Next Article in Journal
SRide: An Online System for Multi-Hop Ridesharing
Next Article in Special Issue
The Agrarian, Structural and Cultural Constraints of Smallholders’ Readiness for Sustainability Standards Implementation: The Case of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil in East Kalimantan
Previous Article in Journal
A SEM Approach to the Direct and Indirect Links between WaSH Services and Access to Food in Countries in Protracted Crises: The Case of Western Bahr-el-Ghazal State, South Sudan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatial Distribution of Surface Temperature and Land Cover: A Study Concerning Sardinia, Italy
Article

Assessing Landscape Fragmentation: A Composite Indicator

Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(22), 9632; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229632
Received: 24 October 2020 / Revised: 6 November 2020 / Accepted: 17 November 2020 / Published: 18 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Landscape Fragmentation and Sustainable Environmental Assessment)
The assessment and management of landscape fragmentation (LF), i.e., the subdivision of the habitat into smaller and more isolated patches, can benefit from the adoption of a composite indicator explaining, in a unique measure, the various concerns involved. However, the use of composite indicators may be affected by lack of data, subjectivity in algorithm design, and oversimplification connected to reduction to just one index. In these cases, the findings obtained might not provide the researcher with reliable information. In this paper, we design and apply the Composite Indicator of Landscape Fragmentation (CILF), a metric resuming three indicators concerning the effect on LF of transport and mobility infrastructures, human settlements, and patch density per se. The application concerns the measurement of LF spatial pattern and dynamics from 2003 to 2008 of 51 landscape units in the island of Sardinia (Italy). We considered a complete spatial data set, chose the generalized geometric mean as aggregation algorithm, and verified its robustness via sensitivity analysis of the results. We found that, in 2003 and 2008, the CILF spatial pattern shows higher values in coastal areas and has varied randomly, i.e., without a consistent tendency to converge to, or diverge from, a mean value. Overall, we demonstrate that the CILF is a powerful instrument for monitoring LF in Sardinia and advocate that it can be further implemented, following the same methodological framework, by extending the pool of indicators considered and assessing a weighted version of the composite indicator. View Full-Text
Keywords: composite indicators; decisional processes; landscape fragmentation; normalization; aggregation; sensitivity analysis composite indicators; decisional processes; landscape fragmentation; normalization; aggregation; sensitivity analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

De Montis, A.; Serra, V.; Ganciu, A.; Ledda, A. Assessing Landscape Fragmentation: A Composite Indicator. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9632. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229632

AMA Style

De Montis A, Serra V, Ganciu A, Ledda A. Assessing Landscape Fragmentation: A Composite Indicator. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9632. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229632

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Montis, Andrea, Vittorio Serra, Amedeo Ganciu, and Antonio Ledda. 2020. "Assessing Landscape Fragmentation: A Composite Indicator" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9632. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229632

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop