Security patterns and surface model in landscape ecological planning

Abstract It is demonstrated that there are potential spatial patterns, called security patterns (SPs), composed of strategic portions and positions of the landscape that have critical significance in safeguarding and controlling certain ecological processes. Components of security patterns have the quality of initiative, coordination and efficiency, and are, therefore, strategically important in landscape change in biological conservation. SPs can be identified according to the properties on a general surface model of flows. Potential surfaces (accessibility surfaces) are developed using landscape resistance to represent the dynamics of horizontal ecological processes (species movement). Four strategic landscape portions and positions are identified on the potential surfaces: buffer zones, inter-source linkages, radiating routes and strategic points. These components, specified by certain quantitative and qualitative parameters, together with the identified sources (native habitats), compose the ecological SPs at various security levels. SPs may vary with the target species. Individual SPs for various target species or groups can be combined in cases when overall ecological SPs are needed. These SPs could be used by defenders of ecological processes as defensive frontiers and strategies of spatial bartering in landscape changes. A case study is presented following the discussion on the concept and method of ecological security patterns. The GIS (geographical information systems) is intensively applied in the case study.

[1]  R. Gardner,et al.  Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology , 1991 .

[2]  C. Williamson.  Linking Predation Risk Models with Behavioral Mechanisms: Identifying Population Bottlenecks , 1993 .

[3]  M. Scheffer,et al.  Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning , 1992 .

[4]  P. Selman,et al.  A landscape ecological approach to countryside planning , 1991 .

[5]  Lee E. Frelich,et al.  Patch Formation and Maintenance in an Old‐Growth Hemlock‐Hardwood Forest , 1993 .

[6]  F. Sklar,et al.  The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape ecology: a review and prognosis , 1991 .

[7]  M. Turner,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY : The Effect of Pattern on Process 1 , 2002 .

[8]  Gunnar Olsson,et al.  Distance and human interaction : a review and bibliography , 1965 .

[9]  Larry D. Harris,et al.  Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scales , 1986 .

[10]  O. H. Frankel,et al.  Conservation and Evolution , 1983 .

[11]  W. Tobler.  A Model of Geographical Movement , 1981 .

[12]  Ian L. McHarg,et al.  Human ecological planning at Pennsylvania , 1981 .

[13]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Ecological Planning: Retrospect and Prospect , 1988 .

[14]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes , 1995, Springer Netherlands.

[15]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective , 1980 .

[16]  Peter Haggett,et al.  Trend-Surface Mapping in Geographical Research , 1965 .

[17]  T. Erwin.  An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. , 1991, Science.

[18]  Ted Baker,et al.  ECOLOGY OF GREENWAYS , 1994, Landscape Journal.

[19]  Kongjian Yu.  Security patterns in landscape planning : with a case in South China , 1995 .

[20]  D. Green,et al.  Landscape ecology and geographic information systems , 1994 .

[21]  R. Forman,et al.  Boundary Form Effects on Woody Colonization of Reclaimed Surface Mines , 1989 .

[22]  I Bracken.  A surface model approach to small area population estimation. , 1991, The Town planning review.

[23]  Duane F. Marble,et al.  Spatial Analysis: A Reader in Statistical Geography , 1968 .