Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of a Landscape Development Intensity Index for Assessing Wetlands in Taiwan

  • Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2007, the Taiwanese government used the criteria of species richness, degree of wilderness/representativeness/uniqueness, and appropriateness/reasonability to identify 74 wetlands as being of importance. They were ranked according to the order of importance and classified into three levels: wetlands of international, national, and local importance. We examined the landscape status of these wetlands, each including a 100-m-wide swath of surrounding land area and the wetland itself, and calculated landscape development intensity (LDI) index values, as used in earlier assessments in Florida, USA. The LDI index values were ranked and classified into three levels as done by the Taiwanese government. We compared the ranking of the LDI index values with those evaluated by the Taiwanese government and found that there was 67.6% congruency, suggesting that the LDI index can be used to assess the biodiversity status of wetlands. Our results also suggested that the LDI index can be used to assess coastal wetlands. This provides rapid and timely information on landscape development which can prove useful for managing wetlands in Taiwan. However, there was some variability between the two rankings, apparently resulting from the incongruence of some land-use categories used in Florida and Taiwan. It is recommended that Taiwan develop LDI coefficients corresponding to land-use categories based on its own natural and anthropogenic landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D (1997) Economic valuation of wetlands, a guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MT, Vivas MB (2005) Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Farber M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Raskin P, Van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay SC, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane CR, Brown MT (2007) Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators 7:521–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land-use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ (2006) Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition an evaluation of the landscape development index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 120:221–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ (2007) Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations. Ecological Indicators 7:864–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ, Avdis NH, Braig EC IV, Johnson DL (2008) Application of a vegetation-based index of biotic integrity for Lake Erie coastal marshes in Ohio. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 11:91–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestlerode JA, Engle VD, Bourgeois P, Heitmuller PT, Macauley JM, Allen YC (2009) An integrated approach to assess broad-scale condition of coastal wetlands—the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands pilot survey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 150:21–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Schwartz PM, Goodman IA, Jackson BL, Baillargeon WS (1997) Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. Bioscience 47:513–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2006) The Ramsar convention manual: a guide to the convention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 4th edn. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss KC, Brown MT (2007) Evaluation of Florida palustrine wetlands: application of USEPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth 4:206–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueng YT (2007) Taiwan wetlands of importance. Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior. Taipei, Taiwan

  • USEPA (2006) Application of elements of a state water monitoring and assessment program for wetlands. Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Chen-Kuang Lee, Mr. Peng-Sheng Chen and Miss Yun-Chien Chou of the Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior, who provided help and advice on the important wetlands layer and data. We express our appreciation to Miss Ying-Ting Huang of the National Land Surveying and Mapping Center, Ministry of Interior, who provided help and advice on the Land Use Investigation of Taiwan layers and data, and to Mr. Jian-Xin Wu and Miss Ya-Qi Zhan of the Endemic Species Research Institute for assistance on the data analysis. We are most indebted to Dr. Chu-fa Tsai for providing constructive comments and suggestions, and extend our appreciation for the comments from two anonymous reviewers who helped clarify and strengthen the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Endemic Species Research Institute, Jiji, Nantou, 552, Taiwan

    Tien-Shui Chen

  2. Department of Life Sciences, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, 402, Taiwan

    Tien-Shui Chen & Hsing-Juh Lin

  3. Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 115, Taiwan

    Hsing-Juh Lin

Authors
  1. Tien-Shui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hsing-Juh Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsing-Juh Lin.

Appendix 1: Three classes of land-use categories in Taiwan, with each of the categories in class 3 assigned landscape development intensity (LDI) coefficients based on the Florida land-use classification system (Brown and Vivas 2005). * These land-use categories were not associated with the wetland

Appendix 1: Three classes of land-use categories in Taiwan, with each of the categories in class 3 assigned landscape development intensity (LDI) coefficients based on the Florida land-use classification system (Brown and Vivas 2005). * These land-use categories were not associated with the wetland

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

LDI coefficients

1. Agriculture

1. Farmland

1. Rice paddy

2.77

2. Dry farmland

4.54

3. Orchard

3.68

4. Uncultivated farmland

2.77

2. Aquaculture

5. Aquaculture

1.83

3. Livestock

6. Poultry farm

7.00

7. Pasture

3.74

4. Agriculture facility

8. Greenhouse

8.07

9. Storage facility

8.07

10. Produce market

8.07

11. Other facilities

8.07

2. Forestry

5. Natural forest

12. Conifer forest

1.00

13. Broadleaf forest

1.00

14. Bamboo forest

1.00

15. Bamboo-broadleaf forest

1.00

6. Artificial forest

16. Conifer plantation

1.58

17. Broadleaf plantation

1.58

18. Bamboo plantation

1.58

19. Bamboo-broadleaf plantation

1.58

7. Other forest land

20. Clear cut forest land

1.58

21. Tree nursery

1.58

22. Fire lane

1.58

23. Timber Landing facility

1.58*

3. Transportation

8. Airport

24. Airport

8.28

9. Railroad

25. Regular railroad

7.81

26. High-speed railroad

7.81

27. Railroad facility

7.81

10. Road

28. Path

8.28

29. National highways

8.28

30. County and local roads

7.81

31. Road facility

8.28

11. Harbor

32. Commercial harbor

8.28*

33. Fishing harbor

8.28

34. Harbor for special use

8.28

35. Harbor facility

8.28

4. Water conservancy

12. River

36. Natural river

1.00

37. Dredging river

1.83*

38. Water canal

7.81*

39. Embankment

7.81

13. Drainage ditch

40. Drainage ditch

1.83

14. Reservoir

41. Reservoir

1.83

42. Natural lake

1.83

43. Water storage ponds

1.83

44. Artificial lake

1.83

15. Sand bar

45. Sand bar

1.00

16. Water work facility

46. Water gate

8.07

47. Pumping station

8.07

48. Dam

8.07

49. Underground well

8.07

50. Other facilities

8.07

17. Dike

51. Dike

7.81

18. Sea

52. Sea

1.00

5. Community

19. Business

53. Service industry

9.18

54. Retail and wholesale stores

8.00

20. Housing

55. Residential house

6.79

56. House for residence and manufacture

8.66

57. House for residence and business

8.66

58. House for residence and other uses

8.66

21. Industry

59. Manufacturing industry

8.32

60. Storage facility

8.32

22. Building for other uses

61. Church and temple

8.07

62. Funeral home and cemetery

8.07

63. Building in construction

8.07

64. Others

8.07

6. Public land

23. Governmental building

65. Governmental building

8.07

24. School

66. Kindergarten

8.07

67. Elementary school

8.07

68. Middle school

8.07

69. Colleges and university

8.07

70. Special school

8.07*

25. Medical health care facility

71. Hospital and health care facility

8.07

26. Social welfare agency

72. Social welfare facility

8.07

27. Public utility facility

73. Meteorological station

8.07

74. Electric power facility

8.07

75. Gas facility

8.07

76. Public water facility

8.07

77. Gasoline station

8.07

28. Environmental protection facility

78. Environmental protection facility

8.07

7. Recreation and leisure

29. Cultural facility

79. Decretory cultural facility

6.92

80. General cultural facility

6.92

81. Other facilities

6.92

30. Leisure facility

82. Park (green yard)

1.83

83. Amusement place

6.92

84. Play ground

6.92

8. Mining and graveling

31. Mining industry

85. Mining ground

8.32*

86. Mining facility

8.32*

32. Gravel industry

87. Gravel pits

1.83

88. Gravel related facility

6.92

33. Salt industry

89. Salt pan

1.83

90. Salt related facility

6.92*

9. Miscellaneous

34. Military base

91. Military base and facility

8.07

35. Wetland

92. Wetland

1.00

36. Glass land

93. Glass land

1.00

37. Bare land

94. Beach

1.00

95. Land slide area

1.00

96. Rocky crag

1.00

97. Exposed open ground

1.00

38. Bush land

98. Bush land

1.00

39. Natural disaster area

99. Natural disaster area

1.83

40. Left over land from construction

100. Left over land from construction

1.83

41. Vacant land

101. Unutilized building land

1.83

102. Land in construction

1.83

103. Surveyor’ beacon

8.07*

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, TS., Lin, HJ. Application of a Landscape Development Intensity Index for Assessing Wetlands in Taiwan. Wetlands 31, 745–756 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0191-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0191-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation