An integrated approach to mitigation wetland site selection: A case study in gwacheon, Korea

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 3386-3413

  Lee, Junga ^a,b   Ellis, Christopher D ^a   Choi, Yun Eui ^b   You, Soojin ^b   Chon, Jinhyung ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b Korea University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Landscape composition; Landscape configuration; Landscape connectivity; Landscape functional connectivity; Landscape indices; Landscape structure; Mitigation wetland; Site selection

Indexed keywords

CONSTRUCTED WETLAND; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; INTEGRATED APPROACH; LANDSCAPE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; MITIGATION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SITE SELECTION; WETLAND MANAGEMENT;

KOREA;

EID: 84926299005     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su7033386     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. Cowardin, L.M.; Cater, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1979; pp. 3-5.
2. Koo, B.H. Study on the classification and mapping methods of wetlands in Korea. Ph. D. Thesis, Graduate School of Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2002. Available online: http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T8727634 (accessed on 6 March 2015).
3. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 3-42.
4. Puste, A.M.; Sarkar, P.K.; Das, D.K. Balanced nitrogen economy as a flexible strategy on yield stabilizing and quality of aquatic food crops in wetland ecosystem. Sci. Chin. C Life Sci. 2005, 48, 980-987.
5. Xie, F.; Lau, M.W.N.; Stuart, S.N.; Chanson, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; Fischman, D.L. Conservation needs of amphibians in China: A review. Sci. Chin. C Life Sci. 2007, 50, 265-276.
6. Zhao, Z.; Shi, P.; Men, X.; Ouyang, F.; Ge, F. Effects of crop species richness on pest-natural enemy systems based on an experimental model system using a microlandscape. Sci. Chin. C Life Sci. 2013, 56, 758-766.
7. Beier, P.; Penrod, K.L.; Luke, C.; Spencer, W.; Cabanero, C. South coast missing linkages: Restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United States. In Connectivity Conservation; Crooks, K., Sanjayan, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 55-58.
8. Ministry of the Environment. Wetland Conservation Master Plan; Ministry of the Environment: Gwacheon, Korea, 2007; pp. 51-53.
9. Bang, S.W.; Ahn, S.Y.; Park, J.H. Study on Policy Plan for Wetland Conservation-Focused on the Wetland Banking; Korea Environment Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2006; pp. 57-60.
10. Taylor, P.D.; Fahrig, L.; Henein, K.; Merriam, G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68, 571-573.
11. With, K.A.; Gardner, R.H.; Turner, M.G. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 1997, 78, 151-169.
12. Hanski, I. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 1999, 87, 209-219.
13. Soule, M.E. Conservation biology and the "real world." Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Available online: http://www.michaelsoule.com/resource:files/172/172_resource:file1.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2010).
14. Minor, E.S.; Lookingbill, T.R. A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 1549-1558.
15. Bennett, A.F. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation; World Conservation Union: Gland, Switzerland, 2003; p. 2.
16. Clergeau, P.; Burel, F. The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: An example in a bird distribution. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1997, 38, 37-43.
17. Donnelly, R.; Marzluff, J.M. Relative importance of habitat quantity, structure, and spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing environments. Urban Ecosyst. 2006, 9, 99-117.
18. Kim, H.S. Classification biotope type and evaluation value of individual biotope: Landscape ecological approaches. Ph. D. Thesis, Graduate School of Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea, 2012. Available online: http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T12792363 (accessed on 8 March 2015).
19. McGarigal, K.; Marks, B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure; USDA: Portland, OR, USA, 1995; Version 2.0, pp. 5-21.
20. Su, Y.Y. The Legal Structure of Taiwan's Wetland Conservation Act. Sustainability 2014, 6, 9418-9427.
21. Forman, R.T.T.; Godron, M. Landscape Ecology; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 204-220.
22. Kindlmann, P.; Burel, F. Connectivity measures: A review. Landsc. Ecol. 2008, 23, 879-890.
23. Schooley, R.L.; Wiens, J.A. Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 2003, 102, 559-570.
24. McGarigal, K.; Marks, B.J. Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure; General Technical Report No. PNW-GTR-351; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 1995; pp. 1-10.
25. Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O'Neill, R.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process; Springer Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 94-112.
26. Botequilha Leitão, A.; Ahern, J. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2002, 59, 65-93.
27. Gordon, A.; Simondson, D.; White, M.; Moilanen, A.; Bekessy, S.A. Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2009, 91, 183-194.
28. Grayson, J.E.; Chapman, M.G.; Underwood, A.J. The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1999, 43, 227-236.
29. Johnson, C.W. Planning and designing for the multiple use role of habitats in urban/suburban landscapes in the Great Basin. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1995, 32, 219-225.
30. Musacchio, L.R.; Coulson, R.N. Landscape ecological planning process for wetland, waterfowl, and farmland conservation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 56, 125-147.
31. Ernst, B.W. Quantifying connectivity using graph based connectivity response curves in complex landscapes under simulated forest management scenarios. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2014, 321, 94-104.
32. Saura, S.; Pascual-Hortal, L. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 83, 91-103.
33. USACE; USEPA. Federal guidance for the establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks. Fed. Regist. 1995, 60, 58605-58614. Available online: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbankn.cfm (accessed on 8 March 2015).
34. Brown, P.H.; Lant, C.L. Research: The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environ. Manag. 1999, 23, 333-345.
35. USEPA. Ecotox thresholds. Eco. Update 1996, 3, 1-12.
36. Noble, B.; Hill, M.; Nielsen, J. Environmental assessment framework for identifying and mitigating the effects of linear development to wetlands. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2011, 99, 133-140.
37. Wilkinson, J.B.; Thompson, J. 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States; Environmental Law Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 2-4.
38. Breaux, A.; Serefiddin, F. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environ. Manag. 1999, 24, 327-336.
39. Erwin, K.L. An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South Florida Water Management District; South Florida Water Management District: West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 1991; Volume 1, pp. 7-11.
40. Rapport, D.J.; Gaudet, C.; Karr, J.R.; Baron, J.S.; Bohlen, C.; Jackson, W.; Jones, B.; Naiman, R.J.; Norton, B.; Pollock, M.M. Evaluating landscape health: Integrating societal goals and biophysical process. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 53, 1-15.
41. USACE; USEPA. Memorandum of agreement between the department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency. The determination of mitigation under the clean water act Section 404(b). Available online: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitigate.cfm (accessed on 6 February 1990).
42. Kim, K.G.; Cho, D.G. Principles of Natural Environment and Ecological Restoration; Acabook: Seoul, Korea, 2004; pp. 357-373.
43. Hough, P.; Robertson, M. Mitigation under Section 404 of the clean water act: Where it comes from, what it means. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 17, 15-33.
44. Lee, J.; Park, B.-J.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Ohira, T.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. Effect of forest bathing on physiological and psychological responses in young Japanese male subjects. Public Health. 2011, 125, 93-100.
45. Wu, H.I.; Li, B.L.; Springer, T.A.; Neill, W.H. Modeling animal movement as a persistent random walk in two dimensions: Expected magnitude of net displacement. Ecol. Model. 2000, 132, 115-124.
46. Huang, C.W.; Lin, Y.P.; Ding, T.S.; Anthony, J. Developing a Cell-Based Spatial Optimization Model for Land-Use Patterns Planning. Sustainability 2014, 6, 9139-9158.
47. Fernandez, L. An analysis of economic incentives in wetlands policies addressing biodiversity. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 240, 107-122.
48. Wang, Y.F.; Chen, J.J.; Liu, W.H.; Xu, R. Effect of cultivating croplands and grazing in arid grassland habitats on the conservation of melitaeine butterflies in a mountainous area in Northern China. Sci. Chin. C Life Sci. 2007, 50, 40-46.
49. Weems, W.A.; Canter, L.W. Planning and operational guidelines for mitigation banking for wetland impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. 1995, 15, 197-218.
50. Kim, Y.J.; Lee, S.D. Studies on problems and improvement of introducing no wetland loss. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 2009, 18, 235-243.
51. Whigham, D.F. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 240, 31-40.
52. Boyer, T. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Credit Market in Minnesota: A Spatial Economic Analysis of its Potential to Achieve Regulatory and Ecological Goals. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA, 2003. Available online: http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T10576824 (accessed on 8 March 2015).
53. Corry, R.C.; Lafortezza, R.; Brown, R.D. Ecological functionality of landscapes with alternative rehabilitations of depleted aggregate sites. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2010, 24, 216-232.
54. Jo, H.K.; Cho, Y.H. Ecological Landscape Planning and Design; Kimoondang: Seoul, Korea, 2008; pp. 37-50.
55. Zhang, L.; Wang, H. Planning an ecological network of Xiamen Island (China) using landscape metrics and network analysis. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 78, 449-456.
56. Bian, L. Component modeling for the spatial representation of wildlife movements. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 235-245.
57. Folse, L.J.; Packard, J.M.; Grant, W.E. AI modelling of animal movements in a heterogeneous habitat. Ecol. Model. 1989, 46, 57-72.
58. Larson, M.A.; Thompson III, F.R.; Millspaugh, J.J.; Dijak, W.D.; Shifley, S.R. Linking population viability, habitat suitability, and landscape simulation models for conservation planning. Ecol. Model. 2004, 180, 103-118.
59. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Possingham, H.P. Modelling the inter-relationships between habitat patchiness, dispersal capability and metapopulation persistence of the endangered species, Leadbeater's possum, in south-eastern Australia. Landsc. Ecol. 1996, 11, 79-105.
60. Walker, R.; Craighead, L. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In Proceedings of the ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 8-11 July 1997.
61. Forester, J.D.; Ives, A.R.; Turner, M.G.; Anderson, D.P.; Fortin, D.; Beyer, H.L.; Smith, D.W.; Boyce, M.S. State-space models link elk movement patterns to landscape characteristics in Yellowstone National Park. Ecol. Monogr. 2007, 77, 285-299.
62. Schick, R.S.; Loarie, S.R.; Colchero, F.; Best, B.D.; Boustany, A.; Conde, D.A.; Halpin, P.N.; Joppa, L.N.; McClellan, C.M.; Clark, J.S. Understanding movement data and movement processes: Current and emerging directions. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 1338-1350.
63. Zetterberg, A.; Mörtberg, U.M.; Balfors, B. Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2010, 95, 181-191.
64. Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Nakagoshi, N.; Zong, Y. Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2010, 95, 16-27.
65. Lee, J.A.; Chon, J.; Ahn, C. Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7564-7585.
66. Rodriguez Gonzalez, J.; del Barrio, G.; Duguy, B. Assessing functional landscape connectivity for disturbance propagation on regional scales-A cost-surface model approach applied to surface fire spread. Ecol. Model. 2008, 211, 121-141.
67. Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lehmkuhl, J.F. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted-Distance and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2002; pp. 65-66.
68. Weber, T.; Sloan, A.; Wolf, J. Maryland's green infrastructure assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 77, 94-110.
69. Finke, J.; Sonnenschein, M. Simulation and Optimization of Habitat Network Permeability. In Proceedings of the ITEE 2007-Third International ICSC Symposium, Oldenburg, Germany, 29-30 March 2007; Marx Gómez, J., Sonnenschein, M., Müller, M., Welsch, H., Rautenstrauch, C., Eds.; Springer: Oldenburg, Germany, 2007; pp.433-443.
70. Taliaferro, M.S.; Schriever, B.A.; Shackley, M.S. Obsidian procurement, least cost path analysis, and social interaction in the Mimbres area of southwestern New Mexico. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 536-548.
71. Atkinson, D.M.; Deadman, P.; Dudycha, D.; Traynor, S. Multi-criteria evaluation and least cost path analysis for an Arctic all-weather road. Appl. Geogr. 2005, 25, 287-307.
72. Choi, Y.; Park, H.; Sunwoo, C.; Clarke, K.C. Multicriteria evaluation and leastcost path analysis for optimal haulage routing of dump trucks in large scale openpit mines. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 2009, 23, 1541-1567.
73. Kim, J. Green network analysis in coastal cities using least-cost path analysis: A study of Jakarta, Indonesia. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 2012, 35, 141-148.
74. Wang, X.; Lu, L.; Cui, Y. Advocating Low Carbon Eco-City Landscape Planning and Design-The First Phase of Landscape Planning and Design for Zhongxin Eco-City in Tianjin. In Proceedings of the International Federation of Landscape Architects Asia Pacific Region Congress, Bangkok, Thailand, 19-21 January 2011.
75. Bennett, A.F. Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. Landsc. Ecol. 1990, 4, 109-122.
76. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, S.S. Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing City, China. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2003, 65, 95-116.
77. Stucky, J.L.D. On applying viewshed analysis for determining least-cost paths on digital elevation models. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 1998, 12, 891-905.
78. Hessburg, P.; Reynolds, K.; Salter, R.; Dickinson, J.; Gaines, W.; Harrod, R. Landscape Evaluation for Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA. Sustainability 2013, 5, 805-840.
79. Liu, H.L.; Shen, Y.S. The Impact of Green Space Changes on Air Pollution and Microclimates: A Case Study of the Taipei Metropolitan Area. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8827-8855.
80. Fan, C.; Myint, S.A. Comparison of spatial autocorrelation indices and landscape metrics in measuring urban landscape fragmentation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2014, 121, 117-128.
81. Honnay, O.; Piessens, K.; van Landuyt, W.; Hermy, M.; Gulinck, H. Satellite based land use and landscape complexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2003, 63, 241-250.
82. Lu, J.; Guldmann, J. Landscape ecology, land-use structure, and population density: Case study of the Columbus Metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2012, 105, 74-85.
83. Weber, N.; Haase, D.; Franck, U. Assessing modelled outdoor traffic-induced noise and air pollution around urban structures using the concept of landscape metrics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2014, 125, 105-116.
84. DiBari, J.N. Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: The case of Tucson, Arizona, USA. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 79, 308-313.
85. Plexida, S.G.; Sfougaris, A.I.; Ispikoudis, I.P.; Papanastasis, V.P. Selecting landscape metrics as indicators of spatial heterogeneity-A comparison among Greek landscapes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. 2014, 26, 26-35.
86. Apan, A.A.; Raine, S.R.; Paterson, M.S. Mapping and analysis of changes in the riparian landscape structure of the Lockyer valley catchment, Queensland, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2002, 59, 43-57.
87. Ducheyne, E.; Mweempwa, C.; De Pus, C.; Vernieuwe, H.; De Deken, R.; Hendrickx, G.; van den Bossche, P. The impact of habitat fragmentation on tsetse abundance on the plateau of eastern Zambia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2009, 91, 11-18.
88. Corry, R.C.; Nassauer, J.I. Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2005, 72, 265-280.
89. Pearson, D.M. The application of local measures of spatial autocorrelation for describing pattern in north Australian landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 64, 85-95.
90. Raines, G.L. Description and comparison of geologic maps with FRAGSTATS-A spatial statistics program. Comput. Geosci. 2002, 28, 169-177.
91. McGarigal, K. FRAGSTATS. Help4.2. Available online: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2014).
92. Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. Themathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 1949; p. 5.
93. France, R.L. Wetland Design: Principles and Practices for Landscape Architects and Land-Use Planners; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 15-51.
94. Song, W.K.; Kim, E.Y.; Lee, D.K. Measuring connectivity in heterogenous landscapes: A review and application. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 2012, 21, 391-407.
95. Goodwin, B.J. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landsc. Ecol. 2003, 18, 687-699.
96. Driezen, K.; Adriaensen, F.; Rondinini, C.; Doncaster, C.P.; Matthysen, E. Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: A case-study using radio tracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol. Model. 2007, 2-4, 314-322.
97. Penrod, K.; Cabanero, C.; Beier, P.; Luke, C.; Spencer, W.; Rubin, E.; Paulman, C. A Linkage Design for the Joshua Tree-Twenty-Nine Palms Connection. Available online: http://www.scwildands.org (accessed on 5 March 2013).
98. Rudd, H.; Vala, J.; Schaefer, V. Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: A connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restor. Ecol. 2002, 10, 368-375.
99. Xun, B.; Yu, D.; Liu, Y. Habitat connectivity analysis for conservation implications in an urban area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2014, 34, 44-52.
100. Ritters, K.H.; O'Neill, R.V.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Wickham, J.D.; Yankee, D.H.; Timmins, S.P.; Jones, K.B.; Jackson B.L. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10, 23-39.
101. Neel, M.C.; McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.A. Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 435-455.
102. Schumaker, N.H. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 1996, 77, 1210-1225.
103. Backoulou, G.F. Using Multi-Spectral Imagery to Detect and Map Stress Induced by Russian Wheat Aphid. Ph. D. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, 2008. Available online: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/Backoulou_okstate_0664D_10067.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2015).
104. Baldwin, J.B.; Weaver, K.; Schnekenburger, F.; Perera, H. Sensitivity of landscape pattern indices to input data characteristics on real landscapes: Implications for their use in natural disturbance emulation. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 255-271.
105. Chen, T.; Lin, H. Development of a framework for landscape assessment of Taiwanese wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 25, 121-132.
106. Li, J.; Song, C.; Cao, L.; Zhu, F.; Meng, X.; Wu, J. Impacts of landscape structure on surface urban heat islands: A case study of Shanghai, China. Rem. Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 3249-3263.
107. Marble, A.D. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1991; pp. 163-202.
108. Jongman, R.H.G.; Külvik, M.; Kristiansen, I. European ecological networks and greenways. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2004, 68, 305-319.
109. Wikipedia. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics) (accessed on 1 July 2014).
110. Sayadi, S.; Gonzalez Roa, M.C.; Calatrava Requena, J. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 539-550.
111. Dauber, J.; Hirsch, M.; Simmering, D.; Waldhardt, R.; Otte, A.; Wolters, V. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 98, 321-329.
112. Li, X.; Lu, L.; Cheng, G.; Xiao, H. Quantifying landscape structure of the Heihe River Basin, north-west China using FRAGSTATS. J. Arid Environ. 2001, 48, 521-535.
113. McGarigal, K.; Tagil, S.; Cushman, S.A. Surface metrics: An alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24, 433-450.
114. Gray, M.J.; Smith, L.M.; Leyva, R.I. Influence of agricultural landscape structure on a Southern High Plains, USA, amphibian assemblage. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 719-729.
115. Li, X.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Hu, Y.; Bu, R.; Harms, B.; Bregt, A.K.; He, H.S. Relationship between landscape structure metrics and wetland nutrient retention function: A case study of Liaohe Delta, China. Ecol. Indic. 2005, 5, 339-349.
116. Leopold, A. Game Management; Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1948; pp. 208-229.
117. Mauget, R.; Mauget, C.; Dubost, G.; Charron, F.; Courcoul, A.; Rodier, A. Non-invasive assessment of reproductive status in Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis): Correlation with sexual behavior. Mamm. Biol. 2007, 72, 14-26.
118. Kim, B.J.; Lee, N.S.; Lee, S.D. Feeding diets of the Korean water deer (Hydropotes inermis argyropus) based on a 202 bp rbcL sequence analysis. Coserv. Genet. 2011, 12, 851-856.
119. Rajaratnam, R.; Sunquist, M.; Rajaratnam, L.; Ambu, L. Diet and habitat selection of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis borneoensis) in an agricultural landscape in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. J. Trop. Ecol. 2007, 23, 209-217.
120. Lee, D.; Baek, G.; Park, C.; Kim, H. Spatial planning climate adaptation zone to promote climate chave adaptation for endangered species. J. Kor. Env. Res. Tech. 2011, 14, 111-117.
121. Kim. B.J.; Choi, T.Y.; Park, C.H.; Kim, Y.J., Lee, H. A Brief Report of the Short-Term Home Range Study of a Pair of Raccoon Dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides koreensis) in a Rural Area of Gurye, Chonnam Province, South Korea Using Radiotracking Method. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 2008, 22, 230-240.
122. Jang, G.S. Establishment of a forest network in the western Geum River Basin using the nearest feature model. J. Kor. Inst. Landsc. Arch. 2007, 35, 56-63.
123. Lee, D.K.; Song, W.K.; Jeon, S.W. Regional ecological network design for wild animals' movement using landscape permeability and least-cost path methods in the metropolitan area of Korea. J. Kor. Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 2008, 11, 94-106.
124. Campbell, C.S.; Ogden, M.H. Constructed Wetlands in the Sustainable Landscape John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 190-195.
125. Strayer, D.L.; Power, M.E.; Fagan, W.F.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Belnap, J.A. Classification of ecological boundaries. Bioscience 2003, 53, 723-729.