Biodiversity Impact Assessment of roads: An approach based on ecosystem rarity

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 343-365

  Geneletti, Davide ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Ecosystem; Impact; Rarity; Road; Space occupation

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HIGHWAY ENGINEERING; PUBLIC POLICY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (BIA);

BIODIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; NATURE CONSERVATION; ROAD CONSTRUCTION; ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENT;

ITALY;

BIA;

EID: 0038670598     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00099-9     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alkema D, Geneletti D, Cavallin A, van Asch T, Fabbri A, Zanchi A, et al. Integrated datasets, GIS and 3D-system analysis for environmental impact assessment in a large alpine valley north of Trento (Italy). Proceedings of the XXVth International Symposium on Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Amsterdam; 2000.
2. Andreis C. L'analisi della componente floristico-vegetazionale nel quadro ecosistemico delle procedure di VIA. In: Vismara R, Zavatti A, editors. Indicatori e scale di qualita. Bologna: Pitagora; 1996. p. 243-66.
3. Antunes P, Santos R, Jordão L. The application of geographical information systems to determine environmental impact significance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2001;21:511-35.
4. Atkinson SF, Bhatia S, Schoolmaster F, Waller AWT. Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2000;18:271-82.
5. Austin MP, Margules CR. Assessing representativeness. In: Usher MB, editor. Wildlife conservation evaluation. London: Chapman & Hall; 1986. p. 45-67.
6. Awimbo JA, Norton DA, Overmars FB. An evaluation of representativeness for nature conservation, Hokitika Ecological District, New Zealand. Biological Conservation 1996;75:177-86.
7. Byron HJ. Biodiversity issues in road environmental impact assessments: guidance and case studies. In: Evink GL, Garrett P, Zeigler D, editors. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation; 1999. p. 211-20.
8. Byron HJ, Treweek J, Veitch N, Sheate WR, Thompson S. Road developments in the UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between 1993 and 1997. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2000;43:71-97.
9. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. A guide on biodiversity and environmental impact assessment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services; 1996.
10. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the national environmental policy act. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1993.
11. Cook EA. Ecological networks in urban landscapes. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen; 2000.
12. Csuti B, Kiester AR. Hierarchical gap analysis for identifying priority areas for biodiversity. In: Scott JM, Tear TH, Davis FW, editors. Gap analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Bethesda: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; 1996. p. 25-37.
13. Cuperus R, Canters KJ, de Haes HAU, Friedman DS. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation 1999;90:40-51.
14. Cuperus R, Bakermans MM, de Haes HAU, Canters KJ. Ecological compensation in Dutch highway planning. Environmental Management 2001;27(1):75-89.
15. De Amicis M, Geneletti D, Ravazzi C, Zanchi A. Environmental impact assessment in a natural park: the case of a motorway construction in the "Pareo dei Colli di Bergamo" (Italy). In: Ommbelli G, editor. Studi geografici e geologici in onore di Severino Belloni. Genova: Glauco Brigati; 1999. p. 303-23.
16. Dee N, Baker JK, Drobny NL, Duke KM, Fahringer DC. Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Columbus, OH: Battelle-Columbus Laboratories; 1972.
17. Diamantini C, Zanon B. Planning the urban sustainable development. The case of the plan for the province of Trento, Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2000;20:299-310.
18. DoT (Department of Transport). Design manual for roads and bridges. London: HMSO; 1993.
19. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Considering ecological processes in environmental impact assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Federal Activities; 1999.
20. Fandiño, M. Framework for ecological evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Enschede: ITC publication 45, 1996.
21. Forman RTT. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 2000;14(1):31-5.
22. Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1998;29:207-31.
23. Geneletti D. Using classification and spatial index techniques on remotely sensed data for environmental impact assessment. Proceedings of the 28th international symposium on remote sensing of the environment, Cape Town; 2000.
24. Geneletti D. Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies; 2002.
25. Geneletti, D. Using satellite imagery and ancillary data for land cover mapping in the central part of the Autonomous Province of Trento, northern Italy. In: Fabbri A, Castaldini D, Cendrero A, editors. Geomorphology and Environmental Impact Assessment of Transportation Systems. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies, in press.
26. Geneletti D, Pistocchi A. Landscape ecology for sustainable land use planning: a GIS approach in a man-dominated landscape. In: Belward A, Binaghi E, Brivio PA, Lanzarone GA, Tosi G, editors. Proceedings of the international workshop on geo-spatial knowledge processing for natural resource management. Varese: University of Insubria; 2001. p. 244-8.
27. George C. Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1999;19:175-200.
28. Heinrich D, Hergt M. Atlante di ecologia. Milano: Hoepli; 1996.
29. Hess GR, King TJ. Planning open spaces for wildlife: I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002;58:25-40.
30. IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment). Proposed conceptual and procedural framework for the integration of biological diversity considerations with national systems for impact assessment. Utrecht: Commissie voor de milieueffectrapportage; 2001.
31. Jongman R. Ecological network in Europe. Congruent development. In: Arts GHP, van Buuren M, Jongman RGH, Nowicki P, Wascher D, Hoek IHS, editors. Ecological networks. Special Issue Landschap, vol. 3. 1995. p. 3-10.
32. Lanzavecchia, S. Guida pratica alle valutazioni di impatto ambientale. Corso di formazione sulla valutazione ambientale. Unpublished lecture notes. Milano: Settore Energia, CNR; 1986.
33. Margules CR, Usher MB. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 1981;21:79-109.
34. Noss RF. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience 1983;33(11):700-6.
35. Noss RF. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 1987;41:11-37.
36. Noss RF, Cooperrider AY. Saving nature's legacy. Protecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1994.
37. Patrono, A. A study in environmental impact assessment. MSc Thesis, ITC, Enschede; 1993.
38. Pedrotti F. Carta della vegetazione del foglio Trento. Rome: CNR; 1981.
39. Pedrotti F. Carta della vegetazione del foglio Mezzolombardo. Rome: CNR; 1982.
40. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation 1989;50:199-218.
41. Sankoh OA, Bonner D, Determann J, Gersten J, Gropp A, Hoelters I, et al. Finding and assessing route alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 1993;38:323-34.
42. Scott JM, Tear TH, Davis FW, editors. Gap analysis. A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Bethesda: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; 1996.
43. Seiler A, Eriksson IM. New approaches for ecological consideration in Swedish road planning. In: Canters KJ, editor. International conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Maastricht: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management; 1995.
44. Smith B. Nature conservation and transport. Landscape Design. 1990;51-3 [May].
45. Smith PGR, Theberge JB. A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environmental Management 1986;10(6):715-34.
46. Southerland MT. Conserving biodiversity in highway development projects. The Environmental Professional 1995;17:226-42.
47. Spellemberg IF. Evaluation and assessment for conservation. London: Chapman & Hall; 1992.
48. Stoms DM. GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 2000;15:21-33.
49. Thompson S, Treweek JR, Veicth N, Thurling DJ. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of environmental Planning and Management 1997;40(2):157-71.
50. Treweek J, Veitch N. The potential application of GIS and remotely sensed data to the ecological assessment of proposed new road schemes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 1996;5:249-57.
51. Treweek JR, Thompson S, Veicht N, Japp C. Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1993;36(3):295-307.
52. Treweek J, Hankard P, Roy DB, Arnold H, Thompson S. Scope for strategic ecological assessment of trunk-road development in England with respect to potential impacts on lowland heathland, the Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Journal of Environmental Management 1998;53:147-63.
53. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 2000;14(1):18-30.
54. UNCED (United Nations Commission on Environment and Development). Convention on biological diversity. Rio de Janeiro: UNCED; 1992.
55. Wittig R, Armitage MT, Firse MT, Moss D. A quick method for assessing the importance of open spaces in towns for urban nature conservation. Biological Conservation 1983;26:57-64.
56. Wright DF. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves. Biological Conservation 1977;11:293-305.