Graph-Based Multi-Attribute Decision Making: Impact of Road Fencing on Ecological Network

Andrius Kučas


Conservation and transport decision makers must deal with many competing criteria in order to find the optimal connectivity of habitat patches in order to maximize organisms’ ability to traverse the landscape successfully. Thus, there is an increasing interest in prioritization of habitat patches by their contribution to overall landscape connectivity. Many different indices can be used to quantify structural and functional landscape connectivity. However, landscape connectivity indices alone do not clearly define conservation priorities for habitat patches. In this study priority values for each available habitat patch were calculated using multiple criteria spatial decision support techniques. As criteria for prioritization, spatial graph-based element properties (habitat patch size, number of corridors connected to a habitat patch, etc.) were characterized for each habitat patch. Graph-based connectivity rules for each habitat patch within a landscape (in conjunction with largest patch size, maximum number of corridors with a minimum length connected to a habitat patch, etc.) were defined and applied. Each criterion’s importance was assessed. Criteria-based ranking of habitat patches within a graph better indicated exact critical habitat patches than connectivity index alone, especially when changes in network occur. Simulations in the case study of Lithuania showed that barriers (road fences to keep animals off the road) without prompt establishment of animal crossings may realign complexes of an ecological networks by reducing the importance of adjacent and increasing the importance of more distant patches. Such distant patches may become essential, and can sometimes be the only elements preserving the realigned ecological network.


landscape connectivity; habitat patches; graph elements'; multiple-criteria decision-making; ecological network

Full Text:



Balčiauskas, L.; Jasiulionis, M. 2012. Reducing the Incidence of Mammals on Public Highways Using Chemical Repellent, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 7(2): 92–97.

Baranyi, G.; Saura, S.; Podanic, J.; Jordán, F. 2011. Contribution of Habitat Patches to Network Connectivity: Redundancy and Uniqueness of Topological Indices, Ecological Indicators 11(5): 1301–1310.

Brooks, C. P. 2003. A Scalar Analysis of Landscape Connectivity, Oikos 102(2): 433–439.

Burinskienė, M.; Rudzkienė, V. 2009. Future Insights, Scenarios and Expert Method Application in Sustainable Territorial Planning, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 15(1): 10–25.

Coutinho-Rodrigues, J.; Simão, A.; Antunes, A. C. 2011. A GIS-Based Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support System for Planning Urban Infrastructures, Decision Support Systems 51(3): 720–726.

Grashof-Bokdam, C. 1997. Forest Species in an Agricultural Landscape in the Netherlands: Effects of Habitat Fragmentation, Journal of Vegetation Science 8(1): 21–28.

Jakimavičius, M.; Burinskienė, M. 2007. Automobile Transport System Analysis and Ranking in Lithuanian Administrative Regions, Transport 22(3): 214–220.

Jasiūnienė, V.; Čygas, D. 2013. Road Accident Prediction Model for the Roads of National Significance of Lithuania, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 8(1): 66–73.

Johnson, A. R.; Wiens, J. A.; Milne, B. T.; Crist, T. O. 1992. Animal Movements and Population-Dynamics in Heterogeneous Landscapes, Landscape Ecology 7(1): 63–75.

Juškaitis, R. 2008. Long-Term Common Dormouse Monitoring: Effects of Forest Management on Abundance, Biodiversity and Conservation 17(14): 3559–3565.

Kavaliauskas, P. 2008. A Concept of Sustainable Development for Regional Land Use Planning: Lithuania Experience, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 14(1): 51–63.

Keyghobadi, N.; Roland, J.; Strobeck, C. 2005. Genetic Differentiation and Gene Flow among Populations of the Alpine Butterfly, Parnassius Smintheus, Vary with Landscape Connectivity, Molecular Ecology 14(7): 1897–1909.

Kučas, A. 2010. Location Prioritization by Means of Multicriteria Spatial Decision-Support Systems: a Case Study of Forest Fragmentation-Based Ranking of Forest Administrative Areas, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 18(4): 312–320.

Lindenmayer, D. B.; Fischer, J. 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: an Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Washington: Island Press. 329 p.

Moser, B.; Jaeger, J. A. G; Tappeiner, U.; Tasser, E.; Eiselt, B. 2007. Modification of the Effective Mesh Size for Measuring Landscape Fragmentation to Solve the Boundary Problem, Landscape Ecology 22(3): 447–459.

Pascual-Hortal, L.; Saura, S. 2006. Comparison and Development of New Graph-Based Landscape Connectivity Indices: Towards the Priorization of Habitat Patches and Corridors for Conservation, Landscape Ecology 21(7): 959–967.

Sepp, K.; Kaasik, A. 2002. Development of National Ecological Networks in the Baltic Countries in the Framework of the Pan- European Ecological Network. IUCN Central Europe. Warshaw: Pracownia Poligraficzna ARWIL s.c. 183 p.

Tischendorf, L.; Fahrig, L. 2003. On the Usage and Measurement of Landscape Connectivity, Oikos 90(1): 7–19.

Tischendorf, L.; Fahrig, L. 2000. How Should We Measure Landscape Connectivity?, Landscape Ecology 15(7): 633–641.

Verboom, J.; Foppen, R.; Chardon, P.; Opdam, P.; Luttikhuizen, P. 2001. Introducing the Key Patch Approach for Habitat Networks with Persistent Populations: An Example for Marshland Birds, Biological Conservation 100(1): 89–101.

DOI: 10.3846/bjrbe.2015.13


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2015 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika