Scenario Analysis with Performance Indicators: a Case Study for Forest Linkage Restoration

  • David V Pullar
  • David Lamb
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Regional conservation programs have as a goal the integration of protected areas into broader ecological networks. Creating landscape corridors and buffers within a land mosaic is one way to support the functional viability of landscapes. Implementing these programmes on the ground is problematic, however, especially in areas with a mix of land uses and fragmented forests. In such cases it is necessary to prioritise restoration decisions to balance the benefits against the cost of restoration efforts. We approach this as a planning problem to work with stakeholders to explore options that find a balance between the environmental benefits and costs. The options are mapped onto the landscape as scenarios and then evaluated in a GIS planning support system. This chapter describes a methodology for prioritising restoration efforts and applies this to a hypothetical study for northern Australia. Spatial indicators are used to assess alternate options for vegetation corridors linking forest remnants. The indicators mainly measure spatial structure, but also aim to incorporate knowledge on provision of landscape ecological functions. The indicators assess both site level and landscape benefits. Diagnostic spatial indicators and scenarios are developed generically within GIS so the approach may be tuned to different applications and planning problems.


Landscape Ecology Scenario Analysis Crater Lake Landscape Connectivity Ecological Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahern J (1999) Spatial concepts, planning strategies and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Klopatek J, Gardner R (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp 175–201Google Scholar
  2. Bennett G (2004) Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological networks. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biological Conservation 133(2):250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botequilha Leitão A, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Chetkiewicz C-L, St Clair C, Boyce M (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 37:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3–4):175–186Google Scholar
  7. Erskine PD (2002) Land clearing and forest rehabilitation in the Wet Tropics of north Queensland, Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration 3:135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forman RT (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10(3):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons P, Freudenberger, D (2006) An overview of methods used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the site. Ecological Management and Restoration 7(1):10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawkins V, Selman P (2002) Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land use scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(4):211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hersperger AM (2006) Spatial adjacencies and interactions – neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecological planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jongman R, Külvik M, Kristiansen I (2004) European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamb D (2005) Scenario modelling to optimise outcomes. International Tropical Timber Organisation Technical Series 23:117–124Google Scholar
  15. Lamb D, Erskine P, Parrotta J (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310:1628–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawson T, Gillieson D, Goosem M (2007) Assessment of riparian rainforest vegetation change in tropical north Queensland for management and restoration purposes. Geographical Research 45(4):387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malczewski J (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning 62(1):3–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marulli J, Mallarach JM (2005) A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145Google Scholar
  20. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 19(4):343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18(2):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Opdam P, Steingröver E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graphbased landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorisation of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecology 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schumaker N (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tucker N (2000) Linkage restoration: interpreting fragmentation theory for the design of a rainforest linkage in the humid wet tropics of north-eastern Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 1(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tucker NIJ, Murphy TM (1997) The effect of ecological rehabilitation on vegetation recruitment: some observations from the wet tropics of north Queensland. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management 99:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36(1):319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner M, Gardner R, O’Neill R (2001) landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. UN (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, August 2002. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 2(5):1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vos C, Verboom J, Opdam P, Ter Braak C (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. The American Naturalist 157(1):24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White E, Tucker N, Meyers N, Wilson J (2004) Seed dispersal to revegetated isolated rainforest patches in North Queensland. Forest Ecology and Management 192:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David V Pullar
    • 1
  • David Lamb
    • 1
  1. 1.Geography, Planning and ArchitectureThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations