Ranking of habitats for the assessment of ecological impact in land use planning

Biological Conservation

Volumn 77, Issue 2-3, 1996, Pages 227-234

  Rossi, E ^a   Kuitunen, M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH   (United States)

Author keywords

conservation biology; conservation value; ecological impact analysis; EIA; GIS; habitat ranking; threat category

Indexed keywords

HABITAT RANKING; LAND-USE PLANNING;

FINLAND;

AMPHIBIA; AVES; MAMMALIA; PICEA; REPTILIA; RIPARIA; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 0030303768     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00139-5     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L. & Jalas, J. (1968). Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fennici, 5, 169-211.
2. Alatalo, R. V. (1981). Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology. Oikos, 37, 199-204.
3. Atkinson, S. F. (1990). A simplified habitat evaluation for use with remote sensing data. Environ. Prof., 12, 122-30.
4. Box, J. & Forbes, J. (1992). Ecological considerations in the environmental assessment of road proposals. Highways and Transportation, April, 16-22.
5. Cable, T., Brack, V. & Holmes, V. (1989). Simplified method for wetland habitat assessment. Environ. Manage., 13, 207-13.
6. Fiedler, P. L. & Ahouse, J. J. (1992). Hierarchies of cause: toward an understanding of rarity in vascular plant species. In Conservation Biology, ed. P. L. Fiedler & S. K. Jain. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 23-47.
7. Gaston, K. J. (1994). Rarity. Chapman & Hall. London.
8. Hanski, I. (1982). Dynamics of regional distribution: on core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos, 38, 210-21.
9. Hämet-Ahti, L., Suominen, J., Ulvinen, T., Uotila, P. & Vuokko, S. (eds) (1986). Retkeilykasvio. Luonnonsuojelun Tuki, Helsinki (in Finnish).
10. Hyytiä, K. , Kellomäki, E. & Koistinen, J. (eds) (1983). The atlas of breeding birds in Finland. Lintutieto Oy, Helsinki (in Finnish with English summary).
11. IUCN (1980). World conservation strategy. IUCN, Gland.
12. Janzen, O. (1983). No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos, 41, 402-10.
13. Koivisto, I. (1987). Suomen eläimet, osa 1. nisäkkäät. Weilin & Göös, Helsinki (in Finnish).
14. Koli, L. (1987). Suomen eläimet, osa 3. kalat, sammakkoeläimet ja matelijat. Weilin & Göös, Helsinki (in Finnish).
15. Koskimies, P. (1989). The distribution of the Finnish breeding birds. Lintutieto, Helsinki.
16. Lancia, R. A., Miller, S. D., Adams, D. A. & Hazel, D. W. (1982). Validating habitat quality assessment: an example. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 47, 96-110.
17. MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
18. Mace, G. M. & Lande, R. (1991). Assessing extinction threats: towards a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol., 5, 148-57.
19. Margules, C. R. (1984). Conservation evaluation in practice, II. Enclosed grasslands in the Yorkshire Dales, Great Britain, J. Environ. Manage., 18, 169-83.
20. Margules, C. R. & Usher, M. B. (1981). Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biol. Conserv., 21, 79-109.
21. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. & Voogd, H. (1990). Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
22. Pressey, R. L. & Nicholls, A. O. (1989). Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol. Conserv., 50, 199-218.
23. Rabinowitz, D. (1981). Seven forms of rarity. In The biological aspects of rare plant conservation, ed. H. Synge. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 205-18.
24. Rabinowitz, D., Cairns, S. & Dillon, T. (1986). Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. In Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M. Soulé. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp. 182-204.
25. Rassi, P., Kaipiainen, H., Mannerkoski, I. & Ståhls, G. (ed.) (1992). Report on the monitoring of threatened animals and plants in Finland. Finnish Governmental Publication Board, Komiteanmietintö 1991 : 30, Helsinki (in Finnish with English summary).
26. Sankovskii, A. (1992). Toward evaluation of natural objects. Environ. Manage., 16, 283-7.
27. Smith, P. G. R. & Theberge, J. B. (1986). A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environ. Manage., 10, 715-34.
28. Spellerberg, I. F. (1992). Evaluation and assessment for conservation. Chapman & Hall, London.
29. Usher, M. B. (ed.) (1986). Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London.
30. Van der Ploeg, S. W. F. & Vlijm, L. (1978). Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with particular reference to methods used in the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv., 14, 197-221.
31. Wheeler, B. D. (1988). Species richness, species rarity and conservation evaluation of rich-fen vegetation in lowland England and Wales. J. Appl. Ecol., 25, 331-53.