Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 201–206 | Cite as

Land-use diversity index: a new means of detecting diversity at landscape level

  • Tsuyoshi YoshidaEmail author
  • Kazuhiro Tanaka
Original Paper


Preservation of ecological diversity is a guiding principle of landscape management and planning. Although diversity is often quantified with measurable indices, common approaches used to measure diversity, for example the Shannon–Weaver index, are not adequate for many landscape studies, because they are affected by scale and sampling efforts. A robust index for measurement of landscape diversity should be able to quantify distinctive components of a landscape mosaic. This paper provides a new diversity index for landscape studies that improves the measurement of diversity at landscape level. The key features of the method are inclusion of an implication of physical moment and quantification of diversity by placing greater weight on the structure and composition of a patch. We have named the new index the “land-use diversity index”, or LUDI, and have concluded that the LUDI is the preferred measure of diversity at landscape level.


Land-use diversity index Diversity Patch structure and composition Physical moment 



We appreciate helpful comments from an anonymous reviewer. We would also like to thank associate editor-in-chief Dr Yoshihiro Natuhara (Japan Association of Landscape Ecology) for his assistance in the preparation of this paper.


  1. Alatalo RV (1981) Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology. Oikos 37:199–204Google Scholar
  2. Bogaert J, Myneni RB, Knyazikhin Y (2002) A mathematical comment on the formulate for the aggregation index and the shape index. Landsc Ecol 17:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brillouin L (1951) Physical entropy and information. J Appl Phy 22:338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brittingham MC, Temple SA (1983) Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds decline? BioScience 33:31–35Google Scholar
  5. Brosofske KD, Chen J, Crow TR, Saunders SC. (1999) Vegetation responses to landscape structure at multiple scale across a Northern Wisconsin, USA, pine barrens landscape. Plant Ecol 143:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulla L (1994) an index of evenness and its associated diversity measure. Oikos 70:167–174Google Scholar
  7. Burnett MR, August PV, Brown JH, Killingbeck KT (1998) The Influence of Geomorphological Heterogeneity on Biodiversity. A Patch-Scale Perspective. Conserv Biol 12:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological process that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175Google Scholar
  9. Ferris R, Humphrey R (1999) A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry 72: 313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman RT (1995) Land Mosaics. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman RT, Gordon M (1986) Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gates JE, Gysel LE (1978) Avian nest dispersion and fledgling success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883Google Scholar
  13. Guerry AD, Hunter ML (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: An examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golden DM, Crist TO (2000) Experimental effects of habitat fragmentation on rove beetles and ants: patch area or edge? Oikos 90: 525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrington RF (1993) Field Computation by Moment Methods. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 15:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hulshoff RM (1995) Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landsc Ecol 10:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ito Y, Sato K (2002) Problems around the indices of species diversity for comparison of different communities (in Japanese with English abstract). Biological Science (Tokyo) 53(4):204–220Google Scholar
  19. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76: 5–13Google Scholar
  21. Li H, Reynolds F (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:597–598Google Scholar
  23. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 179Google Scholar
  24. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  25. McIntyre NE (1995) Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landsc Ecol 10:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morishita M (1996) On the influence of sample size upon the values of species diversity (in Japanese with English abstract). Jpn J Ecol 46:269–289Google Scholar
  27. Nagendra H, Gadgil M (1999) Biodiversity assessment at multiple scales: Linkage remotely sensed data with field information. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96:9154–9158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Neill RV, Milne BT, Turner MG, Gardner RH (1988) Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 2:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paton PWC (1994) The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv Biol 8:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phipps M (1981) Entropy and community pattern analysis. J Theor Biol 93:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New York, p 165Google Scholar
  32. Ritters KH, O’Neil RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc Ecol 10:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688Google Scholar
  35. Smith B, Wilson JB (1996) A consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:70–82Google Scholar
  36. Stirling G, Wilsey B (2001) Empirical relationship between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. Am Nat 158:286–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Temple SA, Flaspohler DJ (1998) The edge of the cut. J Forest 96:8:22–28Google Scholar
  38. Thomas JW, Maser C, Rodiek JE (1979) Edges. In: Thomas JW (ed) Wildlife habitats in managed forests, the Blue Mountain Oregon and Washington. Agric Handb 553. US Dept of Agriculture, Washington, pp 48–59Google Scholar
  39. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Rev Ecol Evol S 20:171–197Google Scholar
  40. Urbana DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology: hierarchical perspective can help scientist understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119–127Google Scholar
  41. Walker DJ, Wiseman G., Vasudevan A, Baydack R, Campbell JM. (2003). Developing a richness-free statistic for measuring ecosystem diversity in landscape management decision support. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas (SAMPAA V). Victoria, B.C. May 11–16, 2003Google Scholar
  42. West NE (1993) Biodiversity of rangelands. J Range Manage 46:2–13Google Scholar
  43. Yoke KA, Rennie CJ (1996) Landscape ecosystem classification in the Cherokee National Forest, east Tennessee, USA. Environ Monit Assess 39:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of AgricultureKyoto Prefectural UniversitySakyo-ku, KyotoJapan
  2. 2.Japan Wildlife Research CenterTaito-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations