Landscapes Forest and Global Change - ESA - Escola Superior ...

K. Koschke et al. 2010. Using a multi-criteria approach to fit the evaluation basis of “Pimp Your Landscape”
505
disproportionality of surface share and marketed economic value of LUTs dominated by
agricultural or silvicultural use in comparison to built-up areas. This discrepancy is confirmed
by sectoral accountings.
The use of modelled and measured indicators is very restricted, not only regarding economic
aspects. Data about N-Export, soil sealing and run-off coefficient as estimated for different
LUTs in other studies can be used in the evaluation matrix (table 3). N-export and soil sealing
act as proxies for land-use intensity and the functioning of ecological processes. Soil sealing
also has an impact on landscape aesthetics, assuming that a high share of sealed surface area
causes a decreasing visual attractiveness. Run-off coefficient is connected to water retention
potential which is important for the risk of flooding during heavy rainfalls. Therefore this
indicator is considered as a criterion for CC mitigation. For assessing ecological functioning
species richness, percentage of dead wood or other non-structural indicators are not convenient.
Depending on environmental conditions and habitat composition, such indicators behave
differently and are thus not appropriate to be assigned to LUTs.
The drawbacks and restrictions related to the integration of indicators of multiple scales and
dimensions resulted in the consideration of stakeholder involvement to obtain a comprehensive
evaluation. Participatory methods are often considered the most suitable approach in terms of
landscape analysis (eg. de Groot 2006). They have been widely and successfully applied in
landscape/ environmental modelling (Dai et al. 2001; Vacik and Lexer 2001). Due to weighting
and aggregation issues, indicator-based approaches and collaborating techniques are both prone
to biases. MCA approaches also suffer from concerns such as the selection of participants, their
respective background and interests (Danae and Stelios 2004). We therefore intend to
incorporate available indicator values as reference points for experts during the evaluation
process.
4. Conclusion
Some pre-analysis in our work proved that a purely indicator based approach for a holistic
landscape evaluation in Pimp your landscape will fail, because fitting indicators are rare and
sectoral indicator approaches are not suitable for up-scaling the evaluation results (Fürst et al.,
subm.). A comprehensive evaluation of LUTs in the context of landscape management and
planning was founded on several data sources. We suggest a mixed indicator-based and expert
opinion evaluation approach.
Next steps are expert-evaluation which may be followed up by another round in order to
estimate the performance of LUTs under future scenarios, which is important for the
introduction of time slots. Thus, based on CC projections also ecosystem dynamics can be
regarded. Since we de facto assess land-cover types as supported by CLC (2000) which are
related to but not fully congruent with LUTs, an incorporation of land management types into
PYL is planned in order to address the impact of adaptation options to CC at the farm level
(irrigation, crop rotation, tillage, changing tree species composition etc.).
Despite several shortcomings and limitations inherent in the approach, we believe that
comprehensive assessments are of great importance for environmental managers and for the
consideration of ecosystem services in landscape planning processes.
Reference
Arlt, G. 2001. Auswirkungen städtischer Nutzungsstrukturen auf Bodenversiegelung und
Bodenpreis, pp. 183. Institut für Ökologische Raumentwicklung, Dresden.
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., and Zhang, X.H. 2001. GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban
land-use planning: a case study. Engineering Geology 61: 257-271.
Forest Landscapes and Global Change-New Frontiers in Management, Conservation and Restoration. Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology
Working Group International Conference, September 21-27, 2010, Bragança, Portugal. J.C. Azevedo, M. Feliciano, J. Castro & M.A. Pinto (eds.)
2010, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Bragança, Portugal.