Land-use changes assessed by overlay or mosaic methods: Which method is best for management planning? |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Campinas State University, Laboratory of Environmental Planning–LAPLA, Av. Albert Einstein, 951, Caixa Postal 6021, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-852, Brazil;2. University of São Paulo, Department of Ecology, Rua do Matão, 321, Travessa 14, São Paulo 05508-900, Brazil;3. Department of Ecology, Complutense University of Madrid, c/ José Antonio Novais 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain;1. Environmental Research Laboratory, Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-163, Narmak, Tehran, Iran;2. Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-163, Narmak, Tehran, Iran;1. Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy;2. Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy;3. Department of Economical Sciences and Mathematical Methods, University of Bari, Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy;1. CSIRO, Sustainable Agriculture Flagship and CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Australia;2. CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, ACT 2601, Australia;3. CSIRO, Private Bag 10 Clayton South, VIC 3169, Australia;4. CSIRO, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia;5. Department of Agriculture and Food, 444 Albany Hwy, Albany, WA 6330, Australia;6. Forest Products Commission, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia;7. Fares Rural Pty Ltd., PO Box 526, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia;8. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources – South Australian Government, GPO Box 1047, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia;9. The University of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond VIC 3121, Australia;10. Department of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia;11. AusCarbon Pty Ltd., PO Box 395, Nedlands, WA 6909, Australia;12. The University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia;13. Threshold Environmental Pty Ltd., PO Box 1124, Albany, WA 6331, Australia;14. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, The University of Western Australia, 1 Foreshore House, Albany, WA 6330, Australia;1. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 1, I-20126 Milano, Italy;2. British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford IP24 2PU, Norfolk, UK;3. Agriculture General Directorate, Lombardy Region, Piazza Città di Lombardia 1, I-20124 Milano, Italy |
| |
| Abstract: | Environmental planning must determine management practices for a given territory based on the landscape processes that have occurred over time and their consequences. Therefore, environmental planning decisions must be based on strong empirical evidence that can be easily understood by all involved parties. Several studies have highlighted the methodological deficiencies that occur when obtaining and interpreting such issues, particularly in heterogeneous landscapes with complex interactions. In this paper, we evaluated two methodological approaches that are used in management planning, land use/cover change (LUCC) and mosaic change (MC) to compare their effectiveness and suitability for supporting decision-making. We applied these methods to the coastal landscape of São Sebastião Island, Brazil, which has undergone many changes in the last 50 years. For two years, land use/cover maps were produced using GIS and assessed according to changes in landscape elements (LUCC) and boundaries (MC). Overall, the LUCC failed to identify sets with similar structural heterogeneities in the landscape. However, the LUCC is easier for stakeholders to understand and apply than the MC. The MC method better presented the evolution of the relationship between the landscape elements and heterogeneity. |
| |
| Keywords: | Landscape ecology Environmental planning GIS Structural heterogeneity |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
