By Susan T.

Williams
Fall 2011

Lessons 9 and 10
Final Project: Identifying Suitable Sites
for Biological Conservation in Centre County, PA
Objective
Unlike previous lessons in this course, this final project did not provide detailed steps guiding us
through the lessons. Instead, we were provided with a site selection analysis scenario and had
to utilize the ArcMap v.10 software and concepts and skills learned from previous lessons in
order to determine the results for ourselves. Students first needed to design a workflow that
details steps that would be taken to process the information and arrive at a logical and
satisfactory conclusion.
This project involved skills such as joining tables, adding and calculating sums for table fields,
converting vector data to raster grids, reclassifying data, buffering, dissolving, hillshading, and
utilizing the Raster Calculator, as well as creating a final thematic map with a customized layout
and color scheme, adding scale bars and north arrows, adding and customizing a map legend,
and exploring additional ArcMap features such as neatlines and the addition of text, graphics,
and overview maps.
Introduction
This project objective is to identify potential proactive conservation sites for a biological reserve
system in Centre County, Pennsylvania. The potential conservation sites, which will be
presented to local government officials, must meet all of the following six criteria:
1. Rich in species diversity (defined by having greater than 70 bird and mammalian species
combined);
2. Less than 10% of each study area occupied by buffered roads, highways, and interstates;
3. High habitat potential;
4. Publicly owned land;
1

5. Forested areas;
6. Slope of less than 10%. (King, 2011).

Procedure
My initial workflow turned out to be pretty accurate, so I followed it closely. The set-up
involved downloading the project files and unzipping them into a project folder, adding them as
layers in a new ArcMap, checking projection information on the layers, and verifying that the
data frame was set to meters to match the metadata of the downloaded layers.
Suitability Criteria # 1: Species Richness
After joining the species table (speciesrich.dbf) to the study areas shapefile (studyareas.shp)
using Block_ID as the common attribute (see Figure 1), this layer was exported to a new
shapefile named SPECIESJOIN in order to make the join permanent.

Figure 1: Screenshot showing the data used to join the species-rich table to the studyareas
shapefile. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

I noticed that a field named Area already existed in the table. By using the Measure a feature
tool and clicking on several of the square-shaped study areas, I was able to verify that the unit
2

of measurement used to calculate the Area listed in the table was indeed meters. I will need
this information later when calculating the percentage of roads within each area.
Next, I added a new short integer field to the table which I named TotSpecies for the total
number of species per study area. This field was populated by utilizing the Field Calculator to
sum the birds and mammals fields: [BIRDS] + [MAMMALS]. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: Screenshot showing the Field Calculator script used to populate the newly-created
TotSpecies field. This number is a sum of the Birds and Mammals fields and represents the
total number of combined species per study area. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0.
Used here for educational purposes only.

I performed an attribute query from the SPECIESJOIN layer to select the sites that have greater
than 70 bird and mammalian species combined ("TotSpecies" >70) and then exported only
these selected matches as a new layer named 70+SPECIES. This narrows the possible study
areas for consideration from the 157 to 44 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Screenshot showing the areas that meet suitability criteria for species richness.
The 44 purple-colored areas that are highlighted in blue contain greater than 70 species of
birds and mammals combined. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for
educational purposes only.

Suitability Criteria # 2: Less than 10% of each study area occupied by buffered roads,
highways, and interstates.
I had initially planned to select only the roads that ran through the species-rich study areas so
as to cut down on the processing time when buffering the roads. Then it occurred to me that I
should not automatically assume that we only need roads that go through the species-rich
study areas. Depending on the size of the buffer, there might be roads that run close to but not
through the actual species-rich study area, yet still create a buffer that does fall within the
species-rich study area and thus need to be considered. Similarly, clipping roads that extend
beyond the county boundaries may have a similar effect if there happened to be any buffers
that extend over the county line into a possible study area. With that in mind, I decided to
simply buffer all of the roads to be on the safe side.
As polygons, the buffers around each road feature will aid me in approximating the road
corridor so I can calculate the percentage of road per study area. However, the lesson
instructions advised that we avoid dissolving the buffers (removing any overlap in the buffered
areas) due to the length of processing time.
4

The first step was to create a Buffered Roads Layer. I added a new field to the roads attribute
table named BuffDist which will hold buffer distances for each road type. Then I performed an
attribute query on the roads layer for "rd_type" = 'Road' to select all the roads in Centre County
and used the Field Calculator to set BuffDist to equal 20 (meters) for these selected roads (see
Figure 4).

Figure 4: Screenshot showing the attribute query for road type. The buffer distances were
set according to each road type: 20, 50, or 100 meters for roads, highways, or interstates
respectively. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

The same method was used to query "rd_type" = 'Highway' and for "rd_type" = 'Interstate', and
the Field Calculator was used to set those BuffDist to equal 50 and 100 (meters) respectively.
I then ran the Buffer Tool on the roads layer using the BuffDist field and saving the output
layer as ROADSBUFF (see Figure 5). This is where I double-checked to make sure that I had not
selected the option to dissolve the barriers between the buffers, which would increase the
processing time.
5

Figure 5: Screenshot showing a zoomed-in area after buffering the roads according to road
type. You can see that the buffers are wider around the interstate. The purple areas are
the sites that met our suitability criteria for species richness in the previous step (see Figure
3). Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

Now I need to determine the percentage of road area that is associated with each study site. I
performed a Union on the 70+SPECIES and ROADSBUFF layers, saving the resulting output
layer as RdsBuffSpcsUnion.
In this union, the attribute table reveals that roads with a BuffDist value of 0 are non-road
areas. That makes it easy then to run an attribute query selecting these and exporting the
resulting 44 portions to a new layer named NonRoadAreas (see Figure 6).
In order to calculate percentage of road area associated with each study site, I added two new
fields to the NonRoadAreas layer. (Although the sample workflow mentioned adding THREE
new fields, one of them being for NewArea, I found that an existing field named Shape_Area
already contained that information. I double-checked its accuracy by examining the fields
Geometry Calculator settings, which had indeed been set to find the Area in square meters.)

Figure 6: Screenshot showing a zoomed-in area of Non-Roads. Note how the green-colored
polygons have selected everything around the road buffers but not the roads or buffers
themselves. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

The first new field, named RoadArea, was populated by the Field Calculator using the equation
RoadArea= [Area] - [Shape_Area].
The second new field, named PercentRd, was populated by the Field Calculator using the
equation PercentRd= [RoadArea] / [Area] *100. The results of that equation give us the
percentage of each study area that is covered by buffered roads.
I ran another attribute query to identify which areas contain percentages below 10%
("PercentRd" <10) and exported these 36 selections to a new layer named POT_SITES. This
new POT_SITES layer contains all potential conservation areas that have more than 70 types of
species AND less than 10% of their area covered by buffered roads (see Figure 7).
This shapefile was converted to a raster grid named POTSITES_RAS with a cell size of 50
meters (which is the coarsest resolution among the input data). I opted to use the flag field as
all sites had a value of 0 in this field. Since all sites in this grid have met suitability criteria thus
far, we can simply reclassify the entire thing with a desirable value of 1 to represent suitable
areas, and the resulting reclassified layer was named RC_POTSITES.

Figure 7: Screenshot showing the 36 areas that meet suitability criteria for both species
richness and less than 10% of the areas covered by buffered roads. Screenshot from ESRI
ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

Suitability Criteria # 3: High Habitat Potential

I first created a Hillshade to add a three-dimensional element to the map that helps give the
viewer a better feel for the topography, set the transparency to 30% and selected a very light
olive-hued color ramp rather than the default black-and-white one.
I converted the HABITAT polygon shapefile to a raster grid using the HabitatPot attribute
field, a cell size of 50 meters, and an output name of HABPOT_RAS.
I next separated out the suitable habitat areas by reclassifying the HABPOT_RAS raster layer
into 2 classes, assigning a desirable value of 1 to areas with a High value of habitat potential
(per our suitability criteria) and assigning a non-desirable value of 0 to areas with a Low value
of habitat potential. The results were named RC_HABITATPOT to easily differentiate between
layers, and the color representing the 0- value areas was turned off so that only the applicable
areas, shown in dark blue, remain visible (see Figure 8).

Suitability Criteria # 4: Publicly-owned land

After examining the ownership polygon attribute table, I see that there are many features with
the same ownership value (public or private). I performed a dissolve to simplify the data and
saved the output as OWNER_DSLV. Now all of the data falls into just two groups: one for
privately-owned land and one for publicly-owned land.
This OWNER_DSLV shapefile is next converted into a raster grid using the ownership
attribute field, a cell size of 50 meters and an output name of OWNERSHIP_RAS.
I next separated out the suitable land areas by reclassifying the OWNERSHIP_RAS raster layer
into 2 classes, assigning a desirable value of 1 to areas with a Public value of land ownership
(per our suitability criteria) and assigning a non-desirable value of 0 to areas with a Private
value of land ownership. The results were named RC_OWNERSHIP to easily differentiate
between layers, and the color representing the 0- value areas was turned off so that only the
applicable areas, shown in dark orange, remain visible (see Figure 8).

Suitability Criteria # 5: Forested Areas

There is no need to convert the LANDUSE shapefile into a raster grid because it already is one.
However, I do need to separate out suitable areas by reclassifying the raster layer. The Value
field has already assigned a numerical code based on land use, and I can see from looking at the
description in the S-Value field of the Attribute Table that Forest areas are coded with a
Value of 1. Using this information, I assigned a desirable value of 1 to areas with a Forest
9

landuse (per our suitability criteria), which have a Value code of 1, and assigned a nondesirable value of 0 to all other landuse areas, which have a Value code anywhere between 2
and 13. The results are named RC_FORESTED to easily differentiate between layers, and the
color representing the 0- value areas was turned off so that only the applicable areas, shown in
dark green, remain visible (see Figure 8).

Suitability Criteria # 6: Slope of less than 10%

I created a slope grid from the Elevation layer using an output measurement of Percent_Rise
(rather than Degrees), a cell size of 50 meters and output name of SLOPE_RAS. Then I
separated out the suitable areas by reclassifying the raster layer into 2 classes, assigning a
desirable value of 1 to areas with a slope of less than 10% per our suitability criteria
(specifically, from 0 to 9.99999%), and assigning a non-desirable value of 0 to areas which have
a slope greater than 10% (specifically, from 10 to the maximum 375.94696).
The results are named RC_SLOPE to easily differentiate between layers, and the color
representing the 0- value areas was turned off so that only the applicable areas, shown in dark
purple, remain visible (see Figure 8).
[NOTE: I was initially thinking that you can't have more than 100% slope but now I stand
corrected! I learned that a 45-degree slope is considered 100%, so therefore it is quite possible
and even common in some areas - to have a slope greater than 100% . I had initially thought to
classify the second category with slopes from 10 to 100%. If I did that and there were any areas
that had greater than a 45-degree slope in the data, I suppose I would end up with some
unclassified third category or holes in the data or something equally obnoxious and
unhelpful... So now I know to set the slope to maximum and NOT just 100%.]

10

Figure 8: Screenshots showing the areas that meet suitability criteria for, respectively: high
habitat potential (shown in dark blue), publicly-owned land (shown in dark orange), forested
land (shown in dark green), areas with a slope of less than 10% (shown in dark purple), and
the potential sites which contained both greater than 70 species and less than 10% of the
area covered by buffered roads (shown in dark red), after each was converted to a raster
grid and reclassified. Screenshots from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational
purposes only.

11

Combining Suitability Criteria

Now I have several different maps showing sites that meet different suitability criteria.
However, as the final potential sites must meet ALL criteria, I need to combine these together.
Using the Raster Calculator, I can multiply the reclassified raster layers together using the
equation: RC_POTSITES * RC_HABITATPOT * RC_OWNERSHIP * RC_FORESTED *
RC_SLOPE with an output named FINAL_SITES
The resulting grid will have values of 1 at each cell that meet all the suitability criteria and
therefore constitute our possible candidate sites for conservation (see Figure 9). I changed the
areas with a value of 0 to have a null color so that only the candidate sites will be displayed.

Figure 9: Screenshot showing the areas that meet various suitability criteria before utilizing
the Raster Calculator. It is difficult to tell from this image which areas meet all criteria
requested simply by overlaying the different raster grids. Once we enter the equation into
the Raster Calculator, we will end up with just one grid that displays only the areas that meet
ALL of the criteria, thus simplifying the information and reducing the possibility of error.
Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

12

To obtain the total amount of land that is suitable for conservation areas, I calculated:
A raster grid cell size of 50 meters yields 2,500 square meters per cell. Opening the attribute
table for the final suitable sites revealed the cell count for all suitable areas (that have a
desirable value of 1) and I multiplied that number by 2,500.
22,605 x 2,500 = 56,512,500 square meters
That answer is in square meters, but I have been asked to give the amount in square miles so I
divide 56,512,500 by 2,589,988 (the number of square meters in a square mile) and we end up
with approximately 21.8 square miles.
Final Thematic Map
I finished up by customizing the layout and adding map elements (see Figure 10). A landscape
orientation was chosen to maximize the specific east-west Centre County orientation. The
main map is set at 1:240,000 scale to make best use of the available space. A dark green color
was chosen to represent the potential conservation areas, according to traditional color choice
in which green is the conventional color for vegetation, parks, and recreation (King, 2011).
I added a photo of a bird, taken by Jacob Dingel, that was retrieved from the Pennsylvania
Game Commission website and is an example of the type of wildlife that might be protected in
one or more of these potential conservation sites. A north arrow was added as an overlay to
the bird photo, but more on the left side to help balance the visual weight of the bird on the
right of the center frame. A scale bar was added and sized in a manner so that its units
represented whole numbers rather than decimals. The backgrounds were given a custom pale
sand color so as to not detract much from the maps but to give it a bit of contrast and avoid an
overload of white. A small drop shadow was added to the main map to emphasize its
importance and draw the eye. An overview map of the state of Pennsylvania was added in the
lower left corner with an inset showing the specific location of aptly-named Centre County and
a callout label identifying the feature.
Two other inset maps were added which show a zoomed-in view of the two largest areas of
potential conservation sites with extents and leader lines. The approximate area of each was
calculated using the Measure tool and includes all the land in the general area, even the
unsuitable sections that are lying between suitable portions, as it would be difficult to divide up
so many independent sites into conservation regions rather than simply encompassing the
entire general area.

13

Figure 10: Thematic map showing potential biological conservation areas in Centre County, PA. These locations met all six suitability
criteria: rich in species diversity; less than 10% of each study area occupied by buffered roads; High habitat potential; Publicly owned
land; Forested areas; and slope of less than 10%. Screenshot from ESRI ArcMap v10.0. Used here for educational purposes only.

Ideas For Further Analysis and Development

The resulting land appears to contain unsuitable areas mixed in-between the majority of the
suitable areas. Since it would be difficult and highly impractical to divide the land in this
manner, it would probably be most logical for officials to simply conserve entire areas rather
than trying to sort out unsuitable bits. Officials could also consider revising criteria to slightly
less-stringent standards in order to find more area to conserve. For example, perhaps the slope
could be set at less than 12 percent rather than 10, or perhaps running calculations based on a
total number of species greater than 65 rather than 70.
Additionally, officials will most likely want to consider creating a buffered area around the
conservation sites in order to protect the sites from encroaching roads, residential and
commercial development, noise and light pollution, mining or other industrial activities, road
development, and any other human activity that may negatively impact the conservation areas
in close quarters.
Interestingly, there was no hydrology included in this assessment, which I imagine would be an
extremely important factor. While considering the factor of a buffer zone to minimize impact
from human activity, officials would likely wish to consider guidelines put out by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). These particular
recommendations are for riparian buffers (a type of buffer alongside a stream, pond, or other
water feature) but could certainly serve for a regular conservation buffer that does not border
a water feature. These guidelines state that a review of scientific literature on the subject
emphasizes that many site specific factors influence the efficiency of a riparian forest buffer
but there is general agreement that wider buffers are more effective. A minimum width of 150
feet and the type of vegetation, primarily native trees and shrubs, has been firmly established
by scientific studies as providing substantial ecological benefit. (Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, 2010, pg 20) [emphasis mine]
With that in mind, officials may want to request a 150-foot buffer around potential
conservation sites as part of their suitability criteria. If it is discovered that some sort of
development already exists within this desired buffer zone, such as a housing development,
officials will likely want to take that into consideration while deliberating potential sites.
In situations where the buffer zones may encompass privately-owned land, officials may be
interested in the results of a small study from Sweden regarding cooperating with local
residents to establish buffers on private land. The majority of landowners were neutral to
positive on the matter of a buffer zone existing on their private land as long as they received
compensation (Gtmark, Sderlundh, and Thorell, 2000).
15

..

References
Report header [GIS layers] courtesy of Harris County, Texas, Maps & Geographic Information Systems
page. Used here for educational purposes only. Retrieved November 30, 2011 from
http://www.gis.hctx.net/
ESRI Data & Maps. USA Counties ArcGIS Layer Package. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a00d6b6149b34ed3b833e10fb72ef47b
Gtmark, F., Sderlundh, H., and Thorell, M. (2000) Buffer zones for forest reserves : opinions of land
owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden. Biodiversity
& Conservation. Volume: 9, Issue: 10, Publisher: Springer, Pages: 1377-1390. ISSN: 09603115. Abstract
accessed December 11, 2011 at http:// www.mendeley.com/research/buffer-zones-forest-reservesopinions-land-owners-conservation-value-forest-around-nature-reserves-southern-sweden-1/
King, E., & Walrath, D (1999-2011). Problem-Solving with GIS. The Pennsylvania State University World
Campus Certificate/MGIS Programs in GIS. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from https://www.eeducation.psu.edu/geog483/node/1879
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). (2010) Erosion and Sediment Control and
Stormwater Management. Main site accessed December 11, 2011 at
http://extension.psu.edu/water/discovery-watersheds/newsletter/news/2011/dep-announces-riparianbuffer-guidance-document and DEP guidelines document retrieved December 11, 2011
from http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-34/40_34_p3.pdf
All maps produced with ArcMap v10.0 by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (2011)
ArcGIS 10 Help. Esri, Redlands, California.
Bird photo on map by Jacob Dingel (2010). Pennsylvania Game Commission. Retrieved December 12,
2011 from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/wildlife/9109. Used here for
educational purposes only.

This document is published in fulfillment of an assignment by a student enrolled in an educational offering of the
Pennsylvania State University. The student, named above, retains all rights to the document and responsibility for
its accuracy and originality.

16