Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

A spatially explicit patch model of habitat quality, integrating spatio- T

structural indicators
⁎
Barbara Riedler , Stefan Lang
University of Salzburg, Interfaculty Department of Geoinformatics – Z_GIS, Schillerstrasse 30, 5020 Salzburg, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Habitat quality – referring to the structure of a habitat – is crucial for the habitat functions and biodiversity-
Habitat quality assessment related ecosystem services. Its effective assessment and monitoring is important to meet not only scientific
Riparian forest monitoring interest, but also practical conservation regulations. We herein present the approach of using a composite
Geon indicator of riparian forest quality, both quantitatively (habitat quality index HQI [0|1]) and categorically
Cluster analysis
(quality types QT1…4), integrating a set of spatio-structural indicators derived from earth observation data. We
Habitats directive
apply the geon concept to aggregate multiple sets of statistically profound and conceptually meaningful
EO-based indicators
indicators to the well-established patch concept. The main difference is that instead of using a priori units (e.g.
existing patch delineations), new patches (geons) are derived that directly represent the phenomenon of habitat
quality. Patch boundaries correspond to the gradients imposed by the multivariate behavior of the underlying
indicators. The approach provides a truly spatially explicit assessment, while at the same time retaining the
potential for decomposability on the level of individual indicators. The example of a riparian forest is chosen, as
riparian zones are complex ecosystems with a high biodiversity that are highly threatened. In our case, riparian
forest habitat quality was assessed using four indicators: (I) tree species composition, (II) horizontal forest
structure, (III) vertical forest structure, and (IV) water regime. The distribution of habitat quality (HQI)
highlights hot- and cold-spots, where conservation measures may be needed. Cluster analysis reveals four types
of patches that are characterized by a specific behavior of the aggregated indicators (QT1 = fair composition,
QT2 = (old growth) forest plantations, QT3 = characteristic tree species, QT4 = forest gaps). This categorization
enables the prevailing or lacking aspects of quality to be determined based on the decomposability of the index.
In addition, the resulting patches were evaluated using landscape metrics. The findings achieved on a
statistically significant level show that patches with high HQI scores are better connected and form large
patches with a characteristic tree species composition. In contrast, areas with low HQI values are characterized
by a non-favorable tree species composition and the existence of clear-cut areas or access roads. A comparison
with an assessment using a traditional composite indicator approach reveals the sensitivity of the different sets of
indicators and assessment methods. The presented habitat quality index can be considered as suitable for the
assessment and monitoring of riparian forest quality, supporting spatially explicit conservation measures and the
evaluation of applied measures.

1. Introduction within the European network of Natura 2000 habitats – an ambitious

1.1. Assessing habitat quality in riparian forests
Habitat quality can be assessed based on the specific structure and
functions of habitats necessary for their long-term maintenance and
survival of typical species (HabDir Art. 1; Riedler et al., 2015). Effective
assessment and monitoring are essential for the general conservation
purpose, and even legally binding for protected sites within the
Habitats Directive. In Europe, most precious habitats are protected
initiative prescribing mandatory monitoring and regular reporting of
habitat quality and of the conservation status (European Commission,
2005).
Due to their linear structure, representing small shares of the land
surface only, riparian zones are among the most precious, yet highly
threatened European ecosystems (Tockner and Stanford, 2002), with
natural riparian habitats being one of the most anthropogenically
disturbed habitats in Europe (Dimopoulos and Zogaris, 2008). Hu-
man-induced pressures include alterations of natural hydrology and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: barbara.riedler@sbg.ac.at (B. Riedler).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.027
Received 8 August 2016; Received in revised form 23 January 2017; Accepted 10 April 2017
Available online 09 May 2017
1470-160X/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 1. Characteristics of geons and geon boundaries depending on the variability of the underlying indicators.

river geomorphology through river regulation and isolation from river
channels, land use change in the form of agriculture, forestry and urban
development, the invasion of alien species, and climate change
(Decamps et al., 2008; Dimopoulos and Zogaris, 2008; Tockner and
Stanford, 2002). These impacts can lead to fragmentation of riparian
forests, reduced natural dispersal, changes in plant species commu-
nities, decreased species diversity, and structural simplification
(Dimopoulos and Zogaris, 2008). At the same time, riparian zones
provide multiple and diverse important ecosystem services (Clerici
et al., 2011; Clerici et al., 2013; NRC, 2002), such as food resources for
animal and plant species, moving corridors, services for the regulatory
function of water quality like water storage, nutrient and organic
matter cycling, the maintenance of water quality through water
filtering and cooling of streams by shading, flood protection, the
regulation of local climatic conditions, and finally leisure and recrea-
tional potential (Azim, 2006; Döringer and Tockner, 2008; Dwire and
Lowrance, 2006; Hughes, 1997; Naiman et al., 2005; NRC, 2002;
Wantzen and Junk, 2008). Therefore, riparian zones are considered
among the most complex ecological systems that represent biodiversity
hotspots worldwide (Naiman et al., 2005). The flooding regime creates
dynamic geomorphic landforms and a vegetation distribution with a
high structural and compositional diversity (Döringer and Tockner,
2008; Ward et al., 2002). Riparian forests are characterized by diverse
and rich but distinct vegetation patterns, dominated by hygrophilous
species, adaptive to mechanical stress from flooding and to fluctuations
in water levels (Dimopoulos and Zogaris, 2008). Thus, due to their high
value and critical status, the protection of these habitats is a major
challenge (Decamps et al., 2008) that strongly depends on effective
management and monitoring (Gordon et al., 2004).
The use of indicators to support forest monitoring has often been
proposed both on a national level, for instance the Austrian Forest
Biodiversity Index (Geburek et al., 2010) or the Biodiversity Indicators
for UK Managed Forests (Humphrey and Watts, 2004), and on an EU
level, such as the Forest Biodiversity Indicators of the European
Environmental Agency (EEA, 2012; for an overview, see Schuck and
Rois, 2004).
To facilitate seamless, area-wide coverage and the option of regular,
cost-efficient updates (Duro et al., 2007; Vanden Borre et al., 2011), the
use of Earth observation (EO) data and derived indicators have been
suggested (Noss, 1999; Bock et al., 2005; Gillespie et al., 2008).
Previous studies have applied habitat classifications to a variety of
vegetation types using different EO data, and assessed quality indicators
based on the classification, composition, and age of resident species
(e.g. Förster et al., 2008; Haest et al., 2010; Delalieux et al., 2012;
Neumann et al., 2015). While the operational use of such remote
sensing based information is inherently limited by image resolution and
the aerial view (Nagendra et al., 2013), mapping activities such as those
initiated by the European Copernicus program have boosted the use of
EO technology in this domain.
Measuring and monitoring such individual indicators – like the
species composition – is essential for assessing habitat quality. At the
same time, capturing the complexity of habitat quality and representing
cumulative effects in the sense of systemic behavior (Capra and Luisi,
2014) remains a challenge. In its complexity, habitat quality can be
considered as a latent phenomenon, which cannot be observed and
measured directly (Byrne, 1998). Still it may be represented by a set of
integrated indicators (Müller et al., 2000) that are conceptually linked
to the phenomena (Lang et al., 2014). Composite indicators are a
powerful tool for measuring such multi-dimensional concepts (OECD,
2004). They are highly suitable for translating complexity in policy-
relevant information and are applied in the environmental domain
(OECD, 2003). We consider the fact that they are calculated on pre-
defined (e.g. administrative) boundaries to be one of the drawbacks of
composite indicators. This research therefore presents a new approach
for assessing habitat quality, through the integration of various remote
sensing based indicators in a spatially explicit manner.
1.2. Approaching complex spatial phenomena using geons
Geons can be defined as “homogenous spatial units in the sense of a
region, yet semi-automatically delineated with expert knowledge
incorporated, scaled and of uniform response to a phenomenon under
space related policy concern” (Lang et al., 2014). They are constructed
by regionalizing a multiple indicator set. Geon boundaries correspond
to steps along gradients imposed by the multivariate behavior of the
underlying indicators (Fig. 1). Thus, these boundaries are delineated
drawing on the idea of region building (Berry, 1967), which assumes
that changing cumulative behavior causes a boundary. The resulting
homogenous geons have minimized inner variance, but gradients
towards neighboring regions. Geons therefore explicitly represent the
spatial distribution of the examined phenomenon (Kienberger et al.,
2009; Lang et al., 2014).
From an ecological point of view, the geon concept resembles the
patch concept, but is considered to be more general regarding the
phenomena under investigation and comprises multi-dimensional data
integration. In congruence with the patch concept (Forman and
Godron, 1986), geons aim to delineate homogenous areas. Patches
have been defined as “non-linear surface areas differing from its
surroundings in appearance (Forman and Godron, 1986) or nature
(Turner et al., 2001)”, usually described by vegetation composition
(Forman, 1995). Following the origins of landscape ecology coinciding
with the availability of aerial photographs (Troll, 1939), the delineation
of patches was traditionally carried out by visually interpreting the
imagery. Recently, the concept has been extended to (semi-)automated
delineation of habitat patches, based on the classification and composi-
tion of species, using high resolution remote sensing imagery (see e.g.

129
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Förster et al., 2008; Haest et al., 2010). The approach presented herein
provides a solution to integrate further quality indicators for the
delineation of patches, in addition to visual (or spectral) properties
and species distribution.
In parallel, we provide a spatially explicit assessment of habitat
quality through avoiding the use of a priori defined patches. As
calculating indices based on pre-defined boundaries often neglects the
true spatial distribution of indicator values (Lang et al., 2014), we try to
circumvent such aggregation problems through the use of geons. The
modifiable area unit problem (MAUP) describes aggregation effects of
both scale and zoning (Openshaw, 1984). Here we mainly try to avoid
the effect of zoning, where different boundaries and compositions of
areal units can lead to variations in results, depending on the grouping
of attributes that are associated with these units. This may evoke the
effect of ecological fallacy (Gotway and Young, 2002), where a bias is
introduced due to the aggregation of individuals and the varying
distribution of individuals within zones (Gelfand, 2010).
Composite indicators are formed when “individual indicators are
compiled into a single index, on the basis of an underlying model of the
multi-dimensional concept that is being measured” (OECD, 2004). This
practice reduces the number of separate indicators, while maintaining
the underlying information (Saisana and Tarantola, 2002). The multiple
sets of indicators relevant for aggregation should thereby not only be
conceptually meaningful, but also statistically profound and robust
during all stages of the construction of a composite indicator – from
data selection to weighting and aggregation (Nardo et al., 2008). In line
with this, the geon approach uses this framework to describe habitat
quality, but additionally considers the issue of pre-defined boundaries.
Another advantage of the geon approach is the flexible treatment of
the generated units with respect to (1) labelling, both quantitative –
using quantitative index values − and qualitative – using nominal
categories; (2) their decomposability in terms of the influence of the
contributing indicators; (3) assessing their spatio-structural character-
istics, for example, using landscape metrics.
1.3. Aims and ambition
Varieties of indicators, usually used in expert-based field assess-
ments, exist for the assessment of riparian forests and their integrity
(Ellmauer, 2005; BfN, 2010). In the context of this paper, four
indicators that are relevant for the study site of the Salzachauen, and
were previously discussed by Riedler et al. (2015), were selected
(Table 1). We herein use them to construct integrated geons as a
spatially explicit composite indicator representing habitat quality of
riparian forests (Fig. 2).
Thereby, the geon approach incorporates (1) multiple indicators
solely derived from EO data to describe riparian forest quality; (2) the
assessment of habitat quality with a composite indicator that integrates
these statistically profound indicators into a single index; (3) the
simultaneous delineation of spatially explicit areas of homogenous
habitat quality (geons) with respective categorization. We thereby
facilitate decision-support by providing an easy to understand overview
map of habitat quality, which enables the detection of spatially explicit
hot- and cold-spots where conservation measures may be directed.
Through the categorization of qualitative categories that are differen-
tiated by a characteristic behavior of the underlying indicators, the
evaluation of patches of these clusters using landscape metrics and the
combination with the quantitative habitat quality assessment provide
critical information for targeted conservation measures.
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
This study was conducted in the Natura 2000 site Salzachauen
(Salzburg, Austria; UL: N 47°56′12”/E 12°56′24”; LR: N 47°52′17”/E
130
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
13°00′22”; Fig. 3). It is located in a densely populated area of the alpine
foreland at the Austrian‐German border along the river Salzach (Riedler
et al., 2015; Strasser et al., 2014), between the city of Salzburg in the
south and the urban centres Oberndorf/Laufen in the north. The
vegetation forms the dominant Natura 2000 habitat types (Annex 1 of
the Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992) of alluvial
forest (91E0*) and riparian mixed forest (91F0) (Strasser et al., 2014),
respectively the EUNIS habitat types (Davies et al., 2004) of riparian
and gallery woodland (G1.1) and mixed riparian floodplain and gallery
woodland (G1.2) (Riedler et al., 2015). The river Salzach was regulated
in the early 19th century in the course of demarcating the borderline
between Austria and Bavaria. Thus, its riparian zone nowadays can be
considered semi-natural at best. Today, remainders of the then widely
spread riparian forest still face logging and hunting, despite its
designation as a Natura 2000 site of community interest. For flood
mitigation purposes, parts of the riverbed were recently widened up,
and steep banks were regenerated, which caused important secondary
effects for the water regime and the local ecological conditions in
general. As a strategic roadmap to the future, a political decision is
being implemented to re-naturalise the area and to convert it to a
nature park.
2.2. Indicator selection
Based on criteria for expert-based field assessments (Ellmauer,
2005; BfN, 2010) and the possibility to derive indicators from EO data
(Riedler et al., 2015), the following four indicators were used in this
study (Table 1):
2.2.1. Tree species composition
The degree of naturalness of forest systems, which plays a central
role in the assessment of forest habitats, can be described through its
tree species composition (Ellmauer, 2005; Geburek et al., 2010).
Thereby, characteristic tree species as potential natural vegetation
(Ellenberg, 2009) facilitate the occurrence of associated plant and
animal species and are considered to have a positive impact on the
habitat quality. In contrast, allochthonous tree species can have a
negative impact on the potential natural vegetation by competing for
light, nutrients, water or space (Richardson, 1998).
2.2.2. Horizontal forest structures
This comprises small streams and clearings, which are typical
features in alluvial forests and essential for characteristic herbaceous
layers (Ellmauer, 2005), and other elements of spatial heterogeneity
often caused by natural disturbances (Ward et al., 2002), which in turn
can trigger species richness (Schnitzler, 1994). Spectral heterogeneity
of a satellite image is assumed to reflect the occurrence of local
structural richness and habitat heterogeneity and has been linked to
species richness (Palmer et al., 2002; Rocchini et al., 2004).
2.2.3. Vertical forest structure
A mix of tree age classes and species is important for forest ecology
and biodiversity (Lowman and Rinker, 2004; Noss, 1999). It has been
associated with species diversity and richness (e.g. Goetz et al., 2007;
Bergen et al., 2007) and was proposed for the assessment of the
ecological integrity of forests (Geburek et al., 2010; Noss, 1999).
Canopy roughness primarily approximates forest structure, whereby a
complex mixed-aged structure has a positive impact on biodiversity
(Noss, 1999), and to some degree the diversity of tree species
composition. It additionally accounts for the openness of forest patches,
which increases light levels below the canopy, in turn favoring more
below-canopy species and general structural diversity (Eycott et al.,
2006). Large old-living trees provide essential habitat for both plant
and animal species, but are especially important for different bird
species (Coote et al., 2013; Berg et al., 1994). Furthermore, it is likely
that old trees will become dead wood in near future, which again
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Table 1
Individual indicator processing.

1
Acquired in June 2012.
2
Acquired in April 2006.

increases biodiversity, as dead wood provides niches for certain species
(Anderson, 1991).
2.2.4. Water regime
Hydrological conditions and flooding are a prime indicator for
riparian forest habitat assessment (Döring and Tockner, 2008;
Ellmauer, 2005 Ellmauer, 2005). The water regime influences geo-
morphic and soil patterns, as well as vegetation and general species
richness (Ellmauer, 2005; Hughes, 1997; Schnitzler, 1994). Terrain
roughness thereby describes the micro-topographic relief of the forest
ground, which designates areas where water is likely to accumulate
resulting in specific soil conditions and plant species distribution
(Unger and Muzika, 2008). It also accounts for existing perennial
streams and riverbeds, which are only activated during floods and
heavy rains that can provide valuable (temporary) habitat for specific
species (Tockner et al., 1999).
2.3. Indicator processing
Based on the general workflow of constructing a meaningful and
statistically sound composite index proposed by Nardo et al. (2008) and
complemented with steps necessary for the regionalization process
using the geon concept (Kienberger and Hagenlocher, 2014; Lang et al.,
2014), the following workflow was applied (Fig. 4):
Four indicators describing riparian forest quality were derived from
two different EO data sources – a very high resolution WorldView-2
satellite image and LiDAR data (Table 1). The data was processed in a
way that a final set of four statistically profound and robust indicators
could be used for regionalization (Table 1; Fig. 5).
For the indicator Tree species, an initial tree species classification
with an overall accuracy of 86.93% and a Kappa value of 0.84 was used
(Strasser et al., 2014). In accordance with the definitions of two
different classification Schemes – Natura 2000 (Annex 1 of the Habitats
Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992) and EUNIS – level 3
(Davies et al., 2004) – and site-specific management strategies, expert-
based values emphasizing the importance of specific tree species for the
overall habitat quality were assigned to each tree species (Table 1). A
similar expert-based procedure was applied for the sub-indicator Old
trees, where it was assumed that higher trees have an over-proportional
value for habitat quality, not only providing essential habitats, but also
having a higher change of becoming dead wood in near future (see 2.1).
To render all indicators comparable, the continuous data sets were
resampled to the same cell size (2 m × 2 m) and were normalized using
linear min-max normalization (OECD, 2004). The value range was set
to [0 | 255], as further processing in the form of segmentation using
Trimble Geospatial’s eCognition requires 8-bit resolution raster data.
Descriptive statistics were used for detecting missing data and describ-
ing data distributions. Indicators with a skewness > 1 and kurtosis >
3.5 that should be handled before constructing the final index
(Groeneveld and Meeden, 1984) were log transformed (ln10).

131
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Fig. 2. Assessing habitat quality based on four indicators (I–IV) of riparian forest structure. For HQI (habitat quality index) and QT1…4 (habitat quality type 1–4) see 2.2 and 3.2 for
further explanation.
For Vertical forest structure, the two sub-indicators Canopy roughness
and Old trees were aggregated before constructing the final index to
avoid over-representation during regionalization. In accordance with
the procedure of creating the final index, an equal weighted sum
approach was applied. As a prerequisite for this aggregation step, the
sub-indicators were statistically tested to detect possible multi-colli-
nearity using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ). Based on
thresholds proposed by Nardo et al. (2008), indicators with ρ < I 0.9 I
were considered unproblematic for further aggregation. The same
procedure was applied to the final set of four indicators before
aggregation to the final index.
2.4. Regionalization, habitat quality and categorization
For regionalization, a final set of four harmonized indicators was
used (Fig. 5). For the delineation of geons, we regionalized the
indicators in a multi-dimensional indicator space (Lang et al., 2014)
using image segmentation routines. We worked in an object-based
image analysis (OBIA) software environment, Trimble Geospatial’s
eCognition 9. The implemented multi-resolution segmentation algo-
rithm employs a growing seed function, merging pixels to larger objects
by adhering to pre-determined homogenous criteria (Baatz and Schäpe,
2000), which depend on color (pixel values) and form (compactness
and smoothness) (Trimble, 2014). Here we used the multidimensional
indicator set instead of multispectral imagery, where all indicators were
equally weighted. Shape and compactness of the objects were para-
metrized with 0.5 to achieve rather compact objects. The segmentation
scale (scale parameter) was set to 270, as determined by the estimate
scale parameter (ESP)-2 tool by testing the statistical behavior of
variance and the rate-of-change curve (Drăguţ et al., 2014).
The computation of HQI follows a composite indicator approach
(Nardo et al., 2008). A weighted vector magnitude (Eq. (1)) was used
for the aggregation of the HQI, as it closely reflects the segmentation
132
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
process using a similar way of representing the distance and position of
each vector in the feature space (Kienberger et al., 2009). Again, equal
weights were assigned to the four input indicators. For better inter-
pretability of results, the final habitat quality index was normalized to a
value range of [0|1], where 0 reflects poor habitat quality and 1 the
best possible quality.
HQIp = w1 v1 + w2 v2+…+wn vn (1)
p = patch
v1-n = observed indicator values
w1-n = weigthing of the correponding indicator.
To identify homogenous categories, a hierarchical agglomerative
cluster analysis based on factor tables was conducted using Philcarto
5.0. To describe the characteristics of the resulting clusters based on the
underlying indicators, descriptive statistics and quantitative measures
of landscape metrics were calculated. Differences between the different
clusters were statistically tested using a Chi2-test for several indepen-
dent samples, and a Mann–Whitney U test (MWU) for two independent
samples.
2.5. Validation
The habitat quality index values (HQI) were compared with existing
assessments of habitat quality in the study site, namely the RFI_S
(Riparian Forest composite Indicator: focus on structure) computed by
Riedler et al. (2015). A similar set of EO-based indicators was used for
the calculation of the RFI_S, but they were aggregated on pre-existing
habitat patches using different weighting and aggregation methods.
This reference map only provides forest quality information for regions
that were classified as EUNIS-3 habitat types [riparian and gallery
woodland (G1.1) and mixed riparian floodplain and gallery woodland
(G1.2)]. To account for this diverging patch delineation, a point-based
comparison was applied, where 500 points were randomly distributed
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 3. Study area. The designated Natura 2000 site Salzachauen represents the Austrian part of the riparian forest along the river Salzach north of the city of Salzburg.

over the study site. The correlation between the quality indices was
computed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ); the differ-
ence between sample points lying inside and outside riparian forest
habitats was tested using Mann-Whitney-U tests (MWU).
The delineation of geons was visually compared against (a) EUNIS-3
modeling based on tree species composition (Strasser et al., 2014;
Paccagnel, 2013), and (b) a manual delineation of habitat types based
on the same satellite image with a manual assignment of EUNIS-3
classes (Riedler et al., 2013a,b).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Habitat quality index
Descriptive statistics reveal that two indicators, namely Old trees
and Terrain roughness, have skewness and kurtosis values that require
handling before constructing an index (). Even after applying a log
transformation, skewness values are still above the proposed threshold
(Old trees: skewness 1.523, kurtosis 1.884; Terrain roughness: skewness
1.536, kurtosis 2.387), which can be explained by the nature of the
indicators, as most areas neither have old trees nor streams or a strong
micro-topographic relief. Being aware that this distribution is not ideal,
but given the high conceptual importance of the indicators (e.g.
Ellmauer, 2005; BfN, 2010), they were not rejected for constructing
the final habitat quality index. Since a multi-collinearity analysis of the
indicators reveals that no correlation values reach a critical level, all
indicators were considered for further aggregation steps.
The spatial distribution of the habitat quality index (HQI) in the
Salzachauen is shown in Fig. 6a. It provides an easy to grasp overview
of forest quality, which can be especially helpful when trying to localize
areas of low quality, where conservation measures to improve forest
quality may be needed. Besides the true representation of the spatially
varying phenomenon of habitat quality, an additional advantage of the
use of geons is the clear discrimination of units. Gradients occurring in
the spatial variability of the underlying indicators are emphasized and
represented by clear boundaries. This leads to a smoothing of the
internal variance and emphasizes the heterogeneity between them in
the sense of generalization. The polygon delineation has an aggregating
(and thereby generalizing) effect that overcomes the limited interpret-
ability of highly varying spatial indicators. Moreover, polygons can be
adapted to the (mapping) scale of interest and better integrated or
compared with existing delineations. This is not a contradiction to the
current trend in spatially explicit continuous habitat mapping
(Neumann et al., 2015), but rather to be seen as complementary. While
this trend builds on traditional habitat quality classifications (Delalieux
et al., 2012; Förster et al., 2008; Haest et al., 2010), it follows the
technical progression of moving towards finer resolution in both spatial
and spectral terms. Still, the focal (O’Neill et al., 1986) or reporting
level (Hagenlocher et al., 2014) for such aggregated phenomena of
concern is not always the theoretically or technically best possible,
which itself is ideally the explanatory one.

133
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 4. Workflow for assessing habitat quality with a spatially explicit composite indicator.

134
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Fig. 5. Final set of four indicators used for regionalization.
3.2. Habitat quality types
To identify suitable and spatially targeted measures, knowledge of
the underlying indicators that are responsible for the habitat quality is
required. A cluster analysis was conducted to localize areas within the
landscape that are similar regarding the behavior of the underlying
indicators. Based on the tree diagram, four clusters (habitat quality
types QT1…4) jointly explaining 87% of the variance were identified
(Fig. 6b).
These clusters can be characterized by a specific combination of
behavior of the underlying indicators (Fig. 7), and can be combined
with habitat quality and information about area, form and connectivity
(Table 2). Although the latter information was not used in the cluster
analysis, a highly significant difference of both habitat quality and all
landscape metrics, except for Mean Patch Edge, is visible between the
clusters (Table 2).
QT1 Fair composition – characterized by a fair composition of
indicator values with a slightly positive variance of the indicators
Horizontal forest structure and Water regime to the mean indicator values
(Fig. 6b). They Patches of this cluster are often located at the edge of
water bodies, indicated by high terrain roughness, but also patches with
small clearings resulting in higher horizontal forest structure. These
patches are relatively big, but due to their spatial distribution in the
landscape have the lowest connectivity (mean proximity: QT2 and QT3:
MWU, p < 0.001, QT4: MWU, p < 0.018; Table 2). In line with the
balance of indicator values, they reveal a medium habitat quality
QT2 (Old growth) forest plantations – characterized by a diverse
vertical structure, but at the same time a non-favorable tree species
composition, indicated by a strong positive, respectively negative
variance of the according indicators to the mean indicator values
(Fig. 6b). They are patches with (old) forest plantations, where the
regularity of planting is clearly visible, but also patches with old trees
and small clearings, resulting in a high variance of the digital height
model. In line with the visual exploration, they are relatively low-
quality, medium-sized patches with rather low connectivity (Table 2;
Fig. 8).
QT3 Characteristic tree species – characterized by a favorable tree
species composition with significantly higher Tree species composition
values than all other clusters (MWU, p < 0.001; Fig. 7). Patches of this
cluster thus resemble mostly natural riparian forest, but also some areas
of reforestation with Salix alba and Alnus sp. They have a significantly
higher mean patch size (QT1 and QT3: MWU, p < 0.001, QT2: MWU,
p < 0.009; Table 2) and are better connected than patches of all other
135
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
clusters (mean proximity QT1 and QT2: MWU, p < 0.001, QT4: MWU,
p < 0.004; Table 2), potentially enhancing the survival of meta-
populations. In line with these factors, these patches exhibit a sig-
nificantly higher habitat quality than patches from other clusters
(MWU, p < 0.001, Fig. 8).
QT4 Forest gaps – characterized by a low vertical forest structure and
a non-favorable tree species composition, revealed by a significantly
lower mean of the corresponding indicators than all other clusters (Tree
species composition and Vertical forest structure: MWU, p < 0.001;
Fig. 7). They are mainly patches without or with only a few trees,
which are often clear cuttings or forest roads. The latter is in line with
the finding of a significantly higher mean shape index (QT1 and QT2:
MWU, p < 0.032, QT3: MWU, p < 0.009; Table 2), representing the
elongated form of forest roads. Some of the patches of this cluster
include rivers and small water bodies, areas with no trees, or young
monoculture forest plantations, which have a similar age structure and
thus a low vertical forest structure. Together with the lowest mean
patch size (QT1 and QT2: MWU, p < 0.056, QT3: MWU, p < 0.001;
Table 2), QT4 patches have a significantly lower habitat quality than
other clusters (QT1 and QT2: MWU, p < 0.001, QT3: MWU,
p < 0.001; Table 2; Fig. 8).
For forest management, looking at specific patches with different
habitat quality in combination with their indicator characteristics is
essential to identify measures that help conserve or improve forest
quality. Here, areas with the highest habitat quality can primarily be
described by a high characteristic tree species composition, represented
in QT3 Characteristic tree species (Fig. 8). This finding emphasizes the
importance of tree species composition for the habitat quality, which is
in line with literature, where it has been suggested as one of the key
aspects to assess riparian forest quality (Ellmauer, 2005; BfN, 2010).
In contrast, patches with the lowest habitat quality all belong either
to QT4 Forest gaps, which contains no riparian forest, but rather clear
cuts, forest roads or monoculture plantations, or to QT2 (Old growth)
forest plantations, often characterized by allochthonous tree species
(Fig. 8). Targeted conservation measures in these areas can thus be
easily identified and would primarily target reforestation with char-
acteristic tree species, potentially after the logging of allochthonous
trees.
3.3. Validation
For habitat quality as a latent phenomenon, evaluation of the results
is not trivial, as such phenomena correspond to hidden complex
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 6. (a) Habitat quality index (HQI) with normalized values ranging from 0 (poor) to 1 (good) and (b) Quality types derived from cluster analysis. The cluster profile shows the distinct
behavior of the underlying indicators.

136
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 7. Cluster characteristics. Mean indicator values per cluster are shown.

variables (Lang et al., 2014) that cannot be measured directly in the
field. One approach is to use an indirect assessment with evidence data
related to that phenomenon. Hence, we chose a strategy to system-
atically compare the habitat quality index with an already existing
assessment.
When considering all sample points, a comparison with the con-
tinuous quality index for riparian forests (RFI_S) (Riedler et al., 2015)
reveals a significant, medium to strong positive correlation (Table 3).
When taking into account the boundaries of the reference classification,
sample points located within riparian forest based on EUNIS-3 defini-

Table 2
HQI and landscape metrics per habitat quality type. Mean values and significance of statistical difference per cluster (Chi2) are shown.

Number of Mean habitat Mean Patch Size Mean Patch Edge Mean Shape Index – Mean Proximity (within
patches quality (ha) (m) MSI 100 m)

QT1 18 0.47 6.55 1956 2.25 3.83

Fair composition
QT2 22 0.22 4.00 1662 2.38 49.15
(Old growth) forest plantations
QT3 39 0.74 6.87 1955 2.26 684.07
Characteristic tree patches
QT4 61 0.13 2.95 1734 2.94 218.85
Forest gaps
2
Chi p < 0.001 p < 0.001 p < 0.236 p < 0.001 p < 0.001

137
B. Riedler, S. Lang Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141

Fig. 8. Relation between habitat quality type (QT1...QT4) and habitat quality index (HQI). Examples for each existing combination including the HQI-values are shown.

Table 3 Even though both assessments use a similar set of indicators

Comparison of HQI with an existing habitat quality assessment (RFI_S; Riedler et al., aggregated to a composite indicator for describing habitat quality, the
2015). Mean values and correlations (Spearmans correlation coefficient) are shown.
weak correlation of the results reveals the sensitivity to the differences
Sample points Sample points Sample points
in the used methods. We assume that the aggregation to different
all inside EUNIS 3 outside EUNIS boundaries – a priori defined boundaries based on a semi-automated
habitats 3 habitats habitat delineation (Riedler et al., 2015; Strasser et al., 2014) versus
patches (geons) that directly represent habitat quality – is mainly
Number 500 226 274
Mean HQI 0.522 0.418 0.389
responsible for the differences in results. Additionally, the used sets of
Habitat quality index indicators differ: For the computation of the RFI_S, tree species were
Mean RFI_S 0.216 0.478 x only differentiated in characteristic and allochthonous tree species and
Riparian Forest the Shape Index used in Riedler et al. (2015) as a quality indicator can
composite Indicator:
only be applied when using a priori defined patches. The other
focus on structure
(Riedler et al., 2015) indicators were used in both assessments, but they were calculated
Spearman correlation ρ = 0.419, ρ = 0.027, x per pre-defined patch as one mean value per patch only. This can
p < 0.001 p < 0.684 potentially obscure the true spatial distribution of indicator values,
leading to the zoning problem, as described in Openshaw (1984), and to
ecological fallacy (Gelfland, 2010; Gotway and Young, 2002 Gotway
tions have significantly higher habitat quality index values than points
and Young, 2002). Different weighting schemes (expert-based weight-
outside these patches (MWU, p < 0.001). This is in line with the
ing computing RFI_S versus equal weighting calculating HQI) are
findings of the present study, that areas with lowest habitat quality are
assumed to have an additional impact.
either clear-cut areas or forest plantations (Table 2; Fig. 8), both of
The visual comparison of homogenous habitat quality units with
which are not included in the definitions of G1.1 or G1.2. In contrast,
modeled and manually delineated forest patches provides examples for
no correlation between the habitat quality indices can be found
both similar (Fig. 9a) and very diverging delineations of boundaries
(Table 3) when only considering points placed within EUNIS-3 riparian
(Fig. 9b). With the underlying aggregated indicators, the generated
forest (G1.1 or G1.2).
geons do not necessarily reflect patches in the sense of areas differing

138
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Fig. 9. Comparison of delineations of (1) geons (2) habitat modeling and (3) manual patch delineation of EUNIS 3 habitats. Examples of (a) patches with similar and (b) patches with
diverging delineations are shown.
from their surroundings in appearance (Forman and Godron, 1986) or
biological objects in the sense of phytosociological units. This becomes
visible in Fig. 9b, where the reference delineations either solely depend
on tree species composition (Strasser et al., 2014), or on visual cues of
VHR satellite imagery (Riedler et al., 2013a,b). As different underlying
concepts are used – phytosociological units, difference in appearance,
or objects of the same habitat quality – the delineations of boundaries
also diverge in the majority of cases. Areas that appear visually diverse
(e.g. plantations of different and visually easily distinguishable tree
species) are not differentiated in the geon delineation if they exhibit
homogenous habitat quality (Fig. 9b). In contrast, patches with similar
geon boundaries (Fig. 9a) reflect areas with a habitat quality largely
dependent on Tree species composition.
4. Conclusion and outlook
The presented habitat quality index provides a spatially explicit
representation of riparian forest quality on landscape level that
supports the simultaneous mapping of several quality aspects to
account for ecosystem services and other integrated assessments.
Qualitative categories, defined by similar patterns of underlying
indicators, in combination with the continuous habitat quality informa-
tion and spatial characteristics, provide valuable information for policy-
related decisions. Thus, results of this study may contribute to main-
taining or improving these habitats by identifying suitable and spatially
targeted conservation measures.
The assessment is based on an integrative, yet decomposable
conceptual framework that reveals a truly spatially explicit distribution
of latent phenomena. The advantage of this approach is that inherent
information about habitat quality is used directly in the delineation
process and thus objects with uniform response to the underlying
phenomenon (here: habitat quality) are derived. Consequently, pro-
139
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
blems of a priori defined boundaries are overcome.
As proposed by Riedler et al. (2015), the assessment of habitat
quality following a defined conceptual framework with a given set of
quality indicators, but with certain flexibility, allows for transferability
to other riparian forest sites. Thereby, site-specific adaptations and the
integration of in-situ data can be taken into account. Especially the
latter aspect is considered essential when trying to operationalize such
an approach, as EO data offer a wide range of advantages, but also have
limitations. EO data cannot or can only partly be used to assess all
relevant indicators for riparian forest quality, such as detailed species
information on understory vegetation, impact of game or distribution of
endangered species. The presented geon approach offers the flexibility
to integrate such important field data not only in the calculation of the
habitat quality index, but already for the segmentation of habitat
quality units (geons).
The presented assessment of habitat quality reveals a status quo,
which can be of great interest for decision makers. The approach could
also be applied for monitoring purposes, when considering that
especially protected areas require regular monitoring, for instance,
mandatory six-year reporting in Natura 2000 sites (Habitats Directive,
Art 17: Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992). It is considered to bear
great potential for this task, as indicators are to a high degree derived
from EO data that enable regular updates at relatively low costs (Duro
et al., 2007; Vanden Borre et al., 2011) and can complement traditional
field-based methods. A multi-temporal geon-based assessment provides
comparable updates against a specific policy background (Lang et al.,
2014), whereby not only the re-assessment of habitat quality, but also
the effectiveness of intervention measures can be evaluated. Taking all
these advantages and challenges into account, we consider the pre-
sented methodology highly suited to enrich the assessment and
monitoring of riparian forest quality on a landscape level.
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted within the project MS.MONINA (www.
ms-monina.eu) funded by the European Community’s Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement No.
263479. We want to thank Thomas Strasser and Geoff Smith for their
crucial data input, as well as Lena Pernkopf, Michael Hagenlocher and
Marion Borderon for their support.
References
Anderson, L.H.H., 1991. Bryophytes and decaying wood a comparison between a
managed and a natural forest. Holarct. Ecol. 14, 121–130.
Azim, U.M., 2006. Structural and Functional Roles of Riparian Management Areas in
Maintaining Stream Values in the Acadian Forest, Technical Bulletin 922. National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Baatz, M., Schäpe, A., 2000. Multiresolution Segmentation: An Optimization Approach
for High Quality Multi-scale Image Segmentation. In: Strobl, J., Blaschke, T.,
Griesebner, G. (Eds.), Angewandte Geographische Informationsverarbeitung XII.
Wichmann Verlag, pp. 12–21.
Berg, A., Ehnström, B., Gustafsson, L., Hallingbäck, T., Jonsell, M., Weslien, J., 1994.
Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and
habitat associations. Conserv. Biol. 8, 718–731.
Bergen, K.M., Gilboy, A.M., Brown, D.G., 2007. Multi-dimensional vegetation structure in
modelling avian habitatl. Ecol. Inform. 2, 9–22.
Berry, B.J.L., 1967. Grouping and regionalizing: an approach to the problem using
multivariate analysis. In: Garrison, W.L., Marble, D.F. (Eds.), Quantitative
Geography, Northwestern Study in Geography, pp. 219–251.
Bock, M., Rossner, G., Wissen, M., Remm, K., Langanke, T., Lang, S., Klug, H., Blaschke,
T., Vrscaj, B., 2005. Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local
scale. Ecol. Indic. 5, 322–338.
Byrne, B.M., 1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Capra, F., Luisi, P.L., 2014. The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision. Cambridge
University Press.
Clerici, N., Weissteiner, C.J., Paracchini, M.L., Strobl, P., 2011. Riparian Zones: Where
Green and Blue Networks Meet. European Community, D.G. Joint Research Centre.
Clerici, N., Weissteiner, C.J., Paracchini, M.L., Boschetti, L., Baraldi, A., Strobl, P., 2013.
Pan-European distribution modelling of stream riparian zones based on multi-source
earth observation data. Ecol. Indic. 24, 211–222.
Coote, L., Dietzsch, A.C., Wilson, M.W., Graham, C.T., Fuller, L., Walsh, A.T., Irwin, S.,
Kelly, D.L., Mitchell, F.J.G., Kelly, T.C., ÓHalloran, J., 2013. Testing indicators of
biodiversity for plantation forests. Ecol. Indic. 32, 107–115.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992. Council directive on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
nature/habdir.htm.
Döringer, M., Tockner, K., 2008. Morphology and dynamics of riparian zones. In: Arizpe,
D., Mendes, A., Rabaca, J.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Riparian Zones: A Management
Guide, Ripidurable, pp. 23–64.
Davies, C.E., Moss, D., Hill, M.O., 2004, EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004.
Decamps, H., Naiman, R.J., McClain, M.M., 2008. Riparian systems as zones of pervasive
anthropogenic stress. In: Arizpe, D., Mendes, A., Rabaca, J.E. (Eds.), Sustainable
Riparian Zones: A Management Guide, Ripidurable, pp. 114–121.
Delalieux, S., Somers, B., Haest, B., Spanhove, T., Vanden Borre, J., Mücher, C.A., 2012.
Heathland conservation status mapping through integration of hyperspectral mixture
analysis and decision tree classifiers. Remote Sens. Environ. 126, 222–231.
Dimopoulos, P., Zogaris, S., 2008. Vegetation and flora of riparian zones. In: Arizpe, D.,
Mendes, A., Rabaca, J.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Riparian Zones: A Management Guide,
Ripidurable, pp. 66–83.
Drăguţ, L., Csillik, O., Eisank, C., Tiede, D., 2014. Automated parameterisation for multi-
scale image segmentation on multiple layers. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 88,
119–127.
Duro, D., Coops, N.C., Wulder, M.A., Han, T., 2007. Development of a large area
biodiversity monitoring system driven by remote sensing. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 31,
235–260.
Dwire, K.A., Lowrance, R.R., 2006. Riparian ecosystems and buffers—multiscale
structure, function and management: introduction. J.Am. Water Resourc. Ass.
42, 1–4.
EEA, 2012, Streamlining European biodiversity indicators 2020: Building a future on
lessons learnt from the SEBI 2010 process, Technical report No 11/2012.
Ellenberg, H., 2009. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, 4th ed. Cambridge Univ. Pr.,
Cambridge.
Ellmauer, T., 2005, Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur
Beurteilung des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Band 3:
Lebensraumtypen des Anhangs I der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie. Im Auftrag der
neun österreichischen Bundesländer des Bundesministerium f. Land-und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der Umweltbundesamt GmbH.
European Commission, 2007. Note to the Habitats Committee, Assessment, Monitoring
and Reporting of Conservation Status—Preparing the 2001–2007 Report Under
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. DocHab-04-03/03 Rev.3. European Commission,
Brussels.
Eycott, A.E., Watkinson, A.R., Dolman, P.M., 2006. Ecological patterns of plant diversity
140
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
in a plantation forest managed by clearfelling. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1160–1171.
Förster, M., Frick, A., Walentowski, H., Kleinschmit, B., 2008. Approaches to utilising
QuickBird data for the monitoring of Natura 2000 habitats. Commun. Ecol. 9,
155–168.
Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Geburek, T., Milasowsky, N., Frank, G., Konrad, H., Schadauer, K., 2010. The Austrian
biodiversity index: all in one. Ecol. Indic. 10, 753–761.
Gelfand, A.E., 2010. Misaligned spatial data: the change of support problem. In: Gelfand,
A.E., Diggle, J.P., Fuentes, M., Guttorp, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Spatial Statistics. CRC
Press, pp. 517–540.
Gillespie, T.W., Foody, G.M., Rocchini, D., Giorgi, A.P., Saatchi, S., 2008. Measuring and
modelling biodiversity from space. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 32, 203–221.
Goetz, S., Steinberg, D., Dubayah, R., Blair, B., 2007. Laser remote sensing of canopy
habitat heterogeneity as a predictor of bird species richness in an eastern temperate
forest, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 108, 254–263.
Gordon, N.D., Macmahon, T.A., Finlayson, B., Gippel, C.J., Nathan, R.J., 2004. Stream
Hydrology—An Introduction for Ecologists, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Gotway, C.A., Young, L.J., 2002. Combining incompatible spatial data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
97, 632–648.
Groeneveld, R.A., Meeden, G., 1984. Measuring skewness and kurtosis. J. R. Stat. Soc. D:
Stat. 33 (4), 391–399.
Haest, B., Thoonen, G., Borre, J.V., Spanhove, T., Delalieux, S., Bertels, L., Kooistra, L.,
Mücher, C.A., Scheunders, P., 2010. An object-based approach to quantity and
quality assessment of heathland habitats in the framework of Natura 2000 using
hyperspectral airborne AHS images. In: Proc Third Int. Conf. Asp. Geogr. Object-
Based Image Anal. Gent, Belgium.
Hagenlocher, M., Kienberger, S., Lang, S., Blaschke, T., 2014. Implications of spatial
scales and reporting units for the spatial modelling of vulnerability to vector-
bornediseases. In: Vogler, R., Car, A., Strobl, J., Griesebner, G. (Eds.), GI_Forum 2014.
Geospatial Innovation for Society, Wichmann Verlag, pp. 197–206.
Hughes, F.M.R., 1997. Floodplain biogeomorphology. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 501–529.
Humphrey, J.W., Watts, K., 2004. Biodiversity indicators for UK managed forests:
development and implementation at different spatial scales. Marchetti, M. (Ed.),
Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe ?From Ideas to
Operationality. EFI Proceedings, 51 37–48.
Kienberger, S., Hagenlocher, M., 2014. Spatial-explicit modelling of social vulnerability
to malaria in East Africa. Int. J. Health Geogr. 13 (29), 108–120.
Kienberger, S., Lang, S., Zeil, P., 2009. Spatial vulnerability unit—expert-based spatial
modeling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria. Nat.
Hazard Earth Syt. 9, 767–778.
Lang, S., Kienberger, S., Tiede, D., Hagenlocher, M., Pernkopf, L., 2014. Geons-domain-
specific regionalization of space. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. 41 (3), 214–226.
Lowman, N., Rinker, H., 2004. Forest Canopies, 2nd edition. Elsevier.
NRC, 2002. Riparian Areas. Functions and Strategies for Management. Committee on
Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management. Water Science and
Technology Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Nagendra, H., Lucas, R., Honrado, J.P., Jongman, R.H.G., Tarantino, C., Adamo, M.,
Mairota, P., 2013. Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: assessing protected
areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity and threats. Ecol. Indic. 33,
45–59.
Naiman, D.J., Decamps, H., McClain, M.M., 2005. Riparia—Ecology, Conservation and
Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E., 2008.
Handbook On Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology And User Guide. EC
Joint Research Centre & OECD Statistics Directorate and the Directorate for Science,
Technology and Industry.
Neumann, C., Weiss, G., Schmidtlein, S., Itzerott, S., Lausch, A., Doktor, D., Brell, M.,
2015. Gradient-based assessment of habitat quality for spectral ecosystem
monitoring. Remote Sens. 7, 2871–2898.
Noss, R.F., 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework
and indicators. For. Ecol. Manage. 115, 135–146.
O’Neill, R.V., De Angelis, D.L., Allen, T.F.H., Waide, J.B., 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of
Ecosystems, Monographs in Population Biology 23. Princeton University Press.
OECD, 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators −Development, Measurement and Use.
OECD Environment Directorate Environmental Performance and Information
Division, Paris.
OECD, 2004. The OECD-JRC Handbook on Practices for Developing Composite
Indicators. OECD Committee on Statistics, Paris.
Openshaw, S., 1984. The modifiable areal unit problem. Concepts and Techniques in
Modern Geography. Geo Books, Norwich.
Paccagnel, K., 2013. Objektbasierte Klassifikation von Baumarten im Natura 2000
Schutzgebiet Salzachauen auf Basis einer hochaufgelösten WorldView-2
Satellitenbildaufnahme. Master Thesis. University of Salzburg.
Palmer, M.W., Earls, P., Hoagland, B.W., White, P.S., Wohlgemuth, T., 2002. Quantitative
tools for perfecting species lists. Environmetrics 13, 121–137.
Richardson, D.M., 1998. Forest trees as invasive aliens. Conserv. Biol. 12, 18–26.
Riedler, B., Strasser, T., Pernkopf, L., Tiede, D., Lang, S., 2013a. Habitat quality analysis
of Natura 2000 riparian forests. In: Lang, S., Pernkopf, L. (Eds.), Ecosystem and
Biodiversity Monitoring: Best Practice in Europe and Globally, Conference
Proceedings GI-Forum 2013. Salzburg. pp. 540–543.
Riedler, B., Pernkopf, L., Strasser, T., Lang, S., 2013b. EO-based habitat structure
assessment in a trans-boundary Natura 2000 site. In: Conference Proceedings
5thSymposium for Research in Protected Areas. Mittersill. pp. 661–664.
B. Riedler, S. Lang
Riedler, B., Pernkopf, L., Strasser, T., Lang, S., Smith, G., 2015. A composite indicators for
assesing habitat quality of riparain forests derived from Earth observation data. Int. J.
Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. 37, 114–123.
Rocchini, D., Chiarucci, A., Loiselle, S.A., 2004. Testing the spectral variation hypothesis
by using satellite multispectral images. Acta Oecol. 26, 117–120.
Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., 2002. State-of-the-Art Report on Current Methodologies and
Practices for Composite Indicator Development, EUR 20408 EN. European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Italy.
Schnitzler, A., 1994. European alluvial hardwood forests of large floodplains. J. Biogeogr.
21, 605–623.
Schuck, A., Rois, M., 2004. Forest biodiversity indicators—a contribute to an eea core set
of biodiversity indicators. Marchetti, M. (Ed.), Monitoring and Indicators of Forest
Biodiversity in Europe? From Ideas to Operationality, EFI Proceedings, 51 37–48.
Strasser, T., Lang, S., Riedler, B., Pernkopf, L., Paccagnel, K., 2014. Multiscale object
feature library for habitat quality monitoring in riparian forests. Geosci. Remote Sens.
Lett. IEEE 559–563.
Tockner, K., Stanford, J.A., 2002. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends.
Environ. Conserv. 29, 308–330.
141
Ecological Indicators 94 (2018) 128–141
Tockner, K., Schiemer, F., Baumgartner, C., Kum, G., Weigand, E., Zweimüller, I., Ward,
J.V., 1999. The Danube restoration project: species diversity patterns across
connectivity gradients in the floodplain system. Regul. Rivers 14, 245–258.
Trimble, 2014. eCognition Developer 9.0 Reference Book. Trimble Germany GmbH.
Troll, C., 1939. Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft
für Erdkunde 241–298.
Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., ÓNeill, R.V., 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and
Practice—Pattern and Process. Springer.
Unger, I.M., Muzika, R.-M., 2008. Influence of microtopograhy on soil chemestry and
understory riparian vegetation. In: Jacobs, D.F., Michler, C.H. (Eds.), Proceedings,
16th Central Hardwood Forest Conference.
Vanden Borre, J., Paelinck, D., Mücher, C.A., Kooistra, L., Haest, B., De Blust, G., Schmidt,
A.M., 2011. Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat monitoring: prospects
on the way forward. J. Nat. Conserv. 19, 116–125.
Wantzen, K.M., Junk, W.J., 2008. Riparian wetlands. In: Erik, S., Brian, F. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Ecology. Academic Press, pp. 3035–3044.
Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Arscott, D.B., Claret, C., 2002. Riverine landscape diversity.
Freshw. Biol. 47, 517–539.