Dimensions of landscape diversity: ecological indicators for landscape protection planning

Dimensions of landscape diversity: ecological indicators for landscape protection planning The European Land Use Institute Sheraton Four Point Hotel Dresden, May 17-20, 2011 Session Science and Practice Supporting RRM Daniele La Rosa, Francesco Martinico, Riccardo Privitera Department of Architecture University of Catania 095/7382528 - dlarosa@darc.unict.it

Summary Background and aims of the works The study area Method Preparation of data Choice of indicators Indicators calculation Results Guidelines for the landscape planning procedure

Aims of the work Landscape diversity assessment as a support of a Landscape Plan at regional scale (Province of Enna, Italy) Threats to agricultural landscape - Loss of biodiversity and provided ecosystem services by different human disturbances (urban sprawl, agricultural practices, roads construction, ) - Landscape fragmentation The approach Based on a reduced set of landscape indicators Based on indirect measures (land use classes) quantitative geographically representable (maps for communication)

The study area (1/2) The province of Enna Surface (Km 2 ) Population (2001 census) Density (inh/ Km 2 ) Enna 2 556 177 200 69.3 Sicily 25 712 4 968 991 193.2

The study area (2/2) Landscape features Water Ancipa Lake Ogliastro Lake

The study area (2/2) Landscape features Natural Areas Sambugheti Reserve

The study area (2/2) Landscape features Agriculture

The study area (2/2) Landscape features Archeological and historical heritage Morgantina Villa Romana del Casale Leonforte

Method (1/6) - overview Phases 1) Preparation of the land use dataset and definition of Land Units (LU) Geoprocessing and manual identification of LU 2) Indicators choice Literature references of most used indicators Number of patches (ND) Land-Use Richness (DIV 1) Shannon Eterogeneity (DIV 2) Dominance (DIV 3) Connectivity (C) 3) Indicators calculation By GIS

Method (2/6) Preparation of data set Definition of 19 Landscape Units (LU), of different dimension, by geographical omogeneity (Banko et al. 2003) LU as geographical units for landscape indicators calculation Overcoming calculation limits due to the raster approach (influence of cell boundaries in indicators scores) Diversification of diversity features inside the study area Possibility to better communicate results (mapping) to stakeholders of the planning procedures

Method (3/6) Available data Land Use Map, 1:5000-1: 10000 (Prato, 2008)

Method (4/6)- indicators choice Indicators for landscape diversity: a brief background Wide use of indicators from landscape ecology in landscape assessment, since Fragstats (McGarigal & Marks, 1995; McGarigal et al., 2002) 3 periods of landscape indicators (Rutledge, 2003): proliferation (80ies-90ies), re-evaluation (90ies-00ies), redirection (00ies - today?) High correlation of the metrics >>> (Riitters et al, 1995) because of the limited number of primary measurements (land use classes), indices derived from these measurements are very highly intercorrelated High dependence on data resolution, number of classes in available data-set Need of a reduced set of metrics based on: the aim of the work data availability Dimensions of diversity in landscape planning: Biodiversity (Schindler et al. 2008) Heterogeneity (Wrbka et al., 2004; Cadenasso et al, 2006) Connectivity (Burel and Baudry, 2005; Cadenasso et al, 2006)

Method (5/6)- chosen indicators Number of patches (ND) Land-Use Richness (DIV 1) # of total patches / ha: density of # of land-use classes Shannon Diversity (DIV 2) Dominance (DIV 3) Connectance (C) measure of the diversity of land-use classes, taking into account their number and dimension measure of the prevalence of particular landuse class; Measure of the connection as the number of functional joinings between patches of the corresponding patch type

Method (6/6) indicators calculation V-Late (Lang S., Tiede D., 2003): ArcGis 9.x. Extension (DIV1, DIV2, DIV3) FragStats (McGarigal K.et al., 2002) (C) 112 Aree costruite 121 Aree costruite produttive 211 seminativi 212 Colture ortive 221 vigneti 222 frutteti 223 oliveti 241 seminativi arborati 242 sistemi colturali complessi 321 pascoli ed incolti 324 Aree boscate 332 aree prive di vegetazione 511 Valloni e corsi d'acqua 512 bacini di acqua 2221 agrumeti 2223 mandorleti 2224 ficodindieti 2225 Ficodindia/Olivo 2226 noccioleti 2227 Noccioleti 3321 masserie 3322 Vivai e serre.raster conversion.. Landscape level in indicators calculation Urbanised land-uses not included in indicators calculation

Results (1/5) 11_1 11_2 11_3 11_4 11_5 11_6 12_01 12_02 12_03 12_04 12_05 12_06 12_07 12_08 12_09 12_10 12_11 12_12 12_13 Numero di patch per N ettaro 0,137 0,145 0,085 0,082 0,195 0,058 0,030 0,041 0,078 0,083 0,029 0,104 0,143 0,060 0,083 0,044 0,096 0,058 0,049 Ricchezza Div1 16 16 14 14 13 13 17 16 14 17 16 15 16 13 12 11 15 15 15 Eterogeneità paesistica di Shannon Div2 1,759 1,959 1,632 1,256 1,816 1,226 1,869 1,043 1,209 1,517 0,941 1,827 1,787 1,259 1,673 1,143 1,707 1,473 1,392 Dominanza Div3 1,014 0,813 1,076 1,383 0,749 1,339 0,964 1,729 1,43 1,316 1,831 0,881 0,985 1,306 0,812 1,255 1,001 1,235 1,316 Connettività C 21,55 27,81 30,01 15,12 27,88 15,55 16,10 7,26 13,32 6,80 19,31 20,19 29,81 14,98 58,50 15,87 17,09 13,40 8,28 Summary of results Equal interval mapping N DIV1 DIV2 DIV3 C

Results (2/5) 11_1 11_2 11_3 11_4 11_5 11_6 12_01 12_02 12_03 12_04 12_05 12_06 12_07 12_08 12_09 12_10 12_11 12_12 12_13 Numero di patch per N ettaro 0,137 0,145 0,085 0,082 0,195 0,058 0,030 0,041 0,078 0,083 0,029 0,104 0,143 0,060 0,083 0,044 0,096 0,058 0,049 Ricchezza Div1 16 16 14 14 13 13 17 16 14 17 16 15 16 13 12 11 15 15 15 Eterogeneità paesistica di Shannon Div2 1,759 1,959 1,632 1,256 1,816 1,226 1,869 1,043 1,209 1,517 0,941 1,827 1,787 1,259 1,673 1,143 1,707 1,473 1,392 Dominanza Div3 1,014 0,813 1,076 1,383 0,749 1,339 0,964 1,729 1,43 1,316 1,831 0,881 0,985 1,306 0,812 1,255 1,001 1,235 1,316 Connettività C 21,55 27,81 30,01 15,12 27,88 15,55 16,10 7,26 13,32 6,80 19,31 20,19 29,81 14,98 58,50 15,87 17,09 13,40 8,28 Summary of results N Smaller LU have higher patch density High patch density in southern agricultural areas Low density in intensive agricultural areas or more natural area

Results (3/5) 11_1 11_2 11_3 11_4 11_5 11_6 12_01 12_02 12_03 12_04 12_05 12_06 12_07 12_08 12_09 12_10 12_11 12_12 12_13 Numero di patch per N ettaro 0,137 0,145 0,085 0,082 0,195 0,058 0,030 0,041 0,078 0,083 0,029 0,104 0,143 0,060 0,083 0,044 0,096 0,058 0,049 Ricchezza Div1 16 16 14 14 13 13 17 16 14 17 16 15 16 13 12 11 15 15 15 Eterogeneità paesistica di Shannon Div2 1,759 1,959 1,632 1,256 1,816 1,226 1,869 1,043 1,209 1,517 0,941 1,827 1,787 1,259 1,673 1,143 1,707 1,473 1,392 Dominanza Div3 1,014 0,813 1,076 1,383 0,749 1,339 0,964 1,729 1,43 1,316 1,831 0,881 0,985 1,306 0,812 1,255 1,001 1,235 1,316 Connettività C 21,55 27,81 30,01 15,12 27,88 15,55 16,10 7,26 13,32 6,80 19,31 20,19 29,81 14,98 58,50 15,87 17,09 13,40 8,28 Summary of results DIV1 Higher diversity in Agricultural mosaics LU DIV 2 LU area does not influence D1 (R 2 =.14) DIV1 / AREA 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Light correlation N- DIV2 (R 2 =.45) 2,5 2 1,5 1 N/ DIV2 0,5 0 0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200

Results (4/5) 11_1 11_2 11_3 11_4 11_5 11_6 12_01 12_02 12_03 12_04 12_05 12_06 12_07 12_08 12_09 12_10 12_11 12_12 12_13 Numero di patch per N ettaro 0,137 0,145 0,085 0,082 0,195 0,058 0,030 0,041 0,078 0,083 0,029 0,104 0,143 0,060 0,083 0,044 0,096 0,058 0,049 Ricchezza Div1 16 16 14 14 13 13 17 16 14 17 16 15 16 13 12 11 15 15 15 Eterogeneità paesistica di Shannon Div2 1,759 1,959 1,632 1,256 1,816 1,226 1,869 1,043 1,209 1,517 0,941 1,827 1,787 1,259 1,673 1,143 1,707 1,473 1,392 Dominanza Div3 1,014 0,813 1,076 1,383 0,749 1,339 0,964 1,729 1,43 1,316 1,831 0,881 0,985 1,306 0,812 1,255 1,001 1,235 1,316 Connettività C 21,55 27,81 30,01 15,12 27,88 15,55 16,10 7,26 13,32 6,80 19,31 20,19 29,81 14,98 58,50 15,87 17,09 13,40 8,28 Summary of results DIV3 Highly correlated with DIV2 (R 2 =.86) DIV2/DIV3 2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5 1,7 1,9 High dominance in croplands (wheat fields)

Results (5/5) 11_1 11_2 11_3 11_4 11_5 11_6 12_01 12_02 12_03 12_04 12_05 12_06 12_07 12_08 12_09 12_10 12_11 12_12 12_13 Numero di patch per N ettaro 0,137 0,145 0,085 0,082 0,195 0,058 0,030 0,041 0,078 0,083 0,029 0,104 0,143 0,060 0,083 0,044 0,096 0,058 0,049 Ricchezza Div1 16 16 14 14 13 13 17 16 14 17 16 15 16 13 12 11 15 15 15 Eterogeneità paesistica di Shannon Div2 1,759 1,959 1,632 1,256 1,816 1,226 1,869 1,043 1,209 1,517 0,941 1,827 1,787 1,259 1,673 1,143 1,707 1,473 1,392 Dominanza Div3 1,014 0,813 1,076 1,383 0,749 1,339 0,964 1,729 1,43 1,316 1,831 0,881 0,985 1,306 0,812 1,255 1,001 1,235 1,316 Connettività C 21,55 27,81 30,01 15,12 27,88 15,55 16,10 7,26 13,32 6,80 19,31 20,19 29,81 14,98 58,50 15,87 17,09 13,40 8,28 Summary of results C Agricultural and smaller LU have the higher connectivity (Any dipendence on area?) Area / C 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 111000 611000 1111000 1611000 2111000 2611000 No correlation between C and DIV1, DIV2, DIV3 Naturality does not necessarily mean diversity (LU with less human disturbance do not always have high diversity scores)

Landscape Planning procedure (1/2) Framework for landscape zoning S Re U Ge Landscape Diversity High landscape value yes Integrity no high Value low General landscapes value high low Definition of norms and zones for: S Re Safeguard Re-habilitation U Ge Upgrading General Landscapes sostituire

Landscape Planning procedure (1/2) Tutela - Livello 3 (art. 20) Tutela - Livello 2 (art. 20) Tutela - Livello 1 (art. 20) Centri e nuclei storici, paesaggi urbani di pregio Riqualificazione Paesaggi agrari ordinari Paesaggi urbani compatti e dispersi Paesaggi industriali e della produzione

Landscape Planning procedure (2/2) Guidelines for landscape planning (Nassauer & Corry, 2004; Botequilla Ahern, 2002) If a LU has a high diversity scores, landscape features inside increase their safeguard level (from level 1 to level 2; from level 2 to level 3) Getting particular indications for re-habilitation or upgrading norms (e.g. by not allowing further fragmentation) Allowing new agricultural land uses in areas with low diversity (northern grasslands or croplands) Safeguarding connections (by not allowing built up areas or linear infrastructures causing fragmentation) Increasing connections in low connected LU with restoration of patches to natural state as parts of a green network

Landscape Planning procedure (2/2) Guidelines for landscape planning (Nassauer & Corry, 2004; Botequilla Ahern, 2002) If a LU has a high diversity scores, landscape features inside increase their safeguard level (from level 1 to level 2; from level 2 to level 3) Getting particular indications for re-habilitation or upgrading norms (e.g. by not allowing further fragmentation) Allowing new agricultural land uses in areas with low diversity (northern grasslands or croplands) Safeguarding connections (by not allowing built up areas or linear infrastructures causing fragmentation) Increasing connections in low connected LU with restoration of patches to natural state as parts of a green network

Conclusion Diversity landscape indicators may play an useful role in landscape planning Landscape Units are the more suitable spatial domain for indicators calculation Agricultural landscapes present the more diversity in our study area Appropriate indications and land-use norms must be implemented In Landscape Units with high diversity (increasing safeguard levels or rehabilitation indications)

Dimensions of landscape diversity: ecological indicators for landscape protection planning Thank you! Daniele La Rosa, Francesco Martinico, Riccardo Privitera Department of Architecture University of Catania 095/7382528 - dlarosa@darc.unict.it