How Big Is the Real Road-Effect Zone? The Impact of the Highway on the Landscape Structure—A Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Materials
3.2. Buffer Analysis
3.3. Landscape Metrics
3.4. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Land Use Classification
- LU_1—grasslands with surface water,
- LU_2—grasslands with built-up areas,
- LU_3—grasslands,
- LU_4—grasslands with arable lands,
- LU_5—forest areas and shrubs with grasslands,
- LU_6—forest areas and shrubs with arable lands,
- LU_7—forest areas and shrubs,
- LU_8—arable lands with forest areas and shrubs,
- LU_9—arable lands with grasslands,
- LU_10—arable lands,
- LU_11—arable lands with forest areas and shrubs and grasslands,
- LU_12—arable lands with grasslands and built-up areas.
4.2. Buffer Analysis
4.3. Change Point
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Forman, R.T. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forman, R.T.; Deblinger, R.D. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morawska, A.; Żelazo, J. Oddziaływanie dróg na środowisko i rola postępowania w sprawie OOS na przykładzie planowanej drogi krajowej. Przegląd Naukowy. Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska 2008, 4, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.-C. The width of edge effects of road construction on fauna and ecologically critical road density. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. 2015, 23, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karlson, M.; Mörtberg, U.; Balfors, B. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Asses. 2014, 48, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanani, R.S.; Adugbila, E.J.; Martinez, J.A.; Pfeffer, K. The Impact of Road Infrastructure Development Projects on Local Communities in Peri-Urban Areas: The Case of Kisumu, Kenya and Accra, Ghana. Int. J. Community Well-Being 2020, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council (NRC). Assessing and Managing the Ecological Impacts of Paved Roads; Committee on Ecological Impacts of Road Density, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 1–294. [Google Scholar]
- Komornicki, T.; Wiśniewski, R.; Baranowski, J.; Błażejczyk, K.; Degórski, M.; Goliszek, S.; Rosik, P.; Solon, J.; Stępniak, M.; Zawiska, I. Wpływ Wybranych Korytarzy Drogowych na Srodowisko Przyrodnicze i Rozwój Społeczno-Ekonomiczny Obszarów Przyległych; Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego: Warszawa, Poland, 2015; Volume 249, pp. 115–118. [Google Scholar]
- Hawbaker, T.J.; Radeloff, V.C. Roads and landscape pattern in northern Wisconsin based on a comparison of four road data sources. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 1233–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forman, R.T. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; pp. 1–623. [Google Scholar]
- Igondova, E.; Pavlickova, K.; Majzlan, O. The ecological impact assessment of a proposed road development (the Slovak approach). Environ. Impact Assess. 2016, 59, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.L.; Cui, B.S.; Dong, S.K.; Yang, Z.F.; Yang, M.; Holt, K. Evaluating the influence of road networks on landscape and regional ecological risk—A case study in Lancang River Valley of Southwest China. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 34, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Xiao, R.; Li, D. Impacts of transportation routes on landscape diversity: A comparison of different route types and their combined effects. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reijnen, R.; Foppen, R.; Braak, C.T.; Thissen, J. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J. Appl. Ecol. 1995, 32, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semlitsch, R.D.; Ryan, T.J.; Hamed, K.; Chatfield, M.; Drehman, B.; Pekarek, N.; Spath, M.; Watland, A. Salamander abundance along road edges and within abandoned logging roads in Appalachian forests. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eigenbrod, F.; Hecnar, S.J.; Fahrig, L. Quantifying the road-effect zone: Threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torres, A.A.; Palacín, C.; Seoane, J.; Alonso, J.C. Assessing the effects of a highway on a threatened species using Before-During-After and Before-During- After-Control-Impact designs. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2223–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Dai, Q.; Gu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Qi, D.; Yang, X.; Zhang, W.; Yang, B.; Yang, Z. Effects of roads on giant panda distribution: A mountain range scale evaluation. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Medinas, D.; Ribeiro, V.; Marques, J.T.; Silva, B.; Barbosa, A.M.; Rebelo, H.; Mira, A. Road effects on bat activity depend on surrounding habitat type. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boarman, W.I.; Sazaki, M. A highway’s road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). J. Arid Environ. 2006, 65, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deljouei, A.; Sadeghi, S.M.M.; Abdi, E.; Bernhardt-Römermann, M.; Pascoe, E.L.; Marcantonio, M. The impact of road disturbance on vegetation and soil properties in a beech stand, Hyrcanian forest. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2018, 137, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.F.; Lin, Y.P.; Chiang, L.C.; Huang, T. Assessing highway’s impacts on landscape patterns and ecosystem services: A case study in Puli Township, Taiwan. Landscape Urban Plan. 2014, 128, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiedeń, Ł. Changes in land use in the communes crossed by the A4 motorway in Poland. Land Use Policy 2019, 85, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Cui, B.; Liu, S.; Dong, S.; Wei, G.; Liu, J. Effects of road networks on ecosystem service value in the longitudinal range-gorge region. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2007, 52, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, L.; Shen, Z.; Chen, J.; Fang, R.; Chen, X.; Jiang, R. Spatiotemporal patterns of road network and road development priority in Three Parallel Rivers Region in Yunnan, China: An evaluation based on modified kernel distance estimate. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2014, 24, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nita, J.; Myga-Piątek, U. Ocena walorów widokowych drogi S1 [E75] na odcinku Częstochowa-Sosnowiec. Pr. Kom. Kraj. Kult. 2012, 18, 181–193. [Google Scholar]
- Sas-Bojarska, A. Nowe wyzwania dla architektury krajobrazu-oceny środowiskowe, Czasopismo Techniczne. Architektura 2007, 104, 83–85. [Google Scholar]
- Sas-Bojarska, A. Wielkie Inwestycje W Kontekście Zagrożeń I Ochrony Krajobrazu; Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej: Gdańsk, Poland, 2007; pp. 1–224. [Google Scholar]
- Forczek-Brataniec, U. Widok z Drogi: Krajobraz w Percepcji Dynamicznej; Wydawnictwo Elamed: Katowice, Poland, 2008; pp. 1–184. [Google Scholar]
- Forczek-Brataniec, U. Udział architekta krajobrazu w planowaniu widokowym tras komunikacyjnych na przykładzie studiów krajobrazowego przekroczenia Alei Solidarności w Nowej Hucie drogą ekspresową S7. Teka Kom. Archit. Urban. Studiów Kraj. PAN 2013, 9, 20–31. [Google Scholar]
- Forczek-Brataniec, U. Nowa droga w krajobrazie. Archit. Kraj. 2013, 1/2013, 18–29. [Google Scholar]
- Janeczko, E. Podstawy metodyczne oceny krajobrazu leśnego w otoczeniu szlaków komunikacyjnych. Probl. Ekol. Kraj. 2008, XX, 363–369. [Google Scholar]
- Winiarski, W.; Janeczko, E. Ocena walorów krajobrazowych wybranych alei na terenie gminy Dubeninki. Rocz. Pol. Tow. Dendrol. 2011, 59, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
- Nita, J.; Myga-Piątek, U. Scenic values of the Katowice-Częstochowa section of national road No. 1. Geogr. Pol. 2014, 87, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pukowiec, K.; Pytel, S. Infrastruktura drogowa w krajobrazie w świetle opinii mieszkańców na przykładzie autostrady A1 (odcinek Świerklany-Gorzyczki). Pr. Kom. Kraj. Kult. 2012, 18, 160–170. [Google Scholar]
- Łowicki, D. Ocena krajobrazu na potrzeby planowania przestrzennego w Aglomeracji Poznańskiej. Probl. Ekol. Kraj. 2014, XXXVIII, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
- Łowicki, D. Walory widokowe dróg w aglomeracji poznańskiej—Przykład Parku Krajobrazowego Puszcza Zielonka. Biuletyn Parków Krajobrazowych Wielkopolski 2015, 21, 46–58. [Google Scholar]
- Trzaskowska, E. Analiza wizualna krajobrazu przy głównych trasach wjazdowych do Lublina. Acta Sci. Pol. Adm. Locorum 2014, 13, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
- Janeczko, E.; Janeczko, K.; Moskalik, T.; Woźnicka, M. Assessment of the forest landscape along selected motor vehicle routes. Folia For. Pol. 2016, 58, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lisiak, M.; Borowiak, K.; Kanclerz, J.; Adamska, A.; Szymańczyk, J. Effect of linear investment on nature and landscape–a case study. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. 2018, 26, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autostrada Wielkopolska, S.A. Letter to K. Borowiak. Repository of Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection 2017 (AWSA/DT/EP/1050/2017).
- McGarigal, K.; Marks, B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1995; pp. 1–122. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, S.C.; Mislivets, M.R.; Chen, J.; Cleland, D.T. Effects of roads on landscape structure within nested ecological units of the Northern Great Lakes Region, USA. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 103, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, G.; Wu, J. Comparing urbanization patterns in Guangzhou of China and Phoenix of the USA: The influences of roads and rivers. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.; Ye, J.; Zhu, E.; Deng, J.; Wang, K. Analyzing the impact of highways associated with farmland loss under rapid urbanization. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016, 5, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGarigal, K.; Romme, W.H.; Crist, M.; Roworth, E. Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA). Landsc. Ecol. 2001, 16, 327–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, C. The Influence of Highway on the Roadside Landscape Pattern Change of Land Use. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling, Sanya, China, 8–9 October 2011; IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 451–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Jiao, L.; Liu, Y.; He, J.; Ai, T. Road centrality and landscape spatial patterns in Wuhan Metropolitan Area, China. Chinese Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini Vardei, M.; Salmanmahiny, A.; Monavari, S.M.; Kheirkhah Zarkesh, M.M. Cumulative effects of developed road network on woodland—A landscape approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 7335–7347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reed, R.A.; Johnson-Barnard, J.; Baker, W.L. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1098–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, J.H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inkoom, J.N.; Frank, S.; Greve, K.; Walz, U.; Fürst, C. Suitability of different landscape metrics for the assessments of patchy landscapes in West Africa. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riitters, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, M.; Mahmud, I. pyMannKendall: A python package for non parametric Mann Kendall family of trend tests. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hipel, K.W.; McLeod, A.I. Time Series Modelling of Water Resources and Environmental Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994; Electronic reprint of book originally published in 1994; Available online: http://www.stats.uwo.ca/faculty/aim/1994Book/ (accessed on 16 October 2018).
- Libiseller, C.; Grimvall, A. Performance of partial Mann–Kendall tests for trend detection in the presence of covariates. Environmetrics 2002, 13, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Gupta, A.K. Parametric Statistical Change Point Analysis: With Applications to Genetics, Medicine, and Finance; Birkhäuser: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 1–273. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 November 2020).
- Roo-Zielińska, E.; Solon, J.; Degórski, M. Ocena Stanu i Przekształceń Srodowiska Przyrodniczego na Podstawie Wskaźników Geobotanicznych, Krajobrazowych i Glebowych (Podstawy Teoretyczne i Przykłady Zastosowań); PAN IGiPZ: Warsaw, Poland, 2007; pp. 1–67. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, J.; Liu, Y.; Ying, L.; Li, P.; Xu, Y.; Shen, Z. Road impacts on spatial patterns of land use and landscape fragmentation in three parallel rivers region, Yunnan Province, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2014, 24, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mo, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhuang, D. Impacts of road network expansion on landscape ecological risk in a megacity, China: A case study of Beijing. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jaeger, J.; Schwarz-von Raumer, H.G.; Esswein, H.; Müller, M.; Schmidt-Lüttmann, M. Time series of landscape fragmentation caused by transportation infrastructure and urban development: A case study from Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Eco. Soc. 2017, 12, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGarigal, K. FRAGSTATS Help. Documentation for FRAGSTATS. Available online: https://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2018).
- Walz, U. Landscape structure, landscape metrics and biodiversity. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2011, 5, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoechstetter, S.; Walz, U.; Thinh, N.X. Effects of topography and surface roughness in analyses of landscape structure—A proposal to modify the existing set of landscape metrics. Landsc. Online 2008, 3, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abbreviation | Name | Units | Description | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
NP | Number of Patches | none | The number of all patches (regardless of type) in the landscape. | Saunders et al. [43] Tian and Wu [44] Wu et al. [22] |
PD | Patch Density | number 100 ha−1 | The number of all patches in the landscape, divided by total area. | Liu et al. [12] Song et al. [45] Su et al. [13] |
ED | Edge Density | m ha−1 | The sum of the length of all edges in the landscape, divided by total area. | Su et al. [13] McGarigal et al. [46] |
LSI | Landscape ShapeIndex | none | The ratio of the entire landscape boundary and all edge segments (m) within the landscape to the total landscape area. | Gao et al. [47] Song et al. [45] |
AREA_MN | Mean Patch Size | ha | The sum of areas of all patches of a given patch type in the landscape, divided by the number of patches of a given type. | Liu et al. [48] Saunders et al. [42] Tian and Wu [44] Wu et al. [22] |
SHAPE_MN | Mean Shape Index | none | The sum of patch perimeters divided by the square root of all patches, adjusted by a constant. | Liu et al. [48] Hosseini Vardei et al. [49] Wu et al. [22] |
PR | Patch Richness | none | The number of patch types (classes) present in the landscape. | Reed et al. [50] |
SHDI | Shannon’s Diversity Index | none | Minus the sum, across all patch types, of the proportional abundance of each patch type multiplied by that proportion. | Liu et al. [12] Liu et al. [49] Song et al. [45] Su et al. [13] |
SIEI | Simpson’s Evenness Index | none | Minus the sum, across all patch types, of the proportional abundance of each patch type squared, divided by 1 minus 1 divided by the number of patch types. | Liu et al. [12] Su et al. [13] |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | NP | 1.00 | ||||||||
2 | PD | 0.95 * | 1.00 | |||||||
3 | ED | 0.91 * | 0.93 * | 1.00 | ||||||
4 | LSI | 0.93 * | 0.91 * | 0.99 * | 1.00 | |||||
5 | AREA_MN | −0.95 * | −1.00 * | −0.93 * | −0.91 * | 1.00 | ||||
6 | SHAPE_MN | −0.51 * | −0.51 * | −0.31 * | −0.30 * | 0.51 * | 1.00 | |||
7 | PR | 0.73 * | 0.68 * | 0.65 * | 0.66 * | −0.68 * | −0.39 * | 1.00 | ||
8 | SHDI | 0.78 * | 0.78 * | 0.88 * | 0.88 * | −0.78 * | −0.34 * | 0.60 * | 1.00 | |
9 | SIEI | 0.69 * | 0.69 * | 0.82 * | 0.81 * | −0.69 * | −0.28 * | 0.46 * | 0.97 * | 1.00 |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 1.993 ± 0.048 | 3.393 ± 0.096 | 5.988 ± 0.224 | 6.770 ± 0.278 | 7.285 ± 0.350 | ↑ |
LU_1 | 1.078 ± 0.338 | 1.491 ± 0.511 | 1.917 ± 0.546 | 1.905 ± 0.403 | 1.999 ± 0.400 | |
LU_2 | 0.956 ± 0.074 | 1.180 ± 0.108 | 1.473 ± 0.156 | 1.559 ± 0.137 | 1.612 ± 0.137 | ↑ |
LU_3 | 1.839 ± 0.600 | 2.816 ± 0.905 | 3.534 ± 0.980 | 3.131 ± 0.339 | 3.689 ± 0.704 | |
LU_4 | 1.418 ± 0.261 | 2.286 ± 0.583 | 2.172 ± 0.355 | 2.247 ± 0.273 | 2.519 ± 0.302 | |
LU_5 | 1.458 ± 0.335 | 2.255 ± 0.549 | 2.576 ± 0.561 | 2.532 ± 0.477 | 2.989 ± 0.642 | |
LU_6 | 1.674 ± 0.198 | 2.518 ± 0.369 | 3.876 ± 0.500 | 4.373 ± 0.505 | 4.590 ± 0.581 | ↑ |
LU_7 | 2.468 ± 0.111 | 4.956 ± 0.237 | 10.775 ± 0.632 | 13.662 ± 0.902 | 17.213 ± 1.373 | ↑ |
LU_8 | 1.997 ± 0.166 | 3.071 ± 0.279 | 5.189 ± 0.527 | 6.336 ± 0.719 | 7.411 ± 0.907 | ↑ |
LU_9 | 1.552 ± 0.099 | 2.141 ± 0.153 | 2.847 ± 0.338 | 2.686 ± 0.234 | 2.648 ± 0.176 | |
LU_10 | 2.236 ± 0.068 | 3.941 ± 0.133 | 7.206 ± 0.327 | 7.889 ± 0.376 | 7.710 ± 0.418 | |
LU_11 | 1.135 ± 0.107 | 1.789 ± 0.218 | 2.546 ± 0.326 | 2.772 ± 0.276 | 2.782 ± 0.274 | ↑ |
LU_12 | 1.522 ± 0.162 | 2.136 ± 0.283 | 2.431 ± 0.225 | 2.406 ± 0.214 | 2.449 ± 0.187 |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 2.460 ± 0.029 | 2.313 ± 0.026 | 2.149 ± 0.023 | 2.074 ± 0.021 | 1.987 ± 0.018 | ↓ |
LU_1 | 1.959 ± 0.274 | 1.821 ± 0.199 | 1.695 ± 0.097 | 1.697 ± 0.071 | 1.673 ± 0.036 | |
LU_2 | 1.887 ± 0.032 | 1.850 ± 0.038 | 1.888 ± 0.024 | 1.870 ± 0.009 | 1.871 ± 0.018 | |
LU_3 | 2.059 ± 0.166 | 1.894 ± 0.078 | 1.960 ± 0.069 | 1.924 ± 0.108 | 1.957 ± 0.058 | |
LU_4 | 1.944 ± 0.076 | 1.859 ± 0.063 | 1.776 ± 0.058 | 1.770 ± 0.049 | 1.742 ± 0.046 | ↓ |
LU_5 | 2.027 ± 0.109 | 2.013 ± 0.099 | 1.870 ± 0.073 | 1.845 ± 0.063 | 1.891 ± 0.051 | |
LU_6 | 2.347 ± 0.113 | 2.135 ± 0.071 | 1.996 ± 0.058 | 1.939 ± 0.048 | 1.848 ± 0.035 | ↓ |
LU_7 | 2.892 ± 0.089 | 2.845 ± 0.089 | 2.651 ± 0.080 | 2.575 ± 0.079 | 2.480 ± 0.079 | ↓ |
LU_8 | 2.503 ± 0.111 | 2.292 ± 0.070 | 2.108 ± 0.056 | 2.077 ± 0.051 | 2.022 ± 0.046 | ↓ |
LU_9 | 2.156 ± 0.066 | 1.998 ± 0.053 | 1.903 ± 0.047 | 1.825 ± 0.028 | 1.789 ± 0.023 | ↓ |
LU_10 | 2.600 ± 0.041 | 2.425 ± 0.036 | 2.206 ± 0.033 | 2.093 ± 0.029 | 1.951 ± 0.022 | ↓ |
LU_11 | 2.100 ± 0.058 | 1.982 ± 0.037 | 1.924 ± 0.043 | 1.916 ± 0.064 | 1.907 ± 0.038 | ↓ |
LU_12 | 2.058 ± 0.060 | 1.918 ± 0.042 | 1.847 ± 0.026 | 1.845 ± 0.023 | 1.835 ± 0.023 | ↓ |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 63.597 ± 1.559 | 41.745 ± 1.254 | 29.301 ± 1.060 | 27.481 ± 1.004 | 26.273 ± 0.921 | ↓ |
LU_1 | 99.252 ± 28.535 | 81.310 ± 20.781 | 60.783 ± 15.641 | 57.211 ± 11.399 | 54.001 ± 10.116 | ↓ |
LU_2 | 99.226 ± 9.871 | 90.649 ± 7.541 | 74.627 ± 7.369 | 68.216 ± 5.315 | 65.578 ± 4.742 | ↓ |
LU_3 | 86.439 ± 15.312 | 59.268 ± 11.869 | 39.422 ± 6.859 | 35.584 ± 4.922 | 33.235 ± 5.314 | ↓ |
LU_4 | 87.228 ± 11.871 | 64.274 ± 10.926 | 55.518 ± 7.662 | 50.366 ± 6.312 | 44.754 ± 5.465 | ↓ |
LU_5 | 87.820 ± 13.838 | 61.943 ± 11.722 | 51.143 ± 9.521 | 48.922 ± 8.237 | 43.309 ± 7.934 | ↓ |
LU_6 | 69.248 ± 6.907 | 45.609 ± 3.544 | 30.992 ± 3.478 | 27.428 ± 3.186 | 26.467 ± 3.055 | ↓ |
LU_7 | 46.082 ± 2.402 | 23.798 ± 1.460 | 12.047 ± 0.941 | 10.293 ± 0.974 | 9.088 ± 0.911 | ↓ |
LU_8 | 63.717 ± 5.217 | 41.552 ± 3.237 | 26.131 ± 2.389 | 23.849 ± 2.835 | 20.189 ± 1.946 | ↓ |
LU_9 | 75.795 ± 5.085 | 56.227 ± 3.669 | 45.667 ± 2.912 | 44.767 ± 2.566 | 42.519 ± 1.988 | ↓ |
LU_10 | 52.934 ± 1.681 | 31.662 ± 1.167 | 20.095 ± 0.905 | 18.720 ± 0.840 | 18.874 ± 0.754 | |
LU_11 | 94.411 ± 9.887 | 60.906 ± 6.153 | 43.756 ± 5.338 | 39.015 ± 4.309 | 38.232 ± 3.367 | ↓ |
LU_12 | 87.033 ± 5.980 | 66.235 ± 4.993 | 52.893 ± 3.669 | 52.029 ± 3.376 | 50.051 ± 3.310 | ↓ |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 4.118 ± 0.052 | 4.517 ± 0.059 | 5.178 ± 0.066 | 5.533 ± 0.067 | 6.005 ± 0.066 | ↑ |
LU_1 | 4.667 ± 0.333 | 5.667 ± 0.882 | 6.667 ± 0.667 | 7.000 ± 0.577 | 7.000 ± 0.577 | ↑ |
LU_2 | 5.400 ± 0.306 | 6.200 ± 0.249 | 7.000 ± 0.211 | 7.400 ± 0.163 | 7.500 ± 0.167 | ↑ |
LU_3 | 3.875 ± 0.515 | 4.250 ± 0.559 | 4.750 ± 0.453 | 5.000 ± 0.535 | 5.625 ± 0.324 | ↑ |
LU_4 | 4.667 ± 0.333 | 5.111 ± 0.423 | 5.667 ± 0.289 | 6.000 ± 0.167 | 6.111 ± 0.111 | ↑ |
LU_5 | 4.375 ± 0.375 | 4.750 ± 0.366 | 5.875 ± 0.227 | 6.625 ± 0.375 | 6.750 ± 0.453 | ↑ |
LU_6 | 4.571 ± 0.251 | 5.071 ± 0.221 | 5.500 ± 0.272 | 5.786 ± 0.239 | 6.286 ± 0.304 | ↑ |
LU_7 | 3.589 ± 0.101 | 3.696 ± 0.119 | 3.911 ± 0.147 | 4.107 ± 0.163 | 4.357 ± 0.177 | ↑ |
LU_8 | 4.229 ± 0.179 | 4.771 ± 0.179 | 5.314 ± 0.157 | 5.457 ± 0.161 | 5.800 ± 0.158 | ↑ |
LU_9 | 4.512 ± 0.160 | 5.146 ± 0.150 | 6.171 ± 0.160 | 6.537 ± 0.140 | 6.854 ± 0.119 | ↑ |
LU_10 | 3.884 ± 0.069 | 4.212 ± 0.079 | 4.921 ± 0.095 | 5.344 ± 0.093 | 6.000 ± 0.089 | ↑ |
LU_11 | 4.250 ± 0.313 | 4.875 ± 0.227 | 5.750 ± 0.313 | 5.750 ± 0.313 | 6.125 ± 0.295 | ↑ |
LU_12 | 4.780 ± 0.202 | 5.317 ± 0.208 | 6.049 ± 0.164 | 6.512 ± 0.161 | 6.915 ± 0.152 | ↑ |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 1.070 ± 0.010 | 0.968 ± 0.014 | 0.842 ± 0.018 | 0.822 ± 0.019 | 0.822 ± 0.019 | ↓ |
LU_1 | 1.272 ± 0.055 | 1.392 ± 0.114 | 1.469 ± 0.182 | 1.451 ± 0.165 | 1.457 ± 0.137 | |
LU_2 | 1.173 ± 0.050 | 1.330 ± 0.051 | 1.416 ± 0.047 | 1.414 ± 0.045 | 1.443 ± 0.063 | |
LU_3 | 0.877 ± 0.083 | 0.871 ± 0.127 | 0.767 ± 0.112 | 0.751 ± 0.107 | 0.793 ± 0.097 | |
LU_4 | 1.097 ± 0.063 | 1.129 ± 0.089 | 1.123 ± 0.078 | 1.169 ± 0.062 | 1.209 ± 0.052 | |
LU_5 | 1.116 ± 0.062 | 1.191 ± 0.068 | 1.265 ± 0.045 | 1.299 ± 0.061 | 1.334 ± 0.073 | ↑ |
LU_6 | 1.096 ± 0.063 | 1.040 ± 0.077 | 1.057 ± 0.081 | 1.066 ± 0.059 | 1.082 ± 0.059 | |
LU_7 | 1.008 ± 0.021 | 0.785 ± 0.029 | 0.520 ± 0.029 | 0.463 ± 0.029 | 0.433 ± 0.030 | ↓ |
LU_8 | 1.154 ± 0.042 | 1.101 ± 0.050 | 1.043 ± 0.036 | 1.042 ± 0.029 | 1.042 ± 0.026 | |
LU_9 | 1.160 ± 0.036 | 1.163 ± 0.043 | 1.186 ± 0.037 | 1.184 ± 0.029 | 1.185 ± 0.016 | |
LU_10 | 1.026 ± 0.014 | 0.851 ± 0.017 | 0.642 ± 0.019 | 0.599 ± 0.019 | 0.594 ± 0.017 | ↓ |
LU_11 | 1.225 ± 0.046 | 1.245 ± 0.055 | 1.293 ± 0.032 | 1.302 ± 0.023 | 1.318 ± 0.021 | |
LU_12 | 1.135 ± 0.036 | 1.188 ± 0.046 | 1.213 ± 0.036 | 1.263 ± 0.031 | 1.294 ± 0.027 |
Cluster | Buffer Width [m] | Trend | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 1000 | ||
Road | 0.815 ± 0.005 | 0.669 ± 0.008 | 0.525 ± 0.011 | 0.499 ± 0.012 | 0.487 ± 0.012 | ↓ |
LU_1 | 0.856 ± 0.012 | 0.863 ± 0.020 | 0.840 ± 0.057 | 0.831 ± 0.055 | 0.837 ± 0.045 | |
LU_2 | 0.770 ± 0.036 | 0.805 ± 0.030 | 0.811 ± 0.021 | 0.800 ± 0.019 | 0.800 ± 0.026 | |
LU_3 | 0.757 ± 0.045 | 0.624 ± 0.051 | 0.470 ± 0.059 | 0.449 ± 0.057 | 0.456 ± 0.057 | |
LU_4 | 0.796 ± 0.030 | 0.755 ± 0.050 | 0.692 ± 0.046 | 0.700 ± 0.039 | 0.741 ± 0.024 | |
LU_5 | 0.821 ± 0.027 | 0.822 ± 0.041 | 0.796 ± 0.027 | 0.797 ± 0.025 | 0.809 ± 0.027 | |
LU_6 | 0.778 ± 0.026 | 0.671 ± 0.047 | 0.667 ± 0.049 | 0.678 ± 0.032 | 0.683 ± 0.024 | |
LU_7 | 0.813 ± 0.012 | 0.588 ± 0.020 | 0.346 ± 0.020 | 0.295 ± 0.019 | 0.266 ± 0.020 | ↓ |
LU_8 | 0.839 ± 0.022 | 0.735 ± 0.031 | 0.687 ± 0.023 | 0.694 ± 0.018 | 0.697 ± 0.014 | |
LU_9 | 0.838 ± 0.014 | 0.764 ± 0.022 | 0.719 ± 0.021 | 0.710 ± 0.016 | 0.699 ± 0.007 | ↓ |
LU_10 | 0.809 ± 0.008 | 0.610 ± 0.010 | 0.397 ± 0.012 | 0.350 ± 0.012 | 0.329 ± 0.011 | ↓ |
LU_11 | 0.916 ± 0.020 | 0.856 ± 0.012 | 0.838 ± 0.013 | 0.850 ± 0.008 | 0.841 ± 0.005 | |
LU_12 | 0.816 ± 0.012 | 0.775 ± 0.020 | 0.746 ± 0.017 | 0.769 ± 0.011 | 0.777 ± 0.009 | ↓ |
Cluster | AREA_MN | SHAPE_MN | PD | PR | SHDI | SIEI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Road | 700 | – | 700 | 500 | 200 | 100 |
LU_1 | – | – | 200 | 500 | – | – |
LU_2 | 200 | – | 700 | 200 | – | – |
LU_3 | 200 | 200 | 700 | 500 | – | – |
LU_4 | 200 | – | 700 | 500 | – | – |
LU_5 | 200 | 200 | 700 | 500 | – | – |
LU_6 | 500 | 200 | 700 | 700 | – | – |
LU_7 | 700 | – | 700 | 500 | 200 | – |
LU_8 | 700 | – | 700 | 200 | – | – |
LU_9 | 200 | 200 | 700 | 200 | – | – |
LU_10 | 200 | 200 | 500 | 700 | 200 | – |
LU_11 | 200 | 200 | 700 | 200 | – | – |
LU_12 | 200 | 200 | 700 | 200 | – | – |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lisiak-Zielińska, M.; Borowiak, K.; Budka, A. How Big Is the Real Road-Effect Zone? The Impact of the Highway on the Landscape Structure—A Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215219
Lisiak-Zielińska M, Borowiak K, Budka A. How Big Is the Real Road-Effect Zone? The Impact of the Highway on the Landscape Structure—A Case Study. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215219
Chicago/Turabian StyleLisiak-Zielińska, Marta, Klaudia Borowiak, and Anna Budka. 2022. "How Big Is the Real Road-Effect Zone? The Impact of the Highway on the Landscape Structure—A Case Study" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215219