A multi-criteria wetland suitability index for restoration across Ontario’s mixedwood plains

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 12, Issue 23, 2020, Pages 1-21

  Medland, Sally J ^a   Shaker, Richard R ^a,b   Forsythe, K Wayne ^a   Mackay, Brian R ^a   Rybarczyk, Greg ^c,d,e  

^a RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FLINT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^e The Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analytical hierarchy process; Ecological restoration; Land use change; Landscape planning; Multi criteria evaluation; Scoping review; Soil drainage; Spatial analysis; Weighted index; Wetlands

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LANDSCAPE EVOLUTION; MIXED FOREST; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PRIORITIZATION; RASTER; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SOIL DRAINAGE; WETLAND;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

EID: 85096874104     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su12239953     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Venter, O.; Sanderson, E.W.; Magrach, A.; Allan, J.R.; Beher, J.; Jones, K.R.; Possingham, H.P.; Laurance, W.F.; Wood, P.; Fekete, B.M.; et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12558. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 2007, 317, 1513–1516. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [CrossRef]
6. Alberti, M. Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-387-75509-0.
7. Seneviratne, S.I.; Donat, M.G.; Mueller, B.; Alexander, L.V. No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 161–163. [CrossRef]
8. Bellard, C.; Leclerc, C.; Leroy, B.; Bakkenes, M.; Veloz, S.; Thuiller, W.; Courchamp, F. Vulnerability of biodiversity hotspots to global change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 1376–1386. [CrossRef]
9. Yalcin, S.; Leroux, S.J. An empirical test of the relative and combined effects of land-cover and climate change on local colonization and extinction. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 3849–3861. [CrossRef]
10. Butchart, S.H.M.; Walpole, M.; Collen, B.; van Strien, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Almond, R.E.A.; Baillie, J.E.M.; Bomhard, B.; Brown, C.; Bruno, J.; et al. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 2010, 328, 1164–1168. [CrossRef]
11. Shaker, R.R. The spatial distribution of development in Europe and its underlying sustainability correlations. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 63, 304–314. [CrossRef]
12. Shaker, R.R.; Yakubov, A.D.; Nick, S.M.; Vennie-Vollrath, E.; Ehlinger, T.J.; Forsythe, K.W. Predicting aquatic invasion in Adirondack lakes: A spatial analysis of lake and landscape characteristics. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01723. [CrossRef]
13. Shaker, R.R. A mega-index for the Americas and its underlying sustainable development correlations. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 466–479. [CrossRef]
14. Shaker, R.; Ehlinger, T. Agricultural Land Fragmentation and Biological Integrity: The Impacts of a Rapidly Changing Landscape on Streams in Southeastern Wisconsin; University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Fish Ecology Laboratory: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007; p. 50.
15. Shaker, R.R.; Ehlinger, T.J. Exploring Non-Linear Relationships between Landscape and Aquatic Ecological Condition in Southern Wisconsin: A GWR and ANN Approach. IJAGR 2014, 5, 1–20. [CrossRef]
16. Karr, J.R.; Chu, E.W. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-1-59726-277-4.
17. O’Reilly, N.; Ehlinger, T.; Shaker, R. The Development and Evaluation of Methods for Quantifying Risk to Fish in Warm-Water Streams of Wisconsin Using Self-Organized Maps: Influences of Watershed and Habitat Stressors; Northeastern University Center for Urban and Environmental Studies: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; p. 121.
18. Sivakumar, R.; Ghosh, S. Wetland spatial dynamics and mitigation study: An integrated remote sensing and GIS approach. Natur. Hazards 2016, 80, 975–995. [CrossRef]
19. OMNRF. A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario 2017–2030; Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017; p. 52.
20. National Research Council. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-0-309-58722-8.
21. Findlay, C.S.; Houlahan, J. Anthropogenic Correlates of Species Richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 1000–1009. [CrossRef]
22. Zorrilla-Miras, P.; Palomo, I.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Lomas, P.L.; Montes, C. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 160–174. [CrossRef]
23. Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 39–74. [CrossRef]
24. Huang, N.; Wang, Z.; Liu, D.; Niu, Z. Selecting Sites for Converting Farmlands to Wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China, Based on Remote Sensing and GIS. Environ. Manag. 2010, 46, 790–800. [CrossRef]
25. Odgaard, M.V.; Turner, K.G.; Bøcher, P.K.; Svenning, J.-C.; Dalgaard, T. A multi-criteria, ecosystem-service value method used to assess catchment suitability for potential wetland reconstruction in Denmark. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 151–165. [CrossRef]
26. Klemas, V. Using Remote Sensing to Select and Monitor Wetland Restoration Sites: An Overview. J. Coast. Res. 2013, 29, 958–970. [CrossRef]
27. Hobbs, R.J. Old Fields: Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Farmland; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-61091-098-9.
28. Giblett, R.J. Canadian Wetlands: Places and People; Intellect Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-78320-176-1.
29. Canada Committee on Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification; National Wetlands Working Group; Warner, B.G.; Rubec, C.D.A. The Canadian Wetland Classification System, 2nd ed.; Wetlands Research Branch, University of Waterloo: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 1997; ISBN 978-0-662-25857-5.
30. Classens, M. The transformation of the Holland Marsh and the dynamics of wetland loss: A historical political ecological approach. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2017, 7, 507–518. [CrossRef]
31. Snell, E.A. Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario; Working paper; Inland Waters and Lands Directorate, Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1987; ISBN 978-0-662-15077-0.
32. DUC. Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis; Ducks Unlimited: Barrie, ON, Canada, 2010; p. 96.
33. Tiner, R.W. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Formation, Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping, Second Edition; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4398-5370-2.
34. ESTR. Mixedwood Plains Ecozone + Evidence for Key Finding Summary; Canadian biodiversity: Ecosystem status and trends 2010, Evidence for Key Findings Summary; Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2016; p. 157.
35. Haddad, N.M.; Brudvig, L.A.; Clobert, J.; Davies, K.F.; Gonzalez, A.; Holt, R.D.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Sexton, J.O.; Austin, M.P.; Collins, C.D.; et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Rybarczyk, G.; Wu, C. Bicycle facility planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 282–293. [CrossRef]
37. Malczewski, J.; Rinner, C. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science; Advances in Geographic Information Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-3-540-74756-7.
38. Egoh, B.; Rouget, M.; Reyers, B.; Knight, A.T.; Cowling, R.M.; van Jaarsveld, A.S.; Welz, A. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 714–721. [CrossRef]
39. Cromley, R.G.; Huffman, F.T. Modeling Situation Factors Used in MCE Procedures for Raster GIS. Trans. GIS 2006, 10, 239–251. [CrossRef]
40. Nas, B.; Cay, T.; Iscan, F.; Berktay, A. Selection of MSW landfill site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation. Env. Monit. Assess. 2009, 160, 491–500. [CrossRef]
41. Wood, L.J.; Dragicevic, S. GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation and Fuzzy Sets to Identify Priority Sites for Marine Protection. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 2539–2558. [CrossRef]
42. Shaker, R.R.; Sirodoev, I.G. Assessing sustainable development across Moldova using household and property composition indicators. Habitat. Int. 2016, 55, 192–204. [CrossRef]
43. Shaker, R.R. Examining sustainable landscape function across the Republic of Moldova. Habitat Int. 2018, 72, 77–91. [CrossRef]
44. White, D.; Fennessy, S. Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 24, 359–377. [CrossRef]
45. Darwiche-Criado, N.; Sorando, R.; Eismann, S.G.; Comín, F.A. Comparing Two Multi-Criteria Methods for Prioritizing Wetland Restoration and Creation Sites Based on Ecological, Biophysical and Socio-Economic Factors. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 1227–1241. [CrossRef]
46. Horvath, E.K.; Christensen, J.R.; Mehaffey, M.H.; Neale, A.C. Building a potential wetland restoration indicator for the contiguous United States. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 463–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Van Lonkhuyzen, R.A.; LaGory, K.E.; Kuiper, J.A. Modeling the Suitability of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites with a Geographic Information System. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 368–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Mayer, A.L.; Lopez, R.D. Use of Remote Sensing to Support Forest and Wetlands Policies in the USA. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1211–1233. [CrossRef]
49. CCEA, C.C. on E.A. Ecological Regionalization in Canada. Available online: http://ecozones.ca/english/regionalization.html (accessed on 22 November 2020).
50. Freedman, B.; Hutchings, J.; Gwynne, D.; Smol, J.; Suffling, R.; Turkington, R.; Walker, R.; Bazely, D. Ecology: A Canadian Context; Top Hat: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014; ISBN 978-0-17-651014-5.
51. Bradford, A. Averting degradation of southern Ontario wetlands due to hydrologic alterations associated with development. Can. Water Resour. J. Rev. Can. Des Ressour. Hydr. 2016, 41, 543–553. [CrossRef]
52. Ahern, F.; Frisk, J.; Latifovic, R.; Pouliot, D. Monitoring Ecosystems Remotely: A Selection of Trends Measured from Satellite Observations of Canada; Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010; p. 73.
53. OEP. Ontario Population Projections Update, 2019–2046; Ontario Ministry of Finance: Oshawa, ON, Canada, 2020; p. 111.
54. Dahl, T.E.; Johnson, C.E.; Frayer, W.E. Wetlands, Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s: First Update of the National Wetlands Status Report; US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; ISBN 978-0-16-035916-3.
55. OBC. State of Ontario’s Biodiversity 2015 Summary; Ontario Biodiversity: Peterborough, ON, Canada, 2015; p. 12.
56. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop 10.7x; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2019.
57. Khalili, K. Comparison of Geostatistical Methods for Interpolation Groundwater Level (Case Study: Lake Urmia Basin). Available online: /paper/Comparison-of-Geostatistical-Methods-for-Level-Lake-Khalili/ e1eba153321e5229d7e42a13b6c424683be56562 (accessed on 2 November 2020).
58. Forsythe, K.W.; Marvin, C.H. Analyzing the Spatial Distribution of Sediment Contamination in the Lower Great Lakes. Water Qual. Res. J. 2005, 40, 389–401. [CrossRef]
59. Mitchell, D.; Forsythe, K.W.; Marvin, C.; Burniston, D. Temporal Trends and Origins of Lake Erie Cadmium Contamination in Relation to Sediment Substrate Type Using Multivariate Kriging Analyses. Int. J. Geospat. Environ. Res. 2019, 6. Available online: https://dc.uwm.edu/ijger/vol6/iss1/3/(accessed on 1 November 2020).
60. Forsythe, K.W.; Marvin, C.H.; Valancius, C.J.; Watt, J.P.; Aversa, J.M.; Swales, S.J.; Jakubek, D.J.; Shaker, R.R. Geovisualization of Mercury Contamination in Lake St. Clair Sediments. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 19. [CrossRef]
61. 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. [CrossRef]
62. Antrop, M. The language of landscape ecologists and planners: A comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. LAND Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 55, 163–173. [CrossRef]
63. Shaker, R.R.; Rybarczyk, G.; Brown, C.; Papp, V.; Alkins, S. (Re)emphasizing Urban Infrastructure Resilience via Scoping Review and Content Analysis. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 44. [CrossRef]
64. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-5063-9566-1.
65. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281. [CrossRef]
66. Kangas, J.; Store, R.; Leskinen, P.; Mehtätalo, L. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 132, 157–171. [CrossRef]
67. McPhail, A.K. A Method for Analyzing Historical Wetland Habitat Conditions; Severn Sound Environmental Association: Port McNicoll, ON, Canada, 2004; p. 14.
68. Barbosa, A.M.; Real, R. Applying Fuzzy Logic to Comparative Distribution Modelling: A Case Study with Two Sympatric Amphibians. Available online: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/428206/(accessed on 2 November 2020).
69. Goparaju, L.; Tripathi, A.; Jha, C.S. Forest fragmentation impacts on phytodiversity—An analysis using remote sensing and GIS. Curr. Sci. 2005, 88, 1264–1274.
70. Choi, S.; Cha, S. A survey of Binary similarity and distance measures. J. Syst. Cybern. Inform. 2010, 43–48.
71. Jaccard, P. Nouvelles Recherches Sur la Distribution Florale; Rouge: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1908.
72. Birks, H.J.B. Recent methodological developments in quantitative descriptive biogeography. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1987, 24, 165–177.
73. Tobler, W.R. A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Econ. Geogr. 1970, 46, 234–240. [CrossRef]
74. Getis, A.; Ord, J.K. The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geogr. Anal. 1992, 24, 189–206. [CrossRef]
75. Wong, D.W.S.; Lee, J. Statistical Analysis of Geographic Information with ArcView GIS and ArcGIS; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-471-46899-8.
76. SC. Census Subdivision (CSD)—Census Dictionary. Available online: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/dict/geo012-eng.cfm (accessed on 5 November 2020).
77. ODC. Quaternary Watershed Boundaries—Ontario Data Catalogue. Available online: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/quaternary-watershed-boundaries (accessed on 5 November 2020).
78. Zedler, J.B. Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 65–72. [CrossRef]
79. DeLaney, T.A. Benefits to downstream flood attenuation and water quality as a result of constructed wetlands in agricultural landscapes. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1995, 50, 620–626.
80. Canadian Wildlife Service; Environment Canada. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation; Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1991; ISBN 978-0-662-18940-4.
81. Rubec, C.D.A.; Hanson, A.R. Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetl. Ecol Manag. 2009, 17, 3–14. [CrossRef]
82. ECCC. Evaluation at a Glance: Evaluation of the National Wetland Conservation Fund; ECCC: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019.
83. USA. North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968); NAWCA: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; Volume 103, p. 11.
84. Shaker, R.R.; Aversa, J.; Papp, V.; Serre, B.M.; Mackay, B.R. Showcasing Relationships between Neighborhood Design and Wellbeing Toronto Indicators. Sustainability 2020, 12, 997. [CrossRef]
85. Leitão, A.; Miller, J.; Ahern, J.; McGarigal, K. Measuring Landscapes; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-1-55963-899-9.