**3.2.3 Connectivity analysis**

Land use change and the physical and functional disconnection of ecological networks represent one of the driving forces of biodiversity loss (Zetterberg et al., 2010; Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2004; Spangenberg, 2007; Reck et al., 2010). Beside a lot of different methodologies (see Fig. 8) network analysis and graph theory provide powerful tools and methods for analyzing ecological networks (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009; Urban et al., 2009; Zetterberg et al., 2010). There are three different types of connectivity analysis that can be classified according to the increasing data requirements and detail (Calabrese & Fagan, 2004).

Fig. 8. Different types of quantitative connectivity analysis (adapted from Calabrese & Fagan, 2004; Wolfrum, 2006)

Graph-theory can be used as a method with very little data requirements, easy to use and not as sensitive as other methods against changes in scale (Urban et al., 2009; Bunn et al., 2000; Calabrese & Fagan, 2004; Urban & Keitt, 2001; Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007; Pascual-Hortal & Saura, 2006). Several graph-theoretic metrics related to classical network analysis problems had been developed and tested and ecologically interpreted (Bunn et al., 2000; Urban & Keitt, 2001; Wolfrum, 2006).

Land use change and the physical and functional disconnection of ecological networks represent one of the driving forces of biodiversity loss (Zetterberg et al., 2010; Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2004; Spangenberg, 2007; Reck et al., 2010). Beside a lot of different methodologies (see Fig. 8) network analysis and graph theory provide powerful tools and methods for analyzing ecological networks (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009; Urban et al., 2009; Zetterberg et al., 2010). There are three different types of connectivity analysis that can be classified according to the increasing data requirements and detail (Calabrese & Fagan,

Fig. 8. Different types of quantitative connectivity analysis (adapted from Calabrese &

Graph-theory can be used as a method with very little data requirements, easy to use and not as sensitive as other methods against changes in scale (Urban et al., 2009; Bunn et al., 2000; Calabrese & Fagan, 2004; Urban & Keitt, 2001; Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007; Pascual-Hortal & Saura, 2006). Several graph-theoretic metrics related to classical network analysis problems had been developed and tested and ecologically interpreted (Bunn et al., 2000;

Fig. 7. Example for a habitat suitable model (Schmidt, 2007)

**3.2.3 Connectivity analysis** 

Fagan, 2004; Wolfrum, 2006)

Urban & Keitt, 2001; Wolfrum, 2006).

2004).

In graph-theory a graph is represented by nodes (e.g. habitats) and links (dispersal). A link connects node 1 and node 2 (see Fig. 9) (Tittmann, 2003; Urban & Keitt, 2001; Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007; Wolfrum, 2006). If the distance between two nodes is longer than the specific dispersal rate the link is missing, if the distance is in the dispersal range there is an existing link (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009; Zetterberg et al., 2010).

Fig. 9. Scheme of nodes and landscape graph representing habitats and connections (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009)

The graph-theory models can be distinguished in binary and probability models (Pascual-Hortal & Saura, 2006; Saura & Pascual –Hortal, 2007; Bunn et al., 2000; Urban & Keitt, 2001). Using binary models it's only possible to analyze if there is a link or not, while using probability models it's possible to analyze the existing situation (if there are links or not) and to evaluate each specific patch (habitat) (see Fig. 10) (Bunn et al., 2000; Urban & Keitt, 2001; Zetterberg et al., 2010). The distance between the nodes can be represented as edge-to-edge interpatch distance, as Euclidian distance or as least-cost path (Tischendorf & Fahrig, 2000; Ray et al., 2002; Adriaensen et al., 2003; Nikolakaki, 2004; Theobald, 2006, Zetterberg et al., 2010).

Fig. 10. Evaluation of specific habitats of Zootoca vivipara (example) (the bigger the more valuable) (left); patches and connectivity zones (right)

GIS in Landscape Planning 69

lot of different media or visualization techniques that can be used for citizen participation (see table 2.). For non-experts it's often difficult to understand the planning ideas. On the other side it's necessary for the planner to express and communicate his thoughts in order to

**(of image) Photorealistic GIS-**

+ - -/+ ++/- ++

**supported Internet** 

promote more sensitive landscape managing (Buhmann et al. 2010).

**Interactivity** 

**photos** + - ++ - + **Photomontage** - + ++ - + **Sketches** - ++ - - -

**3D-Model** - + + ++ + **VRML** ++ - + + ++ **Real-time** ++ + ++ ++ -

Table 2. Overview of visualization methods and their attributes (see Warren-Kretzschmar &




Using appropriate techniques and media it's possible to explain complex environmental issues to layman. The combination of modeling techniques and GIS permit to open a "window to the future" to show scenarios, 3D- and 4D-simulations in different level of details and realism (Sheppard et al., 2008; Bishop & Lange, 2005; Paar & Malte, 2007; Säck-da

A possibility to analyze relevant observation points for detailed visualizations are GIS based viewshed analysis. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) in combination with actual landform based on topography maps, orthophotos or thematic land use maps can be analyzed to select important vistas and areas from which a specific project might be visible or which area might be affected realizing a specific project (e.g. in the context of impact assessment for wind turbines) (see Fig. 12). After calculating the results they can be checked in the field and detailed visualizations of the before and after situation can be developed (Buhmann &

**Dynamic navigation** 

Legend: - unsuitable, + suitable, ++ very suitable

participation in the planning process?

Silva, 2007; Schroth, 2010; Pietsch & Spitzer, 2011).

But in all cases the questions remain:

Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005).

**Interactive maps/ Aerial photos** 

**Panorama** 

**Rendering of** 

Tiedtke, 2005)

tasks?

Pietsch 2008a).

Using these techniques critical parts of a network can be identified e.g. through patch removal (Keitt et al., 1997; Zetterberg et al., 2010; Pietsch & Krämer, 2009), the different patches can be ranked according to their importance (Urban & Keitt, 2001) and natural and man-made barriers and breaks can be found (Zetterberg et al., 2010). They can be used as evaluation tools in the planning process or to analyze and visualize different possible scenarios for the participation process or to define areas that are most important for specific measures. In combination with cost-distance modeling (Adriaensen et al., 2003; Theobald, 2006; Zetterberg et al., 2010) and improved knowledge about species preferences and dispersal (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009) the tools are helpful to reduce negative ecological impact and find appropriate solutions in the landscape planning process.

#### **3.3 Participation**

The results of the landscape planning process are planned objectives or planned measures to be implemented into town and country planning, sectoral plans or executed by executive agencies (e.g. public institutions, conservation authorities, private individuals) (BfN, 2002; Riedel & Lange, 2001). Therefore landscape planning must be extended from an expert planning to a process-oriented planning where the participation process is one of the most important topics (Steinitz, 2010; von Haaren, 2004; Wissen, 2009). Based on the communication model of Norbert Wiener (Steinitz, 2010) the process has three elements: the message, the medium and the meaning. In landscape planning that means that the planner has a vision (a plan), the landscape is the medium and the viewer (public, stakeholder etc.) gains an impression of the changed landscape. In existing planning processes often the communication starts by the designer and ends by the viewer. But there must be a two-way alternate communication between the designer and the viewer to improve the results and the acceptance (Wissen 2009; Steinitz 2010; a.o.) (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Nobert Wiener's Communication Model (Steinitz, 2010)

Communication and information are the basic elements of participation (Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Wissen, 2009). The advantages of computer-generated visualizations (plans, photomontages, 2D visualizations, 3D visualizations, real-time visualizations) in decision-making processes have been recognized for a long period (Lange 1994; Al-Kodmany 1999; Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke 2005; Wissen 2009 a.o.). There are a

Using these techniques critical parts of a network can be identified e.g. through patch removal (Keitt et al., 1997; Zetterberg et al., 2010; Pietsch & Krämer, 2009), the different patches can be ranked according to their importance (Urban & Keitt, 2001) and natural and man-made barriers and breaks can be found (Zetterberg et al., 2010). They can be used as evaluation tools in the planning process or to analyze and visualize different possible scenarios for the participation process or to define areas that are most important for specific measures. In combination with cost-distance modeling (Adriaensen et al., 2003; Theobald, 2006; Zetterberg et al., 2010) and improved knowledge about species preferences and dispersal (Pietsch & Krämer, 2009) the tools are helpful to reduce negative ecological impact

The results of the landscape planning process are planned objectives or planned measures to be implemented into town and country planning, sectoral plans or executed by executive agencies (e.g. public institutions, conservation authorities, private individuals) (BfN, 2002; Riedel & Lange, 2001). Therefore landscape planning must be extended from an expert planning to a process-oriented planning where the participation process is one of the most important topics (Steinitz, 2010; von Haaren, 2004; Wissen, 2009). Based on the communication model of Norbert Wiener (Steinitz, 2010) the process has three elements: the message, the medium and the meaning. In landscape planning that means that the planner has a vision (a plan), the landscape is the medium and the viewer (public, stakeholder etc.) gains an impression of the changed landscape. In existing planning processes often the communication starts by the designer and ends by the viewer. But there must be a two-way alternate communication between the designer and the viewer to improve the results and

and find appropriate solutions in the landscape planning process.

the acceptance (Wissen 2009; Steinitz 2010; a.o.) (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Nobert Wiener's Communication Model (Steinitz, 2010)

Communication and information are the basic elements of participation (Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Wissen, 2009). The advantages of computer-generated visualizations (plans, photomontages, 2D visualizations, 3D visualizations, real-time visualizations) in decision-making processes have been recognized for a long period (Lange 1994; Al-Kodmany 1999; Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke 2005; Wissen 2009 a.o.). There are a

**3.3 Participation** 

lot of different media or visualization techniques that can be used for citizen participation (see table 2.). For non-experts it's often difficult to understand the planning ideas. On the other side it's necessary for the planner to express and communicate his thoughts in order to promote more sensitive landscape managing (Buhmann et al. 2010).


Legend: - unsuitable, + suitable, ++ very suitable

Table 2. Overview of visualization methods and their attributes (see Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005)

But in all cases the questions remain:


Using appropriate techniques and media it's possible to explain complex environmental issues to layman. The combination of modeling techniques and GIS permit to open a "window to the future" to show scenarios, 3D- and 4D-simulations in different level of details and realism (Sheppard et al., 2008; Bishop & Lange, 2005; Paar & Malte, 2007; Säck-da Silva, 2007; Schroth, 2010; Pietsch & Spitzer, 2011).

A possibility to analyze relevant observation points for detailed visualizations are GIS based viewshed analysis. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) in combination with actual landform based on topography maps, orthophotos or thematic land use maps can be analyzed to select important vistas and areas from which a specific project might be visible or which area might be affected realizing a specific project (e.g. in the context of impact assessment for wind turbines) (see Fig. 12). After calculating the results they can be checked in the field and detailed visualizations of the before and after situation can be developed (Buhmann & Pietsch 2008a).

GIS in Landscape Planning 71

For public participation processes planning results can be presented interactively in realtime for offline or online purpose (Paar, 2006; Paar & Malte, 2007; Buhmann & Pietsch 2008a and b; Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Wissen, 2009; Kretzler, 2002; a.o.). Visualization using different media and specific level of detail is a useful methodology to explain the results of the different working steps as well as to explain complex ecological issues in a way everybody (experts, public, stakeholder, politicians) is able to understand. In the context of Wieners communication model visualization techniques are a possibility to

improve the meaning and understanding of the planers vision (Wissen, 2009).

Fig. 14. Simulation of a dam (left: winter, right: summer) (created by Lenné3D GmbH)

To create a two-way alternate communication between planer/designer and viewer Web GIS-technologies can be used (Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Lipp, 2007; Richter, 2009). Through Web GIS-technologies it's possible to present spatial information via the internet, combine them with other media (Dangermond, 2009) and offer GIS capabilities (e.g. zoom, pan, spatial analysis, upload and download, network-analysis, editing) to enhance the communication process. Thematic maps using WebMap- or WebFeature-Services can be presented via Internet (Richter 2009; Krause 2011). In the landscape planning context the thematic maps and the belonging text explaining the landscape functions, conflicts, the guiding vision and objectives and measures can be published. Users can be enabled to navigate through the whole documents and give feedback using drawing or editing tools to locate the response and the possibility for textual information (see Fig. 15). All these information can be stored in a database to analyze the results of the public participation process, to redesign the plan and if necessary to reply to each of the

In combination with visualization techniques the communication between planner/designer and viewer can be improved. In addition to town meetings or specific workshops much more people can be involved using these techniques. Especially for landscape planning projects on regional level or for the entire state it might be helpful to improve the

participation process simultaneously reducing planning period and costs.

(Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008b)

user.

Fig. 12. Viewshed analysis (areas in green from which proposed dam in red is visible) (left); seleceted observation points for detailed visualization (right) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a)

Creating a 3D model of the investigation area enables to calculate scenarios and simulations through the integration of GIS data and generated 3D models (e.g. buildings, plants). Visual impact assessment or aesthetic analysis (Kretzler, 2003; Ozimek & Ozimek, 2008; Bishop et al., 2010) are possible as well as calculating affected settlements by different levels of flooding and evaluating different measurements to reduce the impact (see Fig. 13) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a). Using these techniques different landscape ecological impacts can be spatially defined, evaluated and visualized.

Fig. 13. Simulation of affected areas (blue) and not affected areas (white) during a flood 1994 (right); simulation with planned dams (right) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a)

In detailed scale seasonal changes can be presented and discussed and visual impact analysis based on temporal changes can be evaluated especially in sensitive (e.g. areas with a high touristic potential) areas (see Fig. 14).

Fig. 12. Viewshed analysis (areas in green from which proposed dam in red is visible) (left);

Creating a 3D model of the investigation area enables to calculate scenarios and simulations through the integration of GIS data and generated 3D models (e.g. buildings, plants). Visual impact assessment or aesthetic analysis (Kretzler, 2003; Ozimek & Ozimek, 2008; Bishop et al., 2010) are possible as well as calculating affected settlements by different levels of flooding and evaluating different measurements to reduce the impact (see Fig. 13) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a). Using these techniques different landscape ecological impacts

 Fig. 13. Simulation of affected areas (blue) and not affected areas (white) during a flood 1994

In detailed scale seasonal changes can be presented and discussed and visual impact analysis based on temporal changes can be evaluated especially in sensitive (e.g. areas with

(right); simulation with planned dams (right) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a)

seleceted observation points for detailed visualization (right)

can be spatially defined, evaluated and visualized.

a high touristic potential) areas (see Fig. 14).

(Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a)

For public participation processes planning results can be presented interactively in realtime for offline or online purpose (Paar, 2006; Paar & Malte, 2007; Buhmann & Pietsch 2008a and b; Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Wissen, 2009; Kretzler, 2002; a.o.). Visualization using different media and specific level of detail is a useful methodology to explain the results of the different working steps as well as to explain complex ecological issues in a way everybody (experts, public, stakeholder, politicians) is able to understand. In the context of Wieners communication model visualization techniques are a possibility to improve the meaning and understanding of the planers vision (Wissen, 2009).

Fig. 14. Simulation of a dam (left: winter, right: summer) (created by Lenné3D GmbH) (Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008b)

To create a two-way alternate communication between planer/designer and viewer Web GIS-technologies can be used (Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Lipp, 2007; Richter, 2009). Through Web GIS-technologies it's possible to present spatial information via the internet, combine them with other media (Dangermond, 2009) and offer GIS capabilities (e.g. zoom, pan, spatial analysis, upload and download, network-analysis, editing) to enhance the communication process. Thematic maps using WebMap- or WebFeature-Services can be presented via Internet (Richter 2009; Krause 2011). In the landscape planning context the thematic maps and the belonging text explaining the landscape functions, conflicts, the guiding vision and objectives and measures can be published. Users can be enabled to navigate through the whole documents and give feedback using drawing or editing tools to locate the response and the possibility for textual information (see Fig. 15). All these information can be stored in a database to analyze the results of the public participation process, to redesign the plan and if necessary to reply to each of the user.

In combination with visualization techniques the communication between planner/designer and viewer can be improved. In addition to town meetings or specific workshops much more people can be involved using these techniques. Especially for landscape planning projects on regional level or for the entire state it might be helpful to improve the participation process simultaneously reducing planning period and costs.

GIS in Landscape Planning 73

Fig. 16. Generating a vision based on weighted overlay of different plan concepts

In the past there had been a lot of problems exchanging information in horizontal and vertical ways between different planners and different landscape planning procedures (Krämer, 2008; Dembinsky, 2008; Arnold et al., 2005; Pietsch et al. 2010). In the context of environmental planning the whole planning process can be described as a life cycle of

To improve data exchange standardized, conceptual data models had been created e.g. for various areas of roads and transport (Hettwer, 2008) or regional, municipal land management and landscape planning in Germany (Benner et al. 2008; Benner & Krause, 2007). The purpose is to ensure a consistent object representation and a unified data exchange of graphic and geometric data (Ernstling & Portele, 1996; Hettwer, 2008; Pietsch et al., 2010; a.o.). The defined data models allow software developer to create specific application for landscape planning purposes and develop interface for data exchange.

For the representation guidelines and standard maps for different purposes had been developed to achieve a unified design in creating maps (Schultze & Buhmann, 2008). Taking the communication model of Norbert Wiener (Steinitz, 2010) in consideration defining and using data models lead to standardized communication without loss of information and meaning and improves data quality (Pietsch & Heins, 2009; Heins & Pietsch, 2010; Hettwer, 2008). Otherwise producing standardized datasets allows the implementation and development of Web GIS-applications for public participation or in monitoring / environmental information systems. Validation checks may be implemented to ensure data quality and to guarantee integrity. This allows to choose and develop scientific (process,

**4. Information management** 

information (see Fig. 17).

Fig. 15. Screenshot public participation server (Richter, 2009)
