GIS and landscape conservation

69
GIS and landscape conservation
R J ASPINALL

This chapter reviews recent and current use of GIS for landscape conservation, and uses
these applications to identify the kinds of developments needed in order to expand the
utility of GIS for these applications in future. Landscape conservation is considered in the
broad context of integrated ecological systems that include both physical and human
components. This interpretation is developed from both geographical and ecological
perspectives in order to identify the role of geographical information and GIS. The
geographical perspective draws on the historical tradition of geography as an integrative
science in which landscape is a central feature for study and spatial and ecological analyses
have fundamental roles; the interaction of social and physical systems is at the core of this
integrative approach. The ecological perspective focuses on environmental topics
associated with conservation of wildlife and biodiversity, planning and management of
nature reserves, interpretation and protection of scenery, and management of relationships
between different land uses. An important component is that human activity is implicit
rather than ‘nature’ being considered independently of human action. The traditional
approach to landscape conservation has been through establishment of designated sites
that are considered independently of their surroundings and within which conservation is
treated as the major, or only, land use. More recently the wider geographical context of
designated sites has begun to be considered and approaches based on cooperation have
replaced competition between land uses. This has been given immediate relevance by
initiatives related to sustainable development. Biodiversity is a basic component of
sustainability and serves to foster linkage between landscape conservation and other land
uses. Sustainability also emphasises the interdependence of human populations and
environmental resources. Examples of wide area conservation evaluation that deal with
these issues are emerging and are important indicators of future trends and topics for
application of GIS in landscape conservation.

1 INTRODUCTION GIS-based approaches. The definition does not

assume a particular form of resources (e.g. land, air,
Landscape conservation in its widest sense or water), but rather is concerned with the
encompasses the planning and management of interaction of environmental and human systems
wildlife and scenic resources in geographical and and with general principles relevant to conservation
ecological systems. These systems include both of any resource base.
physical and human components. There are four key elements of this definition:
This working definition is deliberately broad in
order to include a wide range of current and 1 human activity and socioeconomic systems are
potential applications of GIS. It also allows explicitly involved (Hansen et al 1993; Hobbs
principles to be developed that guide extension of et al 1993);

967
R J Aspinall

2 it includes a variety of demands placed on a finite from genetic to ecosystem and at spatial scales from
resource base; global to local (Gaston 1991). The need for spatial
3 it overlaps with a range of environmental and and taxonomic data to support Biodiversity Action
socioeconomic sciences including biology, Plans provides GIS with an important role in
ecology, economics, environmental science, developing, managing, maintaining, and analysing
landscape ecology, planning, and geography (Collar 1996) the information base that supports
(Brussard 1991); strategic and local planning related to biodiversity
4 it focuses on a systems approach that is the basis (Ahearn et al 1990; Gaston 1994; Harrison 1995;
for synthesis and integration of methodologies Margules 1989; UNEP 1994). Integration of
and perspectives on issues. biological records, inventory of resources
(Sætersdal and Birks 1993; Stoms and Estes 1993),
and evaluation of geographical patterns of diversity
1.1 Principles for GIS in landscape conservation
(McKendry and Machlis 1991; Norton and Nix 1991;
Rather than catalogue the many examples of GIS Scott et al 1993; Walker and Faith 1993) at different
applications in landscape conservation, the approach geographical scales (Thomas and Abery 1995; Vail
in this chapter is to identify and illustrate more 1993) are all aspects to which GIS can be applied.
general principles that serve as a framework within The concept of biodiversity is not limited to
which landscape conservation applications of GIS nature conservation and biological organisation,
can be assessed and developed in future. These however (Burton et al 1992; Kangas and Kuusipalo
principles are mostly drawn from geographical and 1993), since it is a core component of sustainable
ecological sciences and focus on three themes: development as debated following the Bruntland
Report (WCED 1987) and the Convention on
1 biodiversity and sustainability as concepts that
Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992). Within this wider
have been adopted to guide and focus
context of sustainable development, other attributes
conservation efforts and land (use) management
of landscape and human use of environment
generally (Grehan 1993);
become part of biodiversity. This need to link
2 the tradition of geography as an integrative
conservation and development (Adams and Thomas
science that emphasises spatial concepts and uses
1996; Mwalyosi 1991) and human activity with
‘landscape’ as an object for analysis (Couclelis,
environmental quality for planning and management
Chapter 2; Johnston, Chapter 3; Hartshorne
presents the GIS community with an important
1939; Holt-Jensen 1980; Unwin 1992);
challenge: to develop GIS that can fully explore the
3 the contribution of ecological understanding to
concept and practice of sustainability in ecological
planning and managing specific resources in
systems. Until recently, approaches to landscape
particular locations and real-world contexts.
conservation have been relatively narrow and
These three, individually and collectively, also focused on single issues such as species or habitat
emphasise the interdependence of human and conservation through the mechanism of site
environmental systems. designation on the basis of special characteristics.
Designations relate to one or more of several criteria
(such as those listed in Table 1) that are applied
2 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY locally (e.g. Local Nature Reserves), nationally
(e.g. National Nature Reserves), internationally
Bridgewater (1993) describes two objectives for (e.g. RAMSAR or NATURA 2000 sites in Europe),
nature conservation: maintaining the maximum or globally (e.g. World Heritage Sites). Increasingly,
degree of biodiversity; and developing, managing, GIS are being used to manage data for these sites,
and maintaining the ecological infrastructure analyse and evaluate their characteristics, develop
through the designation and management of management plans (Alexander 1995), and examine
protected areas. Biodiversity has largely replaced their significance in relation to the wider geographical
species and habitats as the primary focus of nature context of site protection (McKenzie et al 1989;
conservation efforts and is a complex and inclusive Petch and Kolejka 1993). This approach treats
concept (Swanson 1992). For example, biodiversity conservation as a land use with zoning designed to
operates at different levels of taxonomic organisation keep competing uses separate. Although necessary

968
 GIS and landscape conservation

Table 1 Criteria for nature reserve selection (from necessary role with the advent and application of
Ratcliffe 1977). GIS since the data management and analytical
Size (extent)
mechanisms provided through GIS software provide
an environment within which the regional (data
Position in an ecological/geographical unit description) and systematic (thematic processes) may
Diversity be linked. Landscape has been subdivided into five
main classes (Fochler-Hauke 1959):
Rarity
1 landscape morphology, considering the form and
Typicality (representativeness)
spatial structure of phenomena;
Fragility 2 landscape ecology, concerned with functional
Naturalness interrelationships;
3 landscape chronology, concerned with
Recorded history development of regions over time;
Potential value 4 regionalisation;
5 landscape classification.
Intrinsic appeal
These present different approaches to definition and
study of regions and have relevance to the
and practical in some circumstances, it is of limited development of GIS for landscape conservation
potential for reconciling and managing growing applications. Examples of using GIS to develop
pressures on land resources, particularly as world regional landscape classifications can be found in
population increases (McMichael 1993). More contemporary landscape conservation (Davis and
recently, therefore, the wider geographical context of Dozier 1990; Klijn and Udo de Haes 1994; Soriano
(designated) sites, the growing relevance of resource and Paruelo 1992). These regionalisations form the
management for multiple uses, the inclusive nature basis for conservation planning and assessment but
of biodiversity, and the interdependence of physical suffer from a number of limitations including:
and human systems are being considered. This will
lead to more holistic approaches to resource use ● use of coarse, or geometrically inappropriate,
based on cooperation with multiple use replacing spatial units with abrupt boundaries;
competition between uses. ● having variable quality in the base data possibly
leading to misclassification;
● providing a static taxonomy that may not be the
3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES most appropriate for the specific
issue/application.
Although debated widely (Johnston, Chapter 3;
As planar-enforced categorical maps these regional
Forer and Unwin, Chapter 54; Unwin 1992), the
landscape classifications also have other limiting
tradition of geography is of an integrative science
attributes described elsewhere (Aspinall and Pearson
that deals with human and environmental
phenomena of the Earth. This tradition provides 1995; Goodchild et al 1992). A GIS that can
three features of special relevance. produce alternative regionalisations and landscape
classifications appropriate to particular
conservation questions would be a useful
3.1 Landscape is a central object for study management tool within existing structures for
The definition of landscape conservation in decision-making in landscape conservation.
section 1 above has much in common with the varied Landscape morphology, concerned with form
definitions of ‘landscape’ developed within and spatial structure, and landscape chronology, the
geography since 1900 (Holt-Jensen 1980). The development of regions over time, were developed
German concept of Landschaft, broadly analogous in geography, but have been little used in GIS
to landscape, also means a scientifically-defined despite the relevance of pattern and process to
geographical region and is a concept that spans many landscape conservation issues. The growth of
systematic and regional approaches to geographical efforts to link GIS with environmental modelling
enquiry (Holt-Jensen 1980). This remains a (Goodchild et al 1993, 1996; Wheeler 1993) and to

969
R J Aspinall

develop spatial pattern analysis methods and distribution. Dobson (1992) discusses the concept
applications in wide area conservation and ecology of spatial logic and its relationship with process
(Aspinall 1994a; Simpson and Dennis 1996) studies in palaeogeography, and has used both
indicate a role for GIS in landscape conservation spatial and process logic to analyse forest blowdown
through providing rigorous analytical tools to and lake chemistry in the Adirondack Mountains of
explore pattern and process at landscape scales. At the USA (Dobson et al 1990). A variety of
present this mostly takes place within landscape statistical and spatial analytical methods have been
ecology, which has re-emerged as an developed and applied to wildlife–habitat
interdisciplinary subject concerned with the relationships, both to interpret environmental
structure and function of ecological communities in associations from patterns of distribution and to
spatial landscapes (Forman and Godron 1986; model distribution from limited survey and
Hansson and Angelstam 1991; Wiens 1992). The incomplete biological records. Methods include
focus on spatial structure and real-world Boolean logic (Eastman, Chapter 35; Jensen et al
environmental variability, as well as a concern for 1992), habitat suitability models (Breininger et al
large geographical areas, has meant that landscape 1991), weights-of-evidence (Bonham-Carter et al
ecologists have readily adopted GIS technology. 1988), Bayesian models (Aspinall 1992, 1994a;
GIS is used to describe and analyse the structure of Milne et al 1989; Pereira and Itami 1991), decision-
habitats in landscapes (Baker and Weisberg 1995; trees (Grubb and King 1991; Lees and Ritman
Gustafson and Parker 1992; Hansson 1992; Kruess 1991; Moore et al 1991; Walker 1990; Walker and
and Tscharntke 1994; Krummel et al 1987; Olsen et Moore 1988), monotonic functions (Mackey 1993),
al 1993; Pastor and Broschart 1990; Plotnick et al artificial intelligence (Fischer, Chapter 19;
1993; Taylor et al 1993; Turner 1990; Wickham and Openshaw and Alvanides, Chapter 18; Davey and
Norton 1994), and as an arena for applying models Stockwell 1991; Folse et al 1989; Saarenmaa et al
of population dynamics in spatial landscapes (Baker 1988, 1994), and statistical methods such as
1992; Schulz and Joyce 1992; Stamps et al 1987; multivariate models (Getis, Chapter 16; Clark et al
Verboom et al 1991). Techniques for the description 1993; Livingstone et al 1990), canonical
and evolution of pattern are also being developed correspondence analysis (Hill 1991), generalised
including cellular automata (Wolfram 1984), linear modelling (Austin et al 1990; Buckland and
percolation models (Gustafson and Parker 1992), Elston 1993), and generalised additive modelling. A
hierarchical neutral models (O’Neill et al 1992a, number of purpose written software packages have
1992b), and others (Turner et al 1989). Application also been developed to apply particular forms of
of these to practical conservation is currently a modelling and analysis including BIOCLIM
research question for GIS. (Lindenmayer et al 1991) and HABITAT (Walker
and Cocks 1991). These methods have each found
application and their use, validation, and
3.2 Spatial analysis application to practical conservation issues is
Much of the utility of GIS rests in its ability to expected to increase since they:
manage and manipulate spatial data. Spatial ● provide objective means to add value to survey
reasoning, however, has received only limited (Nelder et al 1995);
attention in ecological applications where ● explore relationships at large geographical scales
development and experimentation has focused on (Aspinall 1994b; Liebhold et al 1992;
elucidating processes rather than analysis of pattern Schmiegelow 1990);
(see Getis, Chapter 16, and Openshaw and ● focus attention on the quality and uncertainty
Alvanides, Chapter 18, for general perspectives on of information bases available for use in
the spatial analysis research effort). This reflects decision-making (Flather and King 1992; Hess
interest in ‘why’ questions and in mechanisms as the 1994; Hobbs and Hanley 1990; Salski 1992;
causes of observed patterns of distribution and Stoms et al 1992);
abundance (Andrewartha and Birch 1954; Gotelli ● provide a means for predicting impacts of land
and Simberloff 1987) rather than analysis of spatial use, climatic, or other changes (Agee et al 1989;
phenomena represented by the patterns of Baker 1989; Dale and Rauscher 1994).

970
 GIS and landscape conservation

3.2.1 Spatial dependence measures of structure and function provided for

Geostatistical methods have been widely used in landscape ecology (Cullinan and Thomas 1992), but
landscape conservation (Robertson 1987; Rossi et al the approach provides a link between description of
1992; Sokal et al 1987), although most consider pattern at multiple geographical scales within a
distance (e.g. Kriging) rather than spatial variation heterogeneous environment and analysis of spatial
in a related variable such as habitat (e.g. co-Kriging), structure. Since much of landscape ecology is based
and thus do not account for habitat relationships on analysis of patches and their organisation in the
(see Anselin, Chapter 17; Getis, Chapter 16, for landscape (Fahrig and Paloheimo 1988), objective
general reviews of geostatistical methods, including methods for defining patches such as those provided
Kriging). Other spatial analytical methods that by spatial dependence statistics can make the
describe spatial pattern such as Moran’s I, Geary’s c, landscape description on which landscape ecology
and the Getis and Ord G statistics (Getis, Chapter depends more rigorous and objective. This will help
16; Getis and Ord 1992) are also beginning to find add to understanding of spatial organisation in
application in landscape conservation research. landscapes and contribute to development of more
For example Qi and Wu (1996) use spatial realistic landscape ecological models.
autocorrelation indices to examine the relationship
between pattern and scale at multiple geographical 3.2.2 Data sources
scales. They use Moran’s I, Geary’s c, and the An issue in this context is the source data for habitat
Cliff–Ord statistic to analyse digital datasets of and vegetation mapping, since land cover and
topography and biomass in peninsular Malaysia. habitat data are the common element within almost
Addicott et al (1987) discuss concepts associated all landscape conservation and landscape ecological
with environmental patterning, spatial and temporal applications (Frank 1988). Maps and remotely-
scales of ecological processes, and response of sensed data can be used to derive and record land
organisms to environmental pattern. They develop a cover (Barnsley, Chapter 32; Bibby and Shepherd,
concept of ecological neighbourhoods to represent Chapter 68; Dowman, Chapter 31; Herr and Queen
these aspects of scale. In a different object- 1993; Hodgson et al 1988; Homer et al 1993;
orientated approach to scale, Aspinall (1995) has Robertson et al 1990; Wallin et al 1992), although
used Moran’s I as one of a set of descriptors of scale the latter may be preferable (Roughgarden et al
for geographical data. Specifically, spatial 1991). Perhaps most important from the perspective
autocorrelation, measured as spatial dependence of developing spatial analysis for landscape ecology
with Moran’s I, describes a component of the is the limitation of maps which will usually provide
behaviour of the geographical and thematic habitat data as discrete, sharply bounded, internally
information contents of spatial data at a range of homogeneous polygons (Aspinall and Pearson 1995;
sampling intervals. Since Moran’s I can be applied to Goodchild et al 1992). This cartographic model is
values at different geographical distances within a limited since it imposes spatial organisation through
dataset, the relationship between spatial dependence the mapping process and this is then fixed for
and scale can be examined. This is useful for subsequent analyses in which it can exert a strong
understanding the interaction of spatial structure influence (Martin, Chapter 6; Stoms 1992). In
and spatial heterogeneity as the variability of data contrast, satellite imagery and digital air
from place to place (Aspinall 1995; Kupfer 1995). photography provide a surface of variation and can
Aspinall (1996) also uses Moran’s I to describe be used to investigate generalisation and scale effects
and analyse spatial structure and habitat function in (Bibby and Shepherd, Chapter 68; Simmons et al
complex landscapes in which patches are not 1992); they also provide wide geographical coverage
obvious. The results are informative about spatial and regular updates are available. This gives
structure and, since they incorporate details of scale remotely-sensed data many advantages over field
and scaling, indicate the spatial distances over which survey for gathering certain types of land surface
‘patches’ may exist or operate. The use of Moran’s I data, principally land cover data (Simmons et al
provides a generic method for quantifying landscape 1992). Since a prerequisite for the analysis of spatial
into patches with a particular scale even in areas dependence using Moran’s I is a continuous field
where no obvious patch structure is apparent. representation of environmental variation, remote
Further research is needed in the application of the sensing is an important data resource. Franklin

971
R J Aspinall

(1995) reviews habitat mapping techniques and data of investigation. Developing this approach is based
sources for remotely-sensed data. on initial specification of the problem to be
investigated followed by structured design of the GIS
to develop databases and analytical processes that
3.3 Ecological analysis
help solve the problem. Investigation of appropriate
In contrast to the lack of attention it has paid to design of GIS for specific landscape conservation
spatial logic and analysis, ecological research has applications is not widely carried out, but would be of
supplied many principles of practical use in landscape great benefit.
conservation and is rich in theory and concepts which Addressing issues of data, data quality, analytical
relate to processes and ecological function processes, and information output will lead to
(Hoekstra and Flather 1986). For example, specification of appropriate data models to support
ecosystems science includes niche theory, energy analysis and help tailor GIS to user needs. It will
flow and trophic structure, and biogeochemical also focus research on practical problems of
cycling, while population biology includes landscape conservation. The close link emerging
interspecific and intraspecific interactions, population between landscape ecologists and GIS, and between
regulation, and life-history strategies. Reviewing these spatial analysis and landscape ecology (Tilman 1994)
topics of ecosystems science and population biology, has developed from an applications need; further
Levin (1992) has argued that the problem of pattern attention to GIS planning and design issues from the
and scale is the central problem in ecology, providing GIS community will help develop data models and
a unifying concept and linking basic to applied analytical procedures that are of greater practical
ecology. Since landscape conservation is concerned use for landscape ecology and landscape
with real-world locations and situations the conservation applications.
importance of pattern and scale becomes highlighted Aspinall (1994b) reviews some of the
and this emphasises the need to couple ecological opportunities for ecological research to benefit
science with spatial concepts and methods from spatial analysis and spatial modelling linked
(Hanski 1994; Hanski and Thomas 1994; Ims et al to GIS (for discussions of the general debate about
1993). Landscape ecology provides a conceptual
integrating spatial analysis with GIS see Anselin,
framework for this coupling (Probst and Weinrich
Chapter 17; Getis, Chapter 16; Openshaw and
1993; Wiens et al 1993) and GIS provides an obvious
Alvanides, Chapter 18). The two main classes of
mechanism by which it may be achieved (Haines-
development relate to spatial analysis methods and
Young et al 1993; Stow 1993). The interaction of
data quality management, as shown in Table 2.
spatial and temporal scales, with each other and with
Johnson (1990) and Hunsaker et al (1993) review
phenomena at different levels of ecological
the role of spatial and process models in landscape
organisation, needs to be developed. This will then
ecology and these provide a further set of design
provide a framework for the analysis and synthesis of
ecological problems, methodologies, and techniques. needs. Examples of ecological process models
This in turn will enhance the application of GIS to linked to GIS demonstrate the practical relevance
ecological and landscape conservation problems. of this linkage (Burke et al 1990; Johnson et al
An example of this form of structured approach in 1992; Johnston and Naiman 1990). The
which spatial and temporal scales are explicit is representation of landscape conservation problems
provided by Walker and Walker (1991) who use a GIS remains largely unknown, however, partly because
for the North Slope in Alaska to investigate questions landscape conservation is a broad applications area
related to energy development and climate change. growing in response to biodiversity issues, and
The GIS is organised with a hierarchical database partly because the application of GIS-based
based on spatial and temporal scaling of data sources analyses and models needs to be tested. Data
and natural disturbance phenomena (Delcourt et al quality is still an important issue, particularly as
1983; Delcourt and Delcourt 1988) and is used to outputs from GIS processing are used to support
analyse a range of phenomena at a variety of scales. decisions that may affect survival of a threatened
Important technical and methodological issues which species, or the balance between land for
emerge include the question of scaling and the conservation and economic development to sustain
relationship between data sources, and scale and topic rural communities (Barrett 1992).

972
 GIS and landscape conservation

Table 2 Data quality and spatial analysis functions for linking GIS and spatial analysis to ecological modelling
(based on Aspinall 1994b).

Class of function Purpose

Data management
metadata description of data quality (for analysis of uncertainty)

scale, resolution, grain identify appropriate scale and problems for application for data

Analysis/GIS processing
sampling methods for assessing validity and representativeness of samples drawn from spatial data for
different analyses

data generalisation and aggregation methods for generalising spatial and object attributes of data
(change of data scale)

enhancement methods for generating synthetic data with finer basic spatial units (resolution)

pattern description methods for describing spatial pattern and spatial interaction in ecological distributions

pattern analysis methods for analysis of spatial patterns and spatial interaction effects; methods for generating
spatial and ecological hypotheses about pattern–process relationships at a given spatial scale
– based on spatial and process logic

pattern generation and hypothesis testing methods for generating spatial patterns from stochastic (pattern-generating) processes for
comparison with observed distributions

error analysis integrated management of error in analysis; models of error propagation to provide
confidence limits to accompany output from (GIS) analysis

description and analysis of scale influences methods that translate between scales (scaling up and down) in data and models

linking process models with GIS ecological and environmental process models that incorporate location and spatial
interaction effects

3.4 Landscape conservation as the interaction of Radcliffe (1996) describe a systems approach to
social, economic, and physical systems sustainability that offers a basis for liaison between
disciplines on philosophical, methodological, and
With an increasing number of aspects of landscape
technical levels that will allow their diverse modelling
conservation that require solutions based on
approaches to be coupled with one another and with
integrated approaches (Margerum and Born 1995),
particularly as sustainability motivates and guides GIS. In part, the interaction of the different models
resource management objectives, the direction for and the perspectives represented serves to define a
development and application of GIS in landscape multi-disciplinary scientific method. The approach
conservation is towards the linkage and integration described by Clayton and Radcliffe links hard
of human and physical environmental systems systems (Hall 1962) and soft systems
(Flamm and Turner 1994; Hobbs et al 1993; Kangas (Checkland 1981) methodologies, draws on the
and Kuusipalo 1993; Mooney 1991). properties of emergence, hierarchical control, and
A systems approach is one mechanism by which communication developed from General Systems
such integration may be achieved (Perrings et al Theory (Bertalanffy 1969; Simon 1969), develops
1992). Haggett (1979) presents a systems approach understanding from the study of complex adaptive
based on spatial analysis, ecological analysis, and systems (Holland 1975), and integrates biophysical
regional complex analysis as the core of geography and socioeconomic factors within a common
and Holt-Jensen (1980) and Unwin (1992) have framework such as environmental economics.
argued that these have importance for developing Clayton and Radcliffe also identify a specific role for
geography as a basis for synthesis. Clayton and GIS in the management and integration of

973
R J Aspinall

disaggregated data; this allows GIS to bring model Magillo, Chapter 38; Fisher, Chapter 13). Miller et al
outputs and other data together in a flexible way to (1992) assess the impact of land cover changes in the
evaluate alternative options within decision-making Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland by calculating
processes; Rhind (1991) has also identified this role viewsheds for selected viewpoints and for the whole
for GIS as an integrating technology both for data study area through a visibility census. Davidson et al
and for different fields of science. (1993) carry out similar analysis for siting power
Complex adaptive systems occupy the core of the transmission lines across open landscapes on the
systems approach suggested by Clayton and Isle of Skye, Scotland in support of planning
Radcliffe (1996). This focuses on contingent, processes. This type of analysis is based on the
interactive, hierarchical, and dynamic systems, a set 3-dimensional geometry of digital elevation data.
of characteristic behaviours that are intrinsic to Fisher (Chapter 13, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996)
many ecological systems, particularly at larger and De Floriani et al (1994) examine the algorithms
geographical scales. Complex adaptive system for viewshed estimation using GIS and associated
methodologies are being applied to diverse accuracy issues.
disciplines including economics, ecology An alternative approach to scenic appraisal uses
(Breckling and Müller 1994; Jørgensen et al 1992), the analysis of scene attributes to, for example,
historical settlement and society, and environmental evaluate landscape quality (Appleton 1975). Harvey
issues; however, they have yet to be applied directly (1995) has addressed scenic appraisal through
to landscape conservation projects. A broad range of analysis of individual perception of landscape and
physical and social sciences (and their associated wilderness using methods from cognitive psychology
methods) need to be included in a systems approach coupled with GIS to model the geographical
to land use to develop the link between conservation consequences of these preferences. The study
and development implicit in sustainability. Relevant elucidates attributes that individuals and groups use
approaches include the Cartesian methods of the to discriminate between landscapes, by identifying
physical sciences (with themes of experimentation, prototypical constructs that express the individual
laboratory control, repetition, and quantification), preferences. GIS is then used to map the
qualitative and historical methods of the social juxtaposition of the preferred (and non-preferred)
sciences (with themes of irreducible interaction, attributes as an expression of individual preference.
hierarchy, and resolvable contingency), and the This cognitive and perceptual approach appears to
spatial methods (Haggett 1979) and systems get much closer to the processes by which scenery is
approaches (Chorley and Kennedy 1971) that are at evaluated and individual choice expressed than
the core of geographical science (Haggett 1979). approaches based on viewshed geometry. The
Each of these approaches is well developed within process of landscape (scenic) evaluation usually
the relevant physical and social science disciplines contains a large subjective element (Appleton 1975).
(see Couclelis, Chapter 2; Johnston, Chapter 3; Use of cognitive methods developed in psychology
Raper, Chapter 5). To develop GIS and models for (Kelly 1955), combined with analysis of landscape
applications in sustainability will require these geometry and spatial analysis of attributes of scenic
disciplines to be linked while they retain their attraction, provides GIS with an important role in
individual perspectives. Thus sustainability requires landscape assessment for scenic value.
an inclusive approach and linkage between GIS and There are two important general principles raised
models should facilitate this communication and by these approaches to assessment of landscape as
collaboration between disciplines. scenery. First, space is necessarily analysed as
3-dimensional since intervisibility is based on x, y,
and elevation directions. This may be important in
4 LANDSCAPE AS SCENERY other applications. For example, the work on the
analysis of habitats and landscape ecological
A further important application of GIS in landscape modelling described above was based on the 2-
studies is in the analysis of scenes. The usual method dimensional (plan) model of spatial data exemplified
for using GIS to interpret scenic landscapes is through by resource maps, although the vertical (architectural
calculation of viewsheds based on the intervisibility of or structural) component of vegetation is known to
points on a digital elevation model (De Floriani and influence the results of models (Flather et al 1992;

974
 GIS and landscape conservation

Lescourret and Genard 1994). The underlying and ecological understanding that will serve to
terrain form in three dimensions will undoubtedly structure the design. A systems approach is also
influence the value of the metrics used to describe presented as a mechanism enabling synthesis and
patch shape, as well as other characteristics such as within which the general understanding from
area, that are used by landscape ecologists. geography and ecology can be integrated with
Anisotrophic effects may also be introduced into perspectives from other scientific and social scientific
distance measurement, for example when direction disciplines. Landscape conservation appears to be
or resistance to movement is influenced by landform. moving from site-based protection for nature
Wider landscape ecological and conservation conservation towards an integrated and holistic
applications of GIS may benefit from the emphasis approach to resource management directed at
on landscape as 3-dimensional. The evaluation of cooperating human and environmental systems.
scenery also demonstrates the use of GIS to GIS clearly has a role in enabling this process.
interpret behavioural preferences in a spatial
context. This ability to represent individual views of
References
landscape introduces the opportunity to explore
semi-quantitative and other subjective, but personal, Adams W M, Thomas D H L 1996 Conservation and sustainable
views within a spatial environment, potentially resource use in the Hadejia-Jama’are valley, Nigeria. Oryx 30:
131–42
coupling the quantitative processing capabilities of
GIS with a wide range of social and psychological Addicott J F, Aho J M, Antolin M F, Padilla D K, Richardson J
S, Soluk D A 1987 Ecological neighborhoods: scaling
methods (see Mark, Chapter 7). Although these are
environmental patterns. Oikos 49: 340–6
applied to human–computer interface problems they
Agee J K, Stitt S C F, Nyquist M, Root R 1989 A geographical
have been explored in geographical research (Unwin
analysis of historical grizzly bear sightings in the North
1992), but little developed in relation to applications Cascades. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 55:
of information in GIS. 1637–42
Ahearn S C, Smith J L D, Wee C 1990 Framework for a
geographically referenced conservation database: case study
5 CONCLUSION Nepal. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 56:
1477–81
Kupfer (1995) reviews interrelationships between Alexander M 1995 Management planning in relation to protected
landscape ecology and biogeography as interest areas. Parks 5: 2–11
grows in identifying the influences of scale and Andrewartha H G, Birch L C 1954 The distribution and
heterogeneity on ecological processes; the particular abundance of animals. Chicago, University of Chicago Press
perspective used is nature reserve design and Appleton J H 1975 The experience of landscape. Chichester, John
management. The literature reviewed for this chapter Wiley & Sons
shows that there is potentially a much more Aspinall R J 1992 An inductive modelling procedure based on
extensive linkage between geographical principles Bayes theorem for analysis of pattern in spatial data.
and landscape conservation, and that there is a International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 6:
practical need for this linkage given the emphasis on 105–21
integrated resource management and planning Aspinall R J 1994a Exploratory spatial analysis in GIS:
provided by the concept of sustainability. GIS generating geographical hypotheses from spatial data. In
already provides techniques and opportunities for Worboys M F (ed.) Innovations in GIS 1. London, Taylor and
Francis: 139–47
exploring diverse aspects of landscape conservation,
but there are a number of developments that could Aspinall R J 1994b GIS and spatial analysis for ecological
modelling. In Michener W K, Brunt J W, Stafford S G (eds)
be explored to provide reliable information to Environmental information management and analysis: ecosystem
support decision-making. Not least of these is the to global scales. London, Taylor and Francis: 377–96
use of GIS to develop insights into landscape Aspinall R J 1995 Redefining ‘scale’ for digital geographical data.
conservation questions and issues from a range of In Folving S, Burril A, Meyer-Roux J (eds) Workshop on Scale
perspectives beyond ecology and nature and Extent: Proceedings of EuroCarto 13. Luxembourg,
conservation. This review identifies a need to design European Union: 69–79
GIS to develop these integrated applications and Aspinall R J 1996 Spatial analysis in ecological and
indicates some underlying principles of geographical environmental modelling. Aspects of Applied Biology 46: 187–94

975
R J Aspinall

Aspinall R J, Pearson D M 1995 Describing and managing Clayton A M H, Radcliffe N J 1996 Sustainability: a systems
uncertainty of categorical maps in GIS. In Fisher P F (ed.) approach. London, Earthscan Publication
Innovations in GIS 2. London, Taylor and Francis: 71–83 Collar N J 1996 The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx
Austin M P, Nicholls A O, Margules C R 1990 Measurement 30: 121–30
of the realised quantitative niche: environmental niche of Cullinan V I, Thomas J M 1992 A comparison of quantitative
five Eucalyptus species. Ecological Monographs 60: 161–77 methods for examining landscape pattern and scale.
Baker W L 1989 A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 7: 211–27
Landscape Ecology 2: 111–33 Dale V H, Rauscher H M 1994 Assessing the impacts of
Baker W L 1992 Effects of settlement and fire suppression on climate change on forests: the state of biological modelling.
landscape structure. Ecology 73: 1879–87 Climate Change 28: 65–90
Baker W L, Weisberg P J 1995 Landscape analysis of the Davey S M, Stockwell D R B 1991 Incorporating wildlife
forest-tundra ecotone in Rocky Mountain National Park, habitat into an AI environment: concepts, theory and
Colorado. Professional Geographer 47: 361–74 practicalities. AI Applications 5: 59–104
Barrett G W 1992 Landscape ecology: designing sustainable Davidson D A, Watson A I, Selman P H 1993 An evaluation
agricultural landscapes. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2: of GIS as an aid to the planning of proposed developments
83–103 in rural areas. In Mather P M (ed.) Geographical information
Bertalanffy L von 1969 General systems theory: foundations, handling: research and applications. Chichester, John Wiley &
development and applications. New York, Braziller Sons: 251–9

Bonham-Carter G F, Agterberg F P, Wright D F 1988 Davis F W, Dozier J 1990 Information analysis of a spatial
Integration of geological datasets for gold exploration in database for ecological land classification. Photogrammetric
Nova Scotia. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Engineering and Remote Sensing 56: 605–13
Sensing 54: 1585–92 De Floriani L, Marzano P, Puppo E 1994a Line-of-sight
Breckling B, Müller F 1994 Current trends in ecological communication on terrain models. International Journal of
modelling and the Eighth ISEM conference on the state-of- Geographical Information Systems 8: 329–42
the-art. Ecological Modelling 75/76: 667–75 Delcourt H R, Delcourt P A 1988 Quaternary landscape
Breininger D R, Provancha M J, Smith R B 1991 Mapping ecology: relevant scales in space and time. Landscape
Florida’s shrub jay habitat for purposes of land Ecology 2: 23–44
management. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Delcourt H R, Delcourt P A, Webb T A III 1983 Dynamic
Sensing 57: 1467–74 plant ecology: the spectrum of vegetation change in space
Bridgewater P B 1993 Landscape ecology, geographical and time. Quaternary Science Reviews 1: 153–75
information systems and nature conservation. In Haines- Dobson J E 1992 Spatial logic in palaeogeography and the
Young R, Green D R, Cousins S (eds) Landscape ecology explanation of continental drift. Annals of the Association of
and geographical information systems. London, Taylor and American Geographers 82: 187–206
Francis: 23–36 Dobson J E, Rush R M, Peplies R W 1990 Forest blowdown
Brussard P F 1991 The role of ecology in biological and lake acidification. Annals of the Association of American
conservation. Ecological Applications 1: 6–12 Geographers 80: 343–61
Buckland S T, Elston D A 1993 Empirical models for the Fahrig L, Paloheimo J 1988 Effect of spatial arrangement of
spatial distribution of wildlife. Journal of Applied Ecology habitat patches on local population size. Ecology 69: 468–75
30: 478–95 Fisher P F 1991a First experiments in viewshed uncertainty:
Burke I C, Schimel D S, Yonker C M, Parton W J, Joyce L A, the accuracy of the viewshed area. Photogrammetric
Lauenroth W K 1990 Regional modelling of grassland Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 1321–7
biogeochemistry using GIS. Landscape Ecology 4: 45–54 Fisher P F 1992 First experiments in viewshed uncertainty:
Burton P J, Balisky A C, Coward L P, Cumming S G, simulating the fuzzy viewshed. Photogrammetric Engineering
Kneeshaw D D 1992 The value of managing for biodiversity. and Remote Sensing 58: 345–52
The Forestry Chronicle 68: 225–37 Fisher P F 1993 Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in
Checkland P 1981 Systems thinking, systems practice. viewshed analysis. International Journal of Geographical
Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Information Systems 7: 331–74
Chorley R J, Kennedy B 1971 Physical geography: a systems Fisher P F 1994a Probable and fuzzy models of the viewshed
approach. London, Prentice-Hall operation. In Worboys M F (ed.) Innovations in GIS 1.
Clark J D, Dunn J E, Smith K G 1993 A multivariate model of London, Taylor and Francis: 161–75
female black bear habitat use for a geographical information Fisher P F 1996b Reconsideration of the viewshed function in
system. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 519–26 terrain modelling. Geographical Systems 3: 33–58

976
 GIS and landscape conservation

Flamm R O, Turner M G 1994 Alternative model Haggett P 1979 Geography: a modern synthesis, 3rd edition.
formulations for a stochastic simulation of landscape New York, Harper and Row
change. Landscape Ecology 9: 37–46 Haines-Young R, Green D R, Cousins S 1993 (eds) Landscape
Flather C H, Brady S J, Inkley D B 1992 Regional habitat ecology and geographical information systems. London,
appraisals of wildlife communities: a landscape-level Taylor and Francis
evaluation of a resource planning model using avian Hall A D 1962 A methodology for systems engineering.
distribution data. Landscape Ecology 7: 137–47 Princeton, Van Nostrand
Flather C H, King R M 1992 Evaluating performance of
Hansen A J, Garman S L, Marks B, Urban D L 1993 An
regional wildlife habitat models: implications to resource
approach for managing vertebrate diversity across multiple-
planning. Journal of Environmental Management 34: 31–46
use landscapes. Ecological Applications 3: 481–96
Fochler-Hauke G (ed.) 1959 Geographie. Frankfurt, Das
Hanski I 1994 Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented
FischerLexikon
landscapes. Tree 9: 131–5
Folse L J, Packard J M, Grant W E 1989 AI modelling of
Hanski I, Thomas C D 1994 Metapopulation dynamics and
animal movements in a heterogeneous habitat. Ecological
conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies.
Modelling 46: 57–72
Biological Conservation 68: 167–80
Forman R T T, Godron M 1986 Landscape ecology. New
Hansson L 1992 Landscape ecology of boreal forests. Tree
York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
7: 299–302
Frank T D 1988 Mapping dominant vegetation communities
Hansson L, Angelstam P 1991 Landscape ecology as a
in the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range with Landsat
theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology
Thematic Mapper and digital terrain data. Photogrammetric
5: 191–201
Engineering and Remote Sensing 54: 1727–34
Franklin J 1995 Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic Harrison J 1995 Finding the information. Parks 5: 12–19
modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental Hartshorne R 1939 The nature of geography, a critical survey
gradients. Progress in Physical Geography 19: 474–99 of current thought in the light of the past. Annals of the
Gaston K J 1991 How large is a species’ geographical range? Association of American Geographers 29: 173–655
Oikos 61: 434–8 Harvey R 1995 ‘Eliciting and mapping the attributes of
Gaston K J 1994 Spatial patterns of species description: how landscape perception: an integration of personal construct
is our knowledge of the global insect fauna growing? theory (PCT) with geographic information systems (GIS)’.
Biological Conservation 67: 37–40 PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Department of
Landscape Architecture
Getis A, Ord J K 1992 The analysis of spatial association by
use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis 24: 189–206 Herr A M, Queen L P 1993 Crane habitat evaluation using
GIS and remote sensing. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Goodchild M F, Parks B O, Steyaert L T (eds) 1993
Remote Sensing 59: 1531–8
Environmental modelling with GIS. Oxford, Oxford
University Press Hess G 1994 Pattern and error in landscape ecology: a
commentary. Landscape Ecology 9: 3–5
Goodchild M F, Steyaert L T, Parks B O, Johnston C,
Maidment D, Crane M, Glendinning S (eds) 1996 GIS and Hill M O 1991 Patterns of species distribution in Britain
environmental modeling: progress and research issues. Fort elucidated by canonical correspondence analysis. Journal of
Collins, GIS World Biogeography 18: 247–55
Goodchild M F, Sun G Q, Yang S 1992 Development and test Hobbs N T, Hanley T A 1990 Habitat evaluation: do
of an error model for categorical data. International Journal use/availability data reflect carrying capacity? Journal of
of Geographical Information Systems 6: 87–104 Wildlife Management 54: 515–22
Gotelli N J, Simberloff D 1987 The distribution and Hobbs R J, Saunders D A, Arnold G W 1993 Integrated
abundance of tallgrass prairie plants: a test of the core- landscape ecology: a Western Australian perspective.
satellite hypothesis. The American Naturalist 130: 18–35 Biological Conservation 64: 231–8
Grehan J R 1993 Conservation biogeography and the Hodgson M E, Jensen J R, Mackey H E, Coulter M C 1988
biodiversity crisis: a global problem in space/time. Monitoring wood stork foraging habitat using remote sensing
Biodiversity Letters 1: 134–40 and geographical information systems. Photogrammetric
Grubb T G, King R M 1991 Assessing human disturbance of Engineering and Remote Sensing 54: 1601–7
breeding Bald Eagles with classification tree models. Journal Hoekstra T W, Flather C H 1986 Theoretical basis for
of Wildlife Management 55: 500–11 integrating wildlife in renewable resource inventories. Journal
Gustafson E J, Parker G R 1992 Relationship between of Environmental Management 24: 95–110
landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial Holland J 1975 Adaptation in natural and artificial systems.
pattern. Landscape Ecology 7: 101–10 Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press

977
R J Aspinall

Holt-Jensen A 1980 Geography: its history and concepts. Levin S A 1992 The problem of pattern and scale in ecology.
London, Harper and Row Ecology 73: 1943–67
Homer C G, Edwards T C, Ramsey R D, Price K P 1993 Use Liebhold A M, Halverson J A, Elmes G A 1992 Gypsy moth
of remote sensing methods in modelling sage grouse winter invasion in North America: a quantitative analysis. Journal
habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 78–84 of Biogeography 19: 513–20
Hunsaker C T, Nisbet R A, Lam D C L, Browder J A, Lindenmayer D B, Nix H A, McMahon J P, Hutchinson M F,
Baker W L, Turner M G, Botkin D A 1993 Spatial models of Tanton M T 1991 The conservation of Leadbeater’s possum
ecological systems and processes: the role of GIS. In Gymnobelideus leadbeateri (McCoy): a case study of the use of
Goodchild M F, Parks B O, Steyaert L T (eds) Environmental bioclimatic modelling. Journal of Biogeography 18: 371–83
modelling with GIS. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 248–64 Livingstone S A, Todd C S, Krohn W B, Owen R B 1990
Ims R A, Rolstad J, Wegge P 1993 Predicting space use Habitat models for nesting Bald Eagles in Maine. Journal of
responses to habitat fragmentation: can voles Microtus Wildlife Management 54: 644–53
oeconomus serve as an experimental model system (EMS) for Mackey B G 1993 A spatial analysis of the environmental
capercaillie grouse Tetrao urogallus in boreal forest? relations of rainforest structural types. Journal of
Biological Conservation 63: 261–8 Biogeography 20: 303–36
Jensen J R, Narumalani S, Weatherbee O, Morris K S 1992 Margerum R D, Born S M 1995 Integrated environmental
Predictive modelling of cattail and waterlily distribution in a management: moving from theory to practice. Journal of
South Carolina Reservoir using GIS. Photogrammetric Environmental Planning and Management 38: 371–91
Engineering and Remote Sensing 58: 1561–8
Margules C R 1989 Introduction to some Australian
Johnson A R, Wiens J A, Milne B T, Crist T O 1992 Animal developments in conservation evaluation. Biological
movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous Conservation 50: 1–11
landscapes. Landscape Ecology 7: 63–75
McKendry J E, Machlis G E 1991 The role of geography in
Johnson L B 1990 Analysing spatial and temporal phenomena extending biodiversity gap analysis. Applied Geography
using geographical information systems: a review of 11: 135–52
ecological applications. Landscape Ecology 4: 31–43
McKenzie N L, Belbin L, Margules C R, Keighery G J 1989
Johnston C A, Naiman R J 1990 The use of a geographical Selecting representative reserve systems in remote areas: a
information system to analyse long-term landscape case study of the Nullarbor Region, Australia. Biological
alteration by beaver. Landscape Ecology 4: 5–19 Conservation 50: 239–61
Jørgensen S E, Patten B, Stra-kraba M 1992 Ecosystems McMichael A J 1993 Planetary overload: global environmental
emerging: toward an ecology of complex systems in a change and the health of the human species. Cambridge (UK),
complex future. Ecological Modelling 62: 1–27 Cambridge University Press
Kangas J, Kuusipalo J 1993 Integrating biodiversity into forest Miller D R, Aspinall R J, Morrice J G 1992 Recreation
management planning and decision-making. Forest Ecology potential and management in the Cairngorms: use of GIS
and Management 61: 1–15 for analysis of landscape in an area of high scenic value. In
Kelly G A 1955 The psychology of personal constructs. New Cadoux-Hudson J, Heywood D I (eds) The yearbook of the
York, Norton Association for Geographic Information 1992/3. London,
Taylor and Francis: 82–92
Klijn F, Udo de Haes H A 1994 A hierarchical approach to
ecosystems and its implications for ecological land Milne B T, Johnston K M, Forman R T T 1989 Scale-
classification. Landscape Ecology 9: 89–104 dependent proximity of wildlife habitat in a spatially-neutral
Bayesian model. Landscape Ecology 2: 101–10
Kruess A, Tscharntke T 1994 Habitat fragmentation, species
Mooney H A 1991 Emergence of the study of global ecology:
loss and biological control. Science 264: 1581–4
is terrestrial ecology an impediment to progress? Ecological
Krummel J R, Gardner R H, Suguhara G, O’Neill R V, Applications 1: 2–5
Coleman P R 1987 Landscape patterns in a disturbed
Moore D M, Lees B G, Davey S M 1991 A new method for
environment. Oikos 48: 321–4
predicting vegetation distributions using decision tree
Kupfer J A 1995 Landscape ecology and biogeography. analysis in a geographical information system. Environmental
Progress in Physical Geography 19: 18–34 Management 15: 59–71
Lees B G, Ritman K 1991 Decision-tree and rule induction Mwalyosi R B B 1991 Ecological evaluation for wildlife
approach to integration of remotely sensed and GIS data in corridors and buffer zones for Lake Manyara National Park,
mapping vegetation in disturbed hilly environments. Tanzania, and its immediate environment. Biological
Environmental Management 15: 823–31 Conservation 57: 171–86
Lescourret F, Genard M 1994 Habitat, landscape and bird Nelder V J, Crossley D C, Cofinas M 1995 Using geographical
composition in mountain forest fragments. Journal of information systems (GIS) to determine the adequacy of
Environmental Management 40: 317–28 sampling in vegetation surveys. Biological Conservation 73: 1–17

978
 GIS and landscape conservation

Norton T W, Nix H A 1991 Application of biological modelling approach to simulating animal/habitat

modelling and GIS to identify regional wildlife corridors. In interactions. Ecological Modelling 44: 125–41
Saunders D A, Hobbs R J (eds) Nature conservation 2: the Sætersdal M, Birks H J B 1993 Assessing the
role of corridors. Canberra, Surrey Beatty and Sons: 19–26 representativeness of nature reserves using multivariate
Olsen E R, Ramsey R D, Winn D S 1993 A modified fractal analysis: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous
dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. forests, western Norway. Biological Conservation 65: 121–32
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59: 1517–20 Salski A 1992 Fuzzy knowledge-based models in ecological
O’Neill R V, Gardner R H, Turner M G 1992a A hierarchical research. Ecological Modelling 63: 103–12
neutral model for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecology Schmiegelow F K A 1990 The use of atlas data to test
7: 55–61 appropriate hypotheses about faunal collapse. In Ingram B
O’Neill R V, Gardner R H, Turner M G, Romme W H 1992b (ed.) Landscape approaches to wildlife and ecosystem
Epidemiology theory and disturbance spread on landscapes. management in Canada. Montreal, Polyscience
Landscape Ecology 7: 19–26 Schulz T T, Joyce L A 1992 A spatial application of a marten
Pastor J, Broschart M 1990 The spatial pattern of a northern habitat model. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 74–83
conifer-hardwood landscape. Landscape Ecology 4: 55–68 Scott J M, Davis F, Csuti B, Noss R, Buttenfield B, Groves C,
Pereira J M C, Itami R M 1991 GIS-based habitat modelling Anderson H, Caicco S, D’Erchia F, Edwards T C, Ulliman J,
using logistic multiple regression: a case study of the Mount Wright R G 1993 GAP Analysis: a geographical approach to
Graham red squirrel. Photogrammetric Engineering and protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123: 1–41
Remote Sensing 57: 1475–86 Simmons M A, Cullinan V I, Thomas J M 1992 Satellite
Perrings C, Folke C, Mäler K-G 1992 The ecology and imagery as a tool to evaluate ecological scale. Landscape
economics of biodiversity loss: the research agenda. Ecology 7: 77–85
Ambio 21: 201–11 Simon H 1969 The architecture of complexity. In Simon H
Petch J R, Kolejka J 1993 The tradition of landscape ecology (ed.) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge (USA), MIT
in Czechoslovakia. In Haines-Young R, Green D R, Cousins Press
S (eds) Landscape ecology and geographical information Simpson I A, Dennis P (eds) 1996 The spatial dynamics of
systems. London, Taylor and Francis: 39–56 biodiversity: towards an understanding of spatial patterns and
Plotnick R E, Gardner R H, O’Neill R V 1993 Lacunarity indices processes in the landscape. Garstang, IALE (UK)
as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–11 Sokal R R, Oden N L, Barker J S F 1987 Spatial structure in
Probst J R, Weinrich J 1993 Relating Kirtland’s warbler Drosophila buzzatii populations: simple and directional
population to changing landscape composition and spatial autocorrelation. The American Naturalist 129: 122–42
structure. Landscape Ecology 8: 257–71 Soriano A, Paruelo J M 1992 Biozones: vegetation units
Qi Y, Wu J 1996 Effects of changing spatial resolution on the defined by functional characters identifiable with the aid of
results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial satellite sensor images. Global Ecology and Biogeography
autocorrelation indices. Landscape Ecology 11: 39–49 Letters 2: 82–9
Ratcliffe D A (ed.) 1977 A nature conservation review. Oxford, Stamps J A, Buechner M, Krishnan V V 1987 The effects of
Oxford University Press edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from
Rhind D W 1991b Geographical information systems and patches of habitat. The American Naturalist 129: 533–52
environmental problems. International Social Science Journal Stoms D M 1992 Effects of habitat map generalization in
XLIII: 649–68 biodiversity assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Robertson G P 1987 Geostatistics in ecology: interpolating Remote Sensing 58: 1587–91
with known variance. Ecology 68: 744–8 Stoms D M, Davis F W, Cogan C B 1992 Sensitivity of wildlife
Robertson J G M, Eknert B, Ihse M 1990 Habitat analysis habitat models to uncertainties in GIS data. Photogrammetric
from infra-red aerial photographs and the conservation of Engineering and Remote Sensing 58: 843–50
birds in Swedish agricultural landscapes. Ambio 19: 195–203 Stoms D M, Estes J E 1993 A remote sensing research agenda
Rossi R E, Mulla D J, Journel A G, Franz E H 1992 for mapping and monitoring biodiversity. International
Geostatistical tools for modelling and interpreting ecological Journal of Remote Sensing 14: 1839–60
spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62: 277–314 Stow D A 1993 The role of geographical information systems
Roughgarden J, Running S W, Matson P A 1991 What does for landscape ecological studies. In Haines-Young R, Green
remote sensing do for ecology? Ecology 72: 1918–22 D R, Cousins S (eds) Landscape ecology and geographical
Saarenmaa H, Perttunen J, Väkevä J, Nikula A 1994 Object- information systems. London, Taylor and Francis: 11–21
oriented modelling of tasks and agents in integrated forest Swanson T M 1992 Economics of a biodiversity convention.
health management. AI Applications 8: 43–59 Ambio 21: 250–7
Saarenmaa H, Stone N D, Folse L J, Packard J M, Grant W E Taylor P D, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G 1993 Connectivity
Makela M E, Coulson R N 1988 An artificial intelligence is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–3

979
R J Aspinall

Thomas C D, Abery J C G 1995 Estimating rates of butterfly Walker P A, Faith D P 1993 DIVERSITY: a software package
decline from distribution maps: the effects of scale. for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity.
Biological Conservation 73: 59–65 Division of Wildlife and Ecology, CSIRO, Lyneham,
Tilman D 1994 Competition and biodiversity in spatially ACT, Australia
structured habitats. Ecology 75: 2–16 Walker P A, Moore D M 1988 SIMPLE: an inductive
Turner M G 1990 Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape modelling and mapping tool for spatially-oriented data.
patterns. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30 International Journal of Geographical Information Systems
2: 347–63
Turner M G, Gardner R H, Dale V H, O’Neill R V 1989
Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogenous Walker P A, Walker M D 1991 History and pattern of
landscapes. Oikos 55: 121–9 disturbance in Alaskan terrestrial ecosystems: a hierarchical
approach to analysing landscape change. Journal of Applied
UNEP 1992 Convention on biological diversity. UNEP
Ecology 28: 244–76
Environmental Law and Institutions Programme Activity
Centre, Nairobi, Kenya Wallin D O, Elliott C C H, Shugart H H, Tucker C J, Wilhelmi
F 1992 Satellite remote sensing of breeding habitat for an
UNEP 1994 Guidelines for country studies on biological
African weaver-bird. Landscape Ecology 7: 87–99
diversity. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi, Kenya Wheeler D J 1993 Commentary: linking environmental models
with geographical information systems for global change
Unwin T 1992 The place of geography. Harlow, Longman
research. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
Vail S G 1993 Scale-dependent responses to resource spatial 59: 1497–501
pattern in simple models of consumer movement. The
Wickham J D, Norton D J 1994 Mapping and analyzing
American Naturalist 141: 199–216
landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 9: 7–23
Verboom J, Schotman A, Opdam P, Metz J A J 1991
Wiens J A 1992 What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape
European nuthatch metapopulations in fragmented
Ecology 7: 149–50
agricultural landscape. Oikos 61: 149–56
Walker P A 1990 Modelling wildlife distributions using a Wiens J, Stenseth N C, Horne B van, Ims R A 1993 Ecological
geographical information system: kangaroos in relation to mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–80
climate. Journal of Biogeography 17: 279–89 Wolfram S 1984 Cellular automata as models of complexity.
Walker P A, Cocks K D 1991 HABITAT: a procedure for Nature 311: 419–23
modelling a disjoint environmental envelope for a plant World Commission on Environment and Development
or animal species. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters (WCED) 1987 Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford
1: 108–18 University Press

980