An Integrated Approach to Mitigation Wetland Site Selection: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Korea

Abstract

This paper presents an integrated approach to mitigation wetland site selection using functional landscape connectivity and landscape structure. This approach enables landscape designers to evaluate the relative priorities of mitigation wetland areas based on functional landscape connectivity and wildlife mobility, as well as landscape structure, composition, and configuration. The least-cost path method is used to evaluate candidate sites for mitigation wetlands with regard to wildlife movement. A set of assessments for landscape indices using FRAGSTATS was applied to identify suitable mitigation wetland areas on the basis of landscape connectivity, composition, and configuration. The study was conducted in Gwacheon, Korea, where there are plans for regional development that will change the landscape. In the first step, a group of 14 candidate sites is identified via analysis of functional landscape connectivity using the least-cost path method. In the second step, candidate mitigation wetland areas are ranked according to landscape connectivity and composition. The five mitigation wetland areas that were found to be suitable were analyzed based on landscape configuration at the class level. This study demonstrates OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 3387 that functional landscape connectivity and landscape structure are important aspects to consider when identifying suitable sites for mitigation wetland planning and restoration.

Urban Ecological Corridor Network Construction: An Integration of the Least Cost Path Model and the InVEST Model

“…The LCP model is the least cost path for calculating the source to the target and is considered to be one of the most effective methods [34,35].…”

“…Different topological distances affect the choice of path; the Euclidean distance ( Figure 5a) was a measure of the linear distance between two adjacent patches, but ignored the plaque's landscape permeability and spatial heterogeneity [35].…”

“…Different topological distances affect the choice of path; the Euclidean distance ( Figure 5a) was a measure of the linear distance between two adjacent patches, but ignored the plaque's landscape permeability and spatial heterogeneity [35]. the spatial distribution of the length of 12-25 km in the entire study area presented a "U" shape, namely the central urban area was well connected to the north and southwest.…”