rooij SAM, van der Sluis T, Steingröver EG (2003) Networks for life; development of an ecological network for Persiceto (Emilia-Romagna, Italy). Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, p 65Google Scholar
  54. Vanhinsbergh D, Evans A (2002) Habitat associations of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) in Carinthia. Austria Journal of Ornithology 143:405–415Google Scholar
  55. Verboom J, Foppen R, Chardon P, Opdam P, Luttikhuizen P (2001) Standards for persistent habitat networks for vertebrate populations: the key patch approach. An example for marshland bird populations. Biological Conservation 100:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. The American Naturalist 183:24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiens JA, Milne BT (1989) Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landscape Ecology 3:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wu J, David JL (2002) A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications. Ecological Modelling 153:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young RP, Davison J, Trewby ID, Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ, Doncaster CP (2006) Abundance of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) in relation to the density and distribution of badgers (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology 269:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agro-Ecosystems Sustainability and BioresourcesIASMA Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund MachTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Center for International DevelopmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations