4.7 Article

Assessment of land use changes through an indicator-based approach: A case study from the Lamone river basin in Northern Italy

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 4-14

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.016

关键词

Land use change; DPSIR framework; Landscape; Multi-criteria decision analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study has been performed in order to evaluate the land use changes and related environmental impacts which occurred in recent decades in the Lamone river basin (Northern Italian Apennines) Using the DPSIR indicator-based approach, agricultural land use changes and conversions occurred within the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2003, have been associated with the shortage of water in the river and the modification of the landscape structure. Results show that Lamone river basin in 1976 was mainly dominated by forest (27 4%) and cropland (32.3%) and through the entire period the valley presented a strong persistence of land uses and the main conversions detected are afforestation and agricultural intensification. The hydrological balance analysis results indicate that the agricultural intensification process produced a water deficit in summer periods equal to 0.89 mln m(3) in 2003 The landscape of the Lamone valley became more homogeneous, showing a decrease in diversity (Shannon Diversity Index values decreased from 1.81 to 1.58) and the riparian corridor became more human-dominated (Human Habitat values increased from 0.61 to 0.77). An integrated assessment of possible management options has been conducted, using the MULINO-DSS software as a support. Thirteen different management scenarios have been produced in order to solve the water balance Issue and to enhance the riparian corridor. Attributing equal weight to the environmental, social and economical criteria, the best solution corresponds to the sole creation of artificial basins and the actual situation is placed at position 8 (out of 13). (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据