Comparing Conservation Value Maps and Mapping Methods in a Rural Landscape in Southern Finland
Räsänen, A., Lensu, A., Tomppo, E., & Kuitunen, M. (2015). Comparing Conservation Value Maps and Mapping Methods in a Rural Landscape in Southern Finland. Landscape online, 44, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201544
Julkaistu sarjassa
Landscape onlinePäivämäärä
2015Tekijänoikeudet
© The Authors. 2015. Landscape Online. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
We tested to what extent conservation value maps are different if the valuation and mapping method is
changed. We compared 66 different conservation value and 4 different ecosystem service maps. Using
remote sensing and other georeferenced data, we produced 2 different habitat type maps, which were 50 %
similar. We valued each mapped habitat type based on rarity corrected potential number of vascular plant
species and naturalness using 6 different valuation alternatives. We mapped habitat type connectivity and
complementarity using 2 main approaches. The habitat type valuation alternatives were quite similar, but if
the habitat type naturalness was taken into account, differences were larger (correlations between maps 0.38–
1.00). Different connectivity and complementarity calculations yielded different results, variation between
different approaches being larger (correlations -0.15–0.44) than inside an approach (correlations 0.31–0.60).
Conservation value maps were very different from ecosystem service maps (carbon storage, timber production
potential, landscape value for recreation) (correlations -0.29–0.47). We show that valuation and mapping
approach has a large effect on the conservation value map and the correlation between ecosystem service
and conservation value maps depends on the used mapping approach. As different mapping approaches
provide different maps, maps should be used with care.
...
![showless](/themes/JYX2//images/showless.png)
![showmore](/themes/JYX2//images/showmore.png)
Julkaisija
Universität BonnISSN Hae Julkaisufoorumista
1865-1542Julkaisu tutkimustietojärjestelmässä
https://converis.jyu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/25321337
Metadata
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedotKokoelmat
Lisenssi
Ellei muuten mainita, aineiston lisenssi on © The Authors. 2015. Landscape Online. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Samankaltainen aineisto
Näytetään aineistoja, joilla on samankaltainen nimeke tai asiasanat.
-
Comparison of methods to model species habitat networks for decision-making in nature conservation : the case of the wildcat in southern Belgium
Bourdouxhe, Axel; Duflot, Rémi; Radoux, Julien; Dufrêne, Marc (Elsevier, 2020)Facing the loss of biodiversity caused by landscape fragmentation, implementation of ecological networks to connect habitats is an important biodiversity conservation issue. It is necessary to develop easily reproducible ... -
Developing and comparing methods for mapping habitat types and conservation values using remote sensing data and GIS methods
Räsänen, Aleksi (University of Jyväskylä, 2014) -
SIZE ISN'T EVERYTHING: THE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL HABITAT PATCHES WHEN PLANNING THE CONSERVATION OF SPECIES IN FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPES
Wintle, Brendan; Kujala, Heini; Whitehead, Amy; Moilanen, Atte; Bekessy, Sarah; Kukkala, Aija (Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, 2018)Metapopulation theory and landscape ecology indicate that larger patches of habitat are more likely to support self-sustaining populations of more species. In spatial conservation planning, it makes sense that if all else ... -
Organic food businesses in local alternative agri-food networks in Pirkanmaa region in Finland
Csoszanszki, Judit (2008) -
Aggregating protected habitats embraces implicit habitat conservation triage
Kotiaho, Janne Sakari; Halme, Panu (Peerage of Science, 2014)
Ellei toisin mainittu, julkisesti saatavilla olevia JYX-metatietoja (poislukien tiivistelmät) saa vapaasti uudelleenkäyttää CC0-lisenssillä.