Estimating the cumulative impact and zone of influence of anthropogenic features on biodiversity
1. The concept of cumulative impacts is widespread in policy documents, regu-lations and ecological studies, but quantification methods are still evolving. Infrastructure development usually takes place in landscapes with preexist-ing anthropogenic features. Typically, their impact is determined by...
| Published in: | Methods in Ecology and Evolution |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | Danish |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/29359 https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14133 |
| Summary: | 1. The concept of cumulative impacts is widespread in policy documents, regu-lations and ecological studies, but quantification methods are still evolving. Infrastructure development usually takes place in landscapes with preexist-ing anthropogenic features. Typically, their impact is determined by computing the distance to the nearest feature only, thus ignoring the potential cumulative impacts of multiple features. We propose the cumulative ZOI approach to as-sess whether and to what extent anthropogenic features lead to cumulative impacts. 2. The approach estimates both effect size and zone of influence (ZOI) of anthro-pogenic features and allows for estimation of cumulative effects of multiple features distributed in the landscape. First, we use simulations and an empiri-cal study to understand under which circumstances cumulative impacts arise. Second, we demonstrate the approach by estimating the cumulative impacts of tourist infrastructure in Norway on the habitat of wild reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus), a near-threatened species highly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance. 3. In the simulations, we showed that analyses based on the nearest feature and our cumulative approach are indistinguishable in two extreme cases: when features are few and scattered and their ZOI is small, and when features are clustered and their ZOI is large. The empirical analyses revealed cumulative impacts of private cabins and tourist resorts on reindeer, extending up to 10 and 20 km, with different decaying functions. Although the impact of an isolated private cabin was negligible, the cumulative impact of ‘cabin villages’ could be much larger than that of a single large tourist resort. Focusing on the nearest feature only underestimates the impact of ‘cabin villages’ on reindeer 4. The suggested approach allows us to quantify the magnitude and spatial extent of cumulative impacts of point, linear, and polygon features in a computationally efficient and flexible way and is implemented in the oneimpact R package. The formal ... |
|---|