pan-europeangeog.umd.edu/sites/geog.umd.edu/files/pubs/ecologicalindicators_st… · ne resolution....

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 211–223

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators

jo ur nal homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /eco l ind

Pan-European distribution modelling of stream riparian zones basedon multi-source Earth Observation data

Nicola Clerici a,∗, Christof J. Weissteinera, Maria Luisa Paracchinia, Luigi Boschettib, Andrea Baraldib,Peter Strobla

a European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra, VA, Italyb Department of Geography, University of Maryland, 4321 Hartwick Rd, Suite 209, College Park, MD 20740, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 February 2012Received in revised form 31 May 2012Accepted 1 June 2012

Keywords:Riparian zonesRiverine habitatsTransitional environmentsGeographical distributionFuzzy index

a b s t r a c t

Freshwater ecosystems are among the most degraded and threatened globally. A need for systematicassessment of riverine habitats is thus well-documented. Riparian zones are especially important due tothe large array of ecosystem and social services they can provide, while also recently gaining a major rolein the new European biodiversity policy. In this context, the necessity to gather spatial information onextent, distribution and characteristics of the riparian zones is clear. This paper presents the developmentof a novel model to derive geographical distribution and basic characteristics of stream riparian zonesin Europe, including both river-floodplain systems and the riparian networks of minor and ephemeralstreams. A series of relevant descriptive attributes (water boundary, vegetation presence, land-cover,upland boundary and local geomorphology) is initially selected from the existing literature to describethe presence of riparian zones. Spatially explicit estimates of these attributes are obtained using availableEarth Observation data and pan-European thematic datasets. Finally, the information layers are combinedthrough an aggregation system that assigns a degree of belonging to the riparian zone class using twofuzzy membership functions to evaluate water influence and presence of natural vegetation, respectively.Riparian zones with no hydrological connection are also incorporated in by the model based on functionalconsiderations. The distribution of stream riparian zones was derived and mapped for the whole of Europeat fine resolution. Modelled riparian zones extend for approximately 91,000 km2, considering the entirerange of low to high membership to the riparian class. A characterization of land-cover types was derivedbased on Corine Land Cover 2000 data, showing that European riparian zones are strongly dominated byforest habitats. Accuracy assessment was performed using independent ecological datasets and visualvalidation, indicating that producer accuracy is equal to 84.5 ± 1.3% and user accuracy to 72.6 ± 5.8% at95% confidence level. The proposed model and output can represent valuable information for large-scaleresearch activities of riparian environments and to support national and supra-national conservationprogrammes.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In light of current widespread degradation and threats to fresh-water ecosystems, the need for systematic assessment of riverinehabitats is well-documented (MEA, 2005; Dudgeon et al., 2006;Malmqvist and Rundle, 2002). At European level this is endorsed bya series of key legislative acts; most importantly the Water Frame-work Directive (2000/60/EC), which introduced the legal obligationfor Member States to assess the ecological conditions of river and

∗ Corresponding author at: European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institutefor Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 460, I-21027 Ispra, Italy.Tel.: +39 0332 786604; fax: +39 0332 785601.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Clerici).

adjacent land habitats as a basis for effective management policies.Riverine habitats are gaining an increasingly significant role withinthe new European biodiversity policy and conservation targets for2020, which are largely based on the implementation of the newEuropean Green Infrastructure (Sundseth and Silwester, 2009). Thismulti-faceted concept, developed in the mid 1990s in the US, can bedefined as a strategically planned and managed network of naturallands, working landscapes and other open spaces that conserve bio-diversity, ecosystem values and functions and provide associatedbenefits to human population (Benedict and McMahon, 2006).

To support research and monitoring activities related to theabovementioned policy framework, the need for information onextent, distribution and characteristics of the riparian zones (fromthe Latin ripa, bank) is clear. ‘Riparian zones’ refer to transi-tional areas occurring between land and freshwater ecosystems,

1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.002


212 N. Clerici et al. / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 211–223

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a riparian zone including its zone of influence (land), main functions and processes.Adapted from NRC (2002).

characterized by distinctive hydrology, soil and biotic conditionsstrongly influenced by the stream water (Naiman et al., 2005; Verryet al., 2004). These are not limited to areas associated with flood-plain indicators, but they also include portions of upland awayfrom the bank that have some water-land interaction (Gregoryet al., 1991); typically, near-slope zones ecologically connected tothe watercourse by surface and subsurface hydrology (NRC, 2002).Fig. 1 provides a schematic representation of a riparian zone andmain characteristic functions.

Despite the variety of concepts and definitions present in theliterature, there is strong agreement with regard to the importanceof the riparian systems due to the natural and social services theyprovide. Riparian zones can encompass valuable natural habitatsand are often characterized by high productivity and biodiversity(Whitaker et al., 2000; Knopf and Samson, 1994). They providereduction of non-point-nutrient and pollution sources via plantuptake, physical filtering and chemical transformation (e.g. den-itrification), together with trapping sediment-bound pollutantsand waters coming from upstream (Daniels and Gilliam, 1996;Peterjohn and Correll, 1984). Riparian corridors play a major role inmaintaining landscape connectivity, functioning as ‘dispersal corri-dors’ within fragmented landscapes (Gillies and Cassidy Saint Clair,2008; Machtans et al., 1996). From a hydrological risk perspective,riparian environments supply river bank stabilization and provideresistance to runoff during flood events (Bennett and Simon, 2004).

The majority of research related to riparian zones has focusedon permanent and seasonal watercourses, while few studies havefocused on small headwaters and ephemeral tributaries (Goebelet al., 2003). Nevertheless, recent research based on surveys ofamphibians and plant communities has claimed that these latterwatercourse types can also have discernible riparian zones (Haganet al., 2006; Perkins and Hunter, 2006). We therefore consideredrelevant to include in this study not only ‘river-floodplain’ sys-tems (Bayley, 1995), but also the riparian networks of minor andephemeral watercourses.

To the authors’ knowledge, no continental-scale modelling andmapping of riparian zones has previously been performed; mostliterature describes local-scale analyses, with a few studies extend-ing to a regional or watershed scale. Sutula et al. (2006) developeda method based on remote-sensing data to map potential ripar-ian zones in Southern California watersheds. Their approach wasbased on purely geomorphological criteria applied to 10 m and 30 mDEMs, together with superimposed NDVI satellite data to reportvegetation distribution. Ivits et al. (2009) considered as riparianzones the regions within a 1 km buffer zone from the river net-work of Andalusia (Spain), and analysed the permanent vegetation

present in relation to EU agri-environmental measures. Much lit-erature focuses on smaller scales (e.g. river basins) and on recenttechniques, such as LiDAR, to acquire characteristics of riparianvegetation and topography (Johansen et al., 2010; Goetz, 2006).

The generation of a model to derive riparian zones distributionfor the whole of Europe being a primary target of the present work,the proposed approach relies mostly on satellite imagery and con-tinental GIS datasets. A large-scale assessment of this kind faces aseries of challenges: (i) establishing a trade-off between process-ing effort/data availability and spatial resolution due to the vaststudy area and the generally small size of riparian zones, (ii) thehigh heterogeneity of these environments (e.g. spectral variance,biota, geomorphological setup), (iii) the need to introduce theo-retical criteria in order to include functional considerations (NRC,2002).

Specific objectives of this research are the development of amodel to derive the continental distribution of European streamriparian zones, to report broad spatial patterns, and discuss theirbasic characteristics.

2. Materials and methods

The methodology followed is structured in three major sequen-tial steps: (i) the selection in the literature of relevant commondescriptors to characterize stream riparian zones; (ii) the produc-tion of thematic geospatial datasets as required information layersto represent the riparian descriptors; (iii) the implementation of ariparian detection model based on a fuzzy membership approach.All the methodological steps are described in detail in the followingsections.

2.1. Selection of morphological and environmental descriptors

Riparian zones are characterized by large structural heterogene-ity and complexity both within and across biogeographical regions(Naiman et al., 2005). In order to take into account such diver-sity, a set of common relevant environmental descriptors of streamriparian zones was selected based on available literature:

(1) Inner boundary: Proximity to a watercourse is intrinsicallynecessary for the development of a riparian zone. In thepresent study we focus on freshwater lotic systems, whileexcluding lentic systems, characterized by different ecologicalprocesses and disturbance regimes (Resh et al., 1988). A spatialdelineation of the stream riverbank indicates the water-land


N. Clerici et al. / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 211–223 213

Table 1European continental datasets used to build the model information layers.

Information layer Source Reference

River network Catchment Characterisation and Modelling (CCM ver. 2.1) Vogt et al. (2007)Corine Land Cover 2000, Water courses class Bossard et al. (2000)European Hydraulic Geometries Pistocchi and Pennington (2006)

Fifty-year frequency floodplains LISFLOOD Van Der Knijff et al. (2010) and Feyen et al. (2007)DEM, path distance ASTER GDEM Hayakawa et al. (2008)

Vegetation SRC-based classification of Image 2000 dataset Baraldi et al. (2006) and Nunes de Lima (2005)EC JRC Forest Mask 2000 Pekkarinen et al. (2009)

Land-cover land use Corine Land Cover 2000 Bossard et al. (2000)

Water mask SRC-based classification of Image 2000 dataset Baraldi et al. (2006) and Nunes de Lima (2005)Spectral Classification of Image 2006 dataset Kempeneers et al. (2011)

interface, thereby defining the inner riparian zone boundary(Fig. 1).

(2) Upland boundary: The upland boundary is a complex andfuzzy edge, whose delineation depends on a number of fac-tors, on the focus of the analysis and on the modelling criteriaadopted (Ilhardt et al., 2000). Here we considered for boundarydelineation both floodplain and geomorphological information,together with an estimated minimum functional buffer-zonerequired to maintain basic ecological riparian functions.

(3) Land-use/land-cover: To ensure a proper functioning of theirfunctional processes and provision of stream ecosystem ser-vices (sensu Daily et al., 1997) riparian environments shouldpreserve a certain degree of ecological integrity (Woodley et al.,1993). In the design of the model we considered only naturaland semi-natural land-cover, excluding those areas character-ized by artificial production (e.g. agricultural areas) or otherman-made environments.

(4) Vegetation presence: Vegetation has a fundamental role in awide series of ecological processes within the riparian zone(Naiman and Decamps, 1997). Key importance is given to for-est vegetation, which controls woody debris input (Milnerand Gloyne-Phillips, 2005), provides micro-habitats for severalriparian species (Darveau et al., 2001; Prenda and Granado-Lorencio, 1996), as well as supplying a plethora of ecosystemservices (Sweeney et al., 2004).

(5) Local geomorphology: Geomorphology strongly determinesthe movement of surface and subsurface water (Thorndycraftet al., 2008; Sutula et al., 2006); consequently, the extent of theriparian zone is linked to local geomorphology, which stronglycontrols lateral water movement and its subsequent influenceon the terrestrial habitat.

2.2. Generation of the information layers

Based on the abovementioned elements, the proposed approachmodels the presence of riparian zones using spatially distributeddatasets derived from remote-sensing imagery and validated infor-mation databases (Table 1). A spatial resolution of 25 m was setas an optimal trade-off between efficiency of the computationalapproach and data availability. The study area encompassed the 27Member States of the European Union (EU27), excluding EuropeanAtlantic islands and overseas territories. Due to availability, the datareference year is 2000. All cartographic outputs are in the EuropeanTerrestrial Reference System 1989 and Lambert Azimuthal EqualArea projection (ETRS-LAEA).

2.2.1. River network and inner riparian boundariesDespite the fact that rivers are non-equilibrium systems, the

inner riparian zone boundary can reasonably be assumed to be afixed spatial delineation of the watercourse banks. A high resolution

dataset providing both watercourse path and width informationfor the whole of Europe is not available, thus a 2-D hydrographicnetwork was generated by integrating information from threeavailable continental datasets: the Catchment Characterization andModelling (CCM) river network (Vogt et al., 2007), the CorineLand Cover 2000 (CLC2000) seamless vector data (EEA, 2006),and the European Hydraulic Geometries (EHG) database (Pistocchiand Pennington, 2006). CCM data were gathered by Vogt et al.(2007) using a 3′′ DEM from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission(Hayakawa et al., 2008) and processed at a grid-cell resolution of100 m. The data provide a complete linear river network for Europe,but lack river width information. In order to include width, thespatial extent of large rivers was obtained from the CLC2000 data,selecting the ‘water courses’ class (code 511). The CLC2000 water-course boundaries are accurate, although, having a minimum widthof 100 m (Nunes de Lima, 2005), the majority of European streamsare not included. Consequently, for smaller watercourses the Euro-pean Hydraulic Geometries database was used, which providesEuropean river width information at a 1 km resolution. EGH riverwidth information was accordingly applied to smaller streams, notpresent in the CLC2000 dataset, in order to obtain a full continentaltwo-dimensional river network dataset.

2.2.2. Upland boundary: maximum potential riparian extentThe delineation of a riparian upland boundary is a complex task,

due to the fuzzy nature of the ecological gradients characterisingthe riparian zones. While fixed buffers along water streams havebeen widely used in the scientific literature on riparian zones and inmanagement plans, it is clear that they are insufficient to representthe complexity of riparian environments delineation (e.g. Müller,1997). This work aims at identifying transitional areas occurringalong land and river ecosystems where abiotic and biotic condi-tions are significantly influenced by stream water. Ilhardt et al.(2000) indicated the 50-year frequency floodplain as an optimalhydrological descriptor for riparian ecotones, because the eleva-tion correspondent to these floodplains generally reaches the firstterrace and initial upward-sloping surfaces. In our model this infor-mation was provided with adequate spatial detail and continentalcoverage by LISFLOOD data (Van Der Knijff et al., 2010; Feyenet al., 2007), a complex hydrological rainfall-runoff-routing modelthat simulates catchment hydrological processes. The LISFLOOD-modelled 50-year frequency European floodplain areas at a 100 mspatial resolution (FZ50) were used as a basis for defining the uplandboundary of riparian zones in river-floodplain systems.

For stream-riparian systems, where floodplain formation condi-tions are not present, a geomorphological approach was followed.Recent approaches make use of DEMs and ancillary informationto identify geomorphological breaks representing riparian zoneboundaries (Collins et al., 2006). Sutula et al. (2006) implementeda cost-effective method of identifying riparian potential maximum



Fig. 2. Example of calibrated Path Distance calculated from a river stream, over-lapped on a digital elevation model (ASTER GDEM); brighter grey tones representhigher altitude.

lateral extent, based on DEM-derived indices. Among the geomor-phological indices used, the Path Distance (PD) was considered. Thisfunction represents the topographic cost of water to move horizon-tally and vertically from a specified feature (Sutula et al., 2006); inour study it represents the accumulated cost of water moving lat-erally from the river. Path Distance calculation requires a sourcelayer (the two-dimensional river network) and a cost layer, whichrepresents the surface constraint to overcome in order to move tothe next position. We assumed terrain slope to be the most impor-tant factor representing the cost layer for water: flat areas offerminimum resistance, while steep slopes represent strong energyconstraints.

By calibrating the Path Distance layer against reference riparianzone widths, an optimal index value that represents the maximumriparian geomorphic extent can be identified (see Sutula et al.,2006). To achieve sufficient topographic detail, a pan-EuropeanDEM mosaic was created using ASTER Global DEM scenes at 1′′

(Hayakawa et al., 2008) and re-sampled to 25 m. Although somelocations are contaminated by artefacts such as clouds or stripefeatures (Reuter et al., 2009), ASTER GDEM data provide, for themajority of European terrain, unprecedented richness of topo-graphic detail. The calibration process used a reference floodplaindataset from LISFLOOD FZ50 data, representing an upland limit ofwater influence. Several river reaches, totalling 12,533 ha, wereselected as calibration targets to calculate a PD threshold whichwould best coincide with the corresponding FZ50 floodplain extentby maximizing the match between the two layers. The mini-mum average error defined the optimal corresponding PD value,namely PD�. An advantage of this method, with respect to the com-monly used fixed width buffer, is its sensitivity to geomorphology:steep valleys will produce a narrow PD-derived geomorphologi-cal riparian extent, while relatively flat areas will produce a widerzone (Fig. 2). Calibrated Path Distance and FZ50 floodplains arethen merged, defining the riparian upland boundaries taking intoaccount the hydrological connection with adjacent streams.

In the case of very steep slopes, active hydrological connectionmay be lacking. Nevertheless, ecological flows can still be high, dueto the biotic and abiotic exchanges between the terrestrial andfreshwater systems. In accordance with the literature (e.g. NRC,2002, p. 43), in areas with absent or negligible hydrological con-nection, functional criteria should be used to delineate riparian

Table 2Average minimum buffer widths around watercourses necessary to maintainselected riparian functions.

Riparian function Average values ofminimum width (m)

Sediment entrapment 12Chemical filtration/transformation 12Large woody debris input to channel 40Leaf litter input to channel 0.5Flood control 16Aquatic life support 19Bank stabilization 14Riparian wildlife support 41

Adapted from review data of Collins et al. (2006).

zones. Collins et al. (2006) summarized from the literature the aver-age estimated minimum and preferred buffer widths to accountfor a series of key riparian functions. An estimated buffer widthof approximately 40 m from the stream would provide the neces-sary land extension to minimally allow the functioning of eight keyriparian functions considered (Table 2). Therefore, this functionalbuffer zone is computed around the river network delineation,defining the ‘functional riparian zones’. This layer is finally merged(union) with the Floodplains and calibrated Path Distance layer.The combined data define the maximum potential riparian extent(MPRE), considering both hydrological and functional connections.Outside this region the model assumes no riparian zone is present.

2.2.3. Vegetation detectionVegetation is fundamental in characterizing riparian zones func-

tioning, and is the primary regulator of a number of ecologicalprocesses and ecosystem services (Gillies and Cassidy Saint Clair,2008; Lowrance et al., 1997). To gather the continental distribu-tion of vegetated areas at a 25 m resolution we exploited twoindependent thematic datasets providing complementary seman-tic information.

A first dataset was automatically generated from Landsatsatellite imagery using the SRC, Spectral Rule-based decision-tree Classifier (Baraldi et al., 2006). SRC, which requires neitheruser-defined parameters nor training data samples to run, is imple-mented as a static decision-tree classifier capable of mimicking areference dictionary of spectral signatures taken from the remotesensing literature and data observations. Due to its operationalproperties, SRC is extremely suitable for vegetation/non-vegetation(V/NV) binary classifications (Baraldi et al., 2006). The preliminaryclassification generated by the SRC consists of spectral categories(spectral-based semi-concepts, e.g., strong/average/weak vegeta-tion, etc.), which are semantic conjecture based solely on theper-pixel spectral properties. This means the SRC preliminary clas-sification map is not designed to provide categorical information ofvegetation types in ecological terms (e.g. grasslands or forest), butit does provide the distribution of every vegetated area present.

An SRC-based classification performed by EC-JRC of satellitedata for Europe was exploited. Firstly, a full European coverageof Landsat-7 ETM+ scenes was acquired from the JRC Image 2000dataset (Nunes de Lima, 2005) and the NASA Global OrthorectifiedLandsat Dataset (Tucker et al., 2004). Secondly, all Landsat sceneswere radiometrically calibrated and mosaicked. Finally, sceneswere automatically classified by the SRC into 20 kernel spectralcategories belonging to six super-categories, namely, (i) Cloud, (ii)Snow or Ice, (iii) Water or Shadow, (iv) Vegetation (v) Bare soilor Built-up and (vi) Outliers. Vegetation comprised 12 differentvegetation spectral categories.

The second reference dataset consisted of the JRC Forest CoverMap 2000 (Pekkarinen et al., 2009), also derived by Landsat ETM+imagery acquired in 1999–2000, with pan-European coverage and



Table 3Natural and semi-natural CLC2000 classes selected in the model.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 CLC2000 code

Forest and semi-natural areas Forests Broad-leaved forest 311Coniferous forest 312Mixed forest 313

Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations Natural grasslands 321Moors and heathland 322Sclerophyllous vegetation 323Transitional woodland-shrub 324

Open space with little or no vegetation Sands, Beaches, Dunes 331

Water bodies Inland waters Watercourses 511

a spatial resolution of 25 m. The dataset provides the continen-tal distribution of forest vegetation (presence/absence), but doesnot deliver semantic information on non-forested vegetated land-cover classes.

2.2.4. Land-cover land-useIn our approach the presence of natural/semi-natural land-cover

was a necessary condition in order to assign an area to the ripar-ian zone class. This condition was driven by the need to includeregions that could minimally perform the main riparian ecolog-ical functions. Man-made surfaces, production/agricultural areas,and natural areas where riparian zones are unlikely to develop (e.g.rocky surfaces, glaciers, etc.) were not considered. The only conti-nental dataset with the required land-cover land-use informationfor Europe, with an adequate spatial resolution for the purpose ofthis analysis, is the Corine Land Cover 2000 map (CLC2000, Bossardet al., 2000). CLC2000 is derived from on-screen interpretation ofLandsat imagery; the original image data have a resolution of 20 mand were processed with a minimum mapping unit (mmu) of 25 haby merging small land-cover patches with the dominant surround-ing classes.

A series of natural/semi-natural CLC2000 land-cover classeswere selected, targeting habitats where stream riparian envi-ronments could potentially occur (Table 3). Land-cover typicallyobserved at the interface with riparian environments, such asriver sands/sediments were also considered. The land-cover class‘sparsely vegetated areas’ was excluded due to both its low over-all accuracy, 53.6% (EEA, 2006) and because, often associated witharid and rocky environments, led in pilot studies to riparian zoneoverestimation. Inland and maritime wetland classes were alsoexcluded: wetlands have ecological and hydrological regimes dif-ferent from those of the riparian zones, such as marked low-oxygenconditions, derived from seasonal/permanent soil saturation, lessintensive disturbance regimes, and characteristic vegetation com-munities (Keddy, 2010).

2.3. Geospatial detection of riparian zones using a fuzzy approach

The model was developed to detect and map riparian zones byevaluating the presence of natural/semi-natural land-cover, vege-tation occurrence and the influence of water within the maximumpotential riparian extent region (MPRE), through two main pro-cessing blocks. In the first step artificial land-cover, together withnatural classes where riparian zones are unlikely to be present, aremasked out. In other words, only the land-cover classes shown inTable 3 were considered.

In the second step the assignment to riparian zone class is estab-lished based on a fuzzy approach (Zimmermann, 2001). The use offuzzy sets is an organized method developed to deal with uncer-tainties and ambiguities (Zadeh, 1965). Fuzzy set theory allows agradual belonging of elements to sets, in contrast with dichoto-mous memberships: an element can belong to a fuzzy set withdifferent grades of membership defined by a membership function.

In mathematical terms, any element xi part of a set X belongs tosubset A according to a membership function �A: X → [0, 1], where�A(x) is interpreted as the degree of membership in fuzzy set A forxi ∈ X. The element is fully included in A if �A(x) = 1, while it is notincluded if �A(x) = 0.

In the model, two membership functions were introduced toassign a value quantifying the degree of belonging to the ‘naturalvegetation’ (�V) and the ‘water influence’ (�W) sets, respectively.

In order to derive the membership function defining the degreeof belonging �V to the fuzzy set V ‘natural vegetation’, informa-tion deriving from the SRC-classified vegetation and the JRC ForestCover Map 2000 is combined. The twelve SRC vegetation classesare spectral categories, rather than land-cover classes, and conse-quently do not differentiate between natural and cultivated/urbanvegetation. Furthermore, the masking process, which operates byselecting natural and semi-natural CLC2000 classes, is not sufficientto derive the ‘natural vegetation’ pixels, due to the generalizationprocess applied to achieve a mmu of 25 ha. In other words, 25 mpixels of non-natural vegetated land-cover (e.g. crops or urbanvegetation) can be present within patches of natural/semi-naturalCLC2000 land-cover due to the spatial generalization adopted toreach the minimum mapping unit. To deal with this issue, a fuzzymembership classifier based on shares is applied to the SRC vegeta-tion categories. Each of the twelve categories is assigned a �V SRC(x)value equal to the proportion of the category that spatially fallswithin the group of natural and semi-natural CLC2000 classes.This means that all pixels p belonging to the same SRC vegetationcategory are assigned the same membership function value. Forexample, if a vegetation category is found 10% of the time withinclasses in Table 3, these pixels are given the value �V SRC(p) = 0.1(equivalent to a low membership to the ‘natural vegetation’ set).Table 4 summarizes the values of membership function �V SRC forall SRC vegetation categories.

Table 4Membership values for the class ‘natural vegetation’ assigned to vegetation spectralcategories and forest.

SRC Vegetation spectral category Acronym �V SRC(p)

Strong vegetation SV 0.52Average vegetation AV 0.60Scarce vegetation WV 0.30Vegetation under shadow SHV 0.67Strong shrub rangeland SSR 0.55Average shrub rangeland ASR 0.42Strong herbaceous rangeland SHR 0.99Average herbaceous rangeland AHR 0.56Weak rangeland WR 0.16Wetland or dark rangeland WEDR 0.28Rangeland in shadowed areas or wetland SHRWE 0.56Bogs PB 0.35

JRC Forest Mask 2000 Acronym �V FOR(p)

Forest presence FOR 1



ASTER GDEM Mosaic

CCM2 River Network

Cori ne Land Cover 2000 Water courses class (511)

European Hydraulic Geometries

2D River Network Path Distance

Calibrate d Path Distance

Func�onal buffer

Maximum Poten�al Riparian Extent

SRC-derived vegeta�on classifica�on

JRC Forest Cover 2000

Natural vegeta�on

membership μ v

Cori ne Land Cover 2000 Natural- semi natural classe s mask

SRC-derived water class

Forest 2006 water class

Wate r mask

Wate r influence

membership μ w

RIPARIA N ZONES

*Condi�on ( μ v > 0) AND ( μ w > 0)

No Data mask

LISFLOO D floodplain data

Fig. 3. Descriptive flow chart of the sequential processing steps in the riparian zonation model. Condition (*) is not applied in functional buffers with PD > PD� .

An additional crisp membership �V FOR ∈ {0, 1} is added, basedon the JRC Forest Cover Map 2000. This function assumes only twovalues: 1 for forest presence and 0 for forest absence. The crispassignment of �V FOR is based on the assumption that mappedforests fully belong to the natural vegetation set; this is justifiedby the fact that the absolute majority (92%) of European forest isclassified as semi-natural or natural (MCPFE, 2007) and that, as acomponent of riparian systems, plantation forest can still poten-tially provide a large number of ecological functions and ecosystemservices. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that when a pixelis classified as forest by the JRC Forest Cover Map 2000 dataset thisclass label supersedes the SRC spectral category information. Thetwo membership functions �V SRC and �V FOR are then combined

using a fuzzy OR (max) operator to derive the final function �V(p)of membership to the natural vegetation set:

�V (p) ∈ [0, 1] = fuzzy OR{�V SRC(p), �V FOR(p)}= max{�V SRC(p), �V FOR(p)} (1)

The aggregation applies a maximum t-conorm between a gradedlayer and a binary layer.

The second membership function building the riparian indexevaluates water influence, by definition key to the formation ofriparian zones. Water influence can be reasonably considered asinversely proportional to the accumulated cost of lateral water



Fig. 4. Pan-European distribution of riparian zones, including both river-floodplain and stream-riparian systems (percentage in 10-km cells). Lamberth Azimuthal Equal Area(LAEA) Projection.

movement. The Path Distance layer was assumed adequate toassess water influence in riparian zones, representing a proxy forthe topographic cost of water to move from the stream outwards(Sutula et al., 2006). We introduced a membership function �W toassign a degree of belonging to the ‘water influence’ set W, builton a simple linear inverse-relationship with Path Distance: min-imum accumulated cost values of near-stream water movement,where PD is low, represent maximum water influence (�W close to1). PD� represents the furthest point of water influence (calibratedPath Distance) and delineated, together with the LISFLOOD flood-plains, the maximum potential riparian extent. The membershipfunction �W is defined as:

�W (p) =

⎧⎨⎩ 1 −[

p

PD� + 1

], 0 ≤ p ≤ PD�

0, elsewhere

(2)

In certain large river deltas, LISFLOOD floodplains have consider-able dimension, extending in some cases far beyond the calibratedPD layer. In order not to exclude such floodplains, the function�W(p) is here (locally) defined differently. If PD ≥ PD� within flood-plains then �W(p) is set equal to a minimum value necessaryto avoid masking, and equal to 1/(PD� + 1). This is applied untilPD = 2PD�, empirically determined after visual analysis of large

floodplains located too far away from the river course to be properlyconsidered riparian zones (maximum distance set to 2 km).

Both vegetation presence and water influence are in our studynecessary conditions for the existence of a riparian zone. Therefore,a riparian zone must satisfy the condition: (�V > 0) AND (�W > 0).Locations where this condition is not satisfied are assigned a 0 valuein the model (not riparian). Every riparian zone can be describedby both membership functions in a single bivariate index IRZ, whichdescribes the overall belonging to the Riparian Zone class:

IRZ = (�V , �W ) (3)

Functional riparian zones, by model definition, do not havean active hydrological connection. These regions were processedunder the unique conditions of being vegetated and within thedescribed 40 m functional buffer. Final processing involved theoverlapping of a 25 m water mask, derived from classified satelliteimagery (Table 1), in order to define more accurately the streamwater presence (Clerici et al., 2011).

A flow chart representing the sequential processing steps of theriparian zonation model is added (Fig. 3).



Fig. 5. Modelled riparian zones (25 m resolution) in a mountainous region of central Italian Alps (upper part) and in the Po river valley (lower part). Background image isSRTM elevation data (height proportional to grey brightness).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overview of distribution and characteristics

The model output provides a distribution map1 and basiccharacterization of the entire continental riparian network. A rep-resentation of the model output is illustrated in Fig. 4; riparianzone distribution is indicated using 10-km cells to improve visualobservation of its continental extension. Riparian zone distributionstrongly depends on the river network density. The hydrographicsystem, based mainly on CCM data, is particularly dense in moun-tainous areas where, due to the particular topography, the numberof small and ephemeral streams is high (Vogt et al., 2007). TheAlpine and Pyrenees regions, characterized by extended naturallyvegetated habitats, show a large proportion of narrow riparian

1 A website for public download of the riparian zones dataset is under planning.

zones (Fig. 5, upper). In these regions, and in other mountainousenvironments, the highest amount of functional riparian zone alsooccurs, due to the common presence of steep slopes associated tomountain watercourses. Large clusters of riparian zones are alsopresent in Sweden and Finland as a result of a particularly densewater network within widespread natural landscapes. In the mainEuropean plains, which are characterized by predominantly agri-cultural land and built-up environment, riparian zone density islower, due to the scarcity of natural environment and significantlylower density of watercourses. At the same time, flat topographyand large rivers allow the formation of wide riparian zones (Fig. 5),generally characterized by high �W values, which indicates a stronghydrological connection and often the presence of river-floodplainsystems.

The riparian zone class extends for 91,144 km2, approximately2% of the study area. Locations with high IRZ riparian membershipvalues (i.e. �V > 0.5 and �W > 0.5) represent approximately 47% ofall riparian zones. These areas have high water influence and veg-etation most probably natural; in other words, these are regions



Table 5Riparian zones (RZ) country-level statistics.

RZ country shareover total RZ (%)

RZ proportion overcountry extension (%)

RZ in floodplainsover total RZ (%)

Bulgaria 2.1 1.7 8.0Belgium 0.4 1.3 9.9Czech Republic 1.1 1.3 9.6Cyprus 0.1 1.4 N/ADenmark 0.2 0.4 2.5Germany 4.1 1.1 10.6Estonia 2.0 4.0 10.2Greece 3.1 2.2 5.0Spain 11.5 2.1 9.7France 10.4 1.7 10.4Ireland 0.5 0.6 9.4Italy 7.2 2.2 7.6Latvia 2.4 3.3 12.2Lithuania 1.1 1.5 9.1Luxembourg <0.05 1.6 14.4Hungary 1.7 1.6 35.9Malta <0.01 <0.1 0Netherlands 0.3 0.7 11.4Austria 2.4 2.6 7.0Poland 4.7 1.4 10.6Portugal 1.9 2.0 7.0Romania 3.9 1.5 15.5Slovenia 0.6 2.8 8.5Slovakia 0.8 1.5 8.4Finland 15.6 4.2 11.4Swedena 18.6 3.8 4.9United Kingdom 3.3 1.2 3.3

a A no data region is present in the Swedish territory.

which can be considered more likely as riparian zones. Locationswith low riparian membership (�V < 0.5 and �W < 0.5), i.e. with highassociated uncertainty, represent only 6.3% of the riparian zone.Riparian zones within 50-year floodplains provide an indication ofriver-floodplain riparian systems extent, and represent almost 9.3%of total riparian zone area (8454 km2). Functional riparian zonescover 1669 km2, only 1.8% of total riparian zone area. The mostnortherly European countries (Sweden, Finland, Estonia) host thehighest relative proportions of riparian zone with regard to theirextent (3.8–4.2%), while Malta, Denmark and Ireland are character-ized by the lowest proportions (0.1–0.6%). These values concur withthe amount of respective natural/semi-natural habitat and with thedensity of their watercourse networks. Table 5 reports the EU27country-level statistics.

To obtain a basic characterization of the riparian zone class,land-cover statistics were extracted from the CLC2000 dataset.Results indicate that European stream riparian environments aredominated by forest habitats (approximately 69%). This valuedecreases to ca. 54% if we refer to the JRC Forest Map 2000, whichhas a higher spatial resolution and does not use generalization pro-cesses. The importance of forest habitats for ecosystem services andbiodiversity conservation is well documented (e.g. Fahey, 2001;Simberloff, 1999); the present study provides a first quantitativeindication of the amount and broad distribution of forest habitatsin Europe that also have an ecological significance as riparian zones.Approximately 13.3% of riparian zones are associated with transi-tional woodland shrub and, to a minor extent, to other land covertypes (Fig. 6). A measure of the ecological value of riparian zonehabitats and of their degree of protection can be derived exploitingtwo major European datasets of land protection schemes: the Com-mon Database on Designated Areas (CDDA) and the Natura2000network. The former, maintained by the European Topic Centreon Biological Diversity, considers designated areas for protectioncomparable to the IUCN protected areas categories (EIONET, 2011).The second database includes the EU-wide system of protectednatural areas established under the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC)comprising both Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs)

designated under the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and SpecialAreas of Conservation for habitats and non-bird species (SACs).Approximately 33.2% of the riparian zone class is located in eitherone of the two networks of protected areas, indicating that a sig-nificant proportion of riparian zone is characterized by habitats ofhigh ecological value, currently under a protection scheme.

3.2. Accuracy and reliability

No independent dataset of riparian zones for the whole ofEurope is, to our knowledge, currently available. An in situ veri-fication campaign was not considered feasible because of cost andtime considerations, involving an extensive field survey in locationsrepresentative of the whole range of conditions found within theEU27 territory. Consequently, three different strategies were fol-lowed in order to identify uncertainties and derive model reliability

Broad-leaved forest

24.3%

Coniferous forest

29.5%

Mixed forest

15.7%

Transitional woodland-

shrub

13.3%Sclerophyllous

vegetation

3.6%

Moors and heathland

4.2%

Natural grasslands

6.0%

Beaches, dunes,

sands

0.7%Water courses

2.7%

Fig. 6. Distribution (%) of land-cover type within the riparian zone class, based onCLC2000 data.



Fig. 7. Examples of modelled riparian zones at 25-m resolution (dark green) overlapped onto high and medium resolution imagery: (a) Rhône-Alpes, France (Quickbirdimage) and (b) Castilla y Leòn, Spain (Landsat image).

indications: (i) discuss published accuracy measures associatedwith input datasets; (ii) examine sources of error in model outputthrough visual analysis of satellite imagery; and (iii) provide quan-titative accuracy measures using independent datasets and VisualValidation Points (VISVAL).

3.2.1. Input datasets confidence and accuracyThe locations of the majority of European watercourses were

derived using the CCM dataset. Within this dataset all watercoursesegments have a confidence reliability attribute, which is labelledas ‘high’ for 87% of all watercourses (Vogt et al., 2007). ASTER GDEMdata, on which the Path Distance index calculation was based, havevertical errors of approximately 20 m at 95% confidence on a globalbasis (AGVT, 2009). The DEM was found to contain, in certain loca-tions, anomalies and artefacts; the major ones stemming from thepresence of residual clouds in the ASTER scenes used to generatethe DEM. At European level, regions with artefacts were predomi-nantly found north of 60◦ latitude in central Sweden and westernFinland. An extended thematic accuracy evaluation was performedfor the CLC2000 dataset based on European Land Use/Cover AreaFrame Statistical Survey (LUCAS). Reliability of the CLC2000 classesselected in this study, calculated as a percentage of matches withground truth points, is reported to be on average 86.1% (EEA,2006), decreasing to 82.1% when considering only the vegetated

classes. An indication of the SRC vegetation/non-vegetation highclassification accuracy is provided by Baraldi et al. (2006) usingLandsat imagery, showing a value of 98.2 ± 0%. An accuracy assess-ment of the JRC Forest map 2000 was performed by Pekkarinenet al. (2009) using LUCAS data and high resolution images fromGoogleEarth® (visual validation). The first showed an overall accu-racy (OA) of 83.7%, while accuracy derived using visual validationpoints produced an OA of 88.4%. For EHG and LISFLOOD data nosystematic accuracy measures were derived; however, the litera-ture reported good qualitative agreement with other independentdatasets (Pistocchi and Pennington, 2006; Feyen et al., 2007).

3.2.2. Visual assessment using satellite imageryA set of eighteen medium (Landsat) and high resolution scenes

from a variety of satellite imagery (Quickbird, RapidEye, SPOT5)were acquired to perform a qualitative visual assessment. Ripar-ian zones were overlaid onto the imagery, together with the inputdatasets in order to (i) obtain reliability indications and (ii) iden-tify at which level of the model errors were generated. Overall,the riparian distribution patterns are generally well represented,with the addition of notable spatial details being able to delineatenarrow riparian corridors (Fig. 7a) and small river islands. Mask-ing using CLC2000 causes in some cases errors of omission, due toits generalization process and because of masked heterogeneous



Table 6Producer accuracy of the riparian zone class based on independent ecological datasets and LUCAS2009 data.

Data type Source provider Location Points (n) Matchedpoints (n)

Sample produceraccuracy

RHS (Raven et al., 1998) ISA, Technical University Lisboa; Portugal 110 96 87.3%Various institutions, data collected in the contextof the MARCE Project; University of Cantabria;

Spain 374 319 85.3%

Environment Agency of England and Wales,Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Centrefor Ecology and Hydrology.

UK, Europe 2551 2152 84.4%

QBR (Munne et al., 2003) Freshwater Ecology and Management Researchgroup, University of Barcelona

Catalunya (NE Spain) 32 29 90.6%

Total 84.6%

LUCAS2009 Flood Forests(Eurostat, 2009)

Eurostat, European Commission Europe 111 90 81.1%

Overall Producer Accuracy 3178 2686 84.5%

agricultural classes containing natural habitat patches. The scale ofthe CCM river network (built on a 100 m DEM), can be a source ofmisplacement for river paths, especially where landscape topogra-phy is not accentuated.

3.2.3. Accuracy measures using independent datasetsQuantitative measures of accuracy for riparian zone

absence/presence were derived using three different data sources:regional ecological surveys of riparian zones, LUCAS2009 data(Eurostat, 2009), and visual validation points (VISVAL) analysedin GoogleEarth®. Regional surveys of riparian habitat qualityprovide precise location and characteristics of riparian zones. The

ecological datasets used are based on two survey types: (i) the RiverHabitat Survey (RHS), a method to characterize and assess in broadterms the physical character of freshwater streams and rivers(Raven et al., 1998), and (ii) the Quality of Riparian Forest (QBR)survey, a combined index to derive measures of riparian habitatquality (Munne et al., 2003). These two methodologies addressdifferent issues and indicators, but they commonly share riparianzones as assessment targets. Data sources are listed in Table 6.The LUCAS2009 survey (Eurostat, 2009), carried out in 2008–2009and initially developed to deliver European crop estimates for theEuropean Commission, included over 230,000 survey-points. Dataare usually gridded in a 2 km × 2 km grid and, for each survey-point,

Fig. 8. Distribution of the ecological survey (RHS, QBR), LUCAS2009 data, and visually validated points (VISVAL) used in the accuracy assessment. Lamberth Azimuthal EqualArea (LAEA) Projection.



land-cover, land-use and other relevant information is recorded.For validation purposes, the Floodplain Forests class was selected,defined as ‘alluvial and riparian woodlands and galleries close tomain European river channels’ (Eurostat, 2009).

All GPS points of the abovementioned survey data were assigneda 50 m buffer, a common simplified geometry necessary to rep-resent the extension of each survey plot. The validation set wasselected with the condition of being related to the river networkand the land-cover classes considered in the model (Table 3).

A unique measure of overall accuracy, built for example froma common confusion matrix, would not be fully meaningful(Boschetti et al., 2004), as the riparian zone is a relatively rare class(ca. 2% of the study area). Instead, the producer’s accuracy was cal-culated, by considering positive matches between survey pointsand riparian zone class. The producer accuracy value, explainingomission errors, was pPA = 84.5 ± 1.3% at 95% confidence level con-sidering all survey points (Table 6).

The VISVAL points (230) were randomly extracted from theriparian class and imported into GoogleEarth®. A user accuracyvalue was also derived through on-screen supervised assessmentof high resolution images, giving pUA = 72.6 ± 5.8%. This estimationof the omission errors can be considered a conservative estimate, asin unclear visual interpretation a ‘no match’ was always considered.Fig. 8 shows the spatial distribution of all validation points.

4. Conclusions

Information on the spatial distribution of riparian zones iscrucial for the assessment of ecological functions of riverineenvironments (Ward et al., 2002), especially in the context of bio-diversity conservation and the evaluation of ecosystem services. Anovel model to derive the distribution of stream riparian zones isproposed, considering both stream-riparian ecosystems, related tosmall size and ephemeral streams, and river-floodplain ecosystemsof large flood-prone systems. We illustrated that a small set of rel-evant riparian attributes provided sufficient information to predictriparian zones presence at the landscape scale. At the same timecurrent available Earth Observation data allowed spatially explicitestimates of the selected attributes, and to map riparian zones dis-tribution at pan-European level.

To our best knowledge, this work represents the first attemptto model and map riparian zones at fine resolution and conti-nental scale. The proposed thematic mapping system is designedto provide regional pictures of riparian zone networks and theirbasic characteristics at 25 m resolution using a fuzzy approach. Anadvantage of the proposed fuzzy index over crisp representationsis the customization of high-level products, allowing final users toretrieve their own specific subset of riparian zones based on thechoice of minimum membership values. Furthermore, performingregional calibration of model parameters and depending on EO dataavailability, the model is potentially applicable to other continentsand eco-regions of the world.

In terms of mapping accuracy, the proposed riparian zone mod-elling system for large-scale applications is considered satisfactory,following, e.g. Thomlinson’s (1999) minimum 70% per-class accu-racy, although this should depend on the end-user’s applicationand specific needs. Further developments of the proposed fuzzyclassifier are currently being planned in order to include a moreaccurate northern European DEM and decrease classification errorsin coastal zones. In particular, the development of a pan-Europeanhigh-resolution watercourses dataset containing width informa-tion is expected to be highly beneficial to large-scale modelling ofriparian zones and freshwater ecosystems.

In conclusion, the generated high-level fuzzy dataset and itsfurther development can represent a step ahead in support of

large-scale research activities for riparian environments. Knowingthe ‘backbone’ of the European riparian network is in fact highlyvaluable for comprehensive continental-scale land-use modellingand environmental assessments (e.g. Lavalle et al., 2011). Importantapplications are potentially related to the prioritization of ripariancorridors to maintain or improve landscape connectivity, or theassessment of riparian ecosystem services at pan-European scale,e.g. the estimation of continental riparian-buffering and chemicaltransformation capacity. The model is expected to provide valuableinformation to support the new European biodiversity strategy,with special reference to the implementation of the European GreenInfrastructure.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank L. Feyen and P. Kempeneers(JRC) for providing LISFLOOD and Forest Map 2006 data, respec-tively. We also acknowledge A.C. Cardoso and M. Dunbar forcarefully reviewing the manuscript. Data for validation were kindlyprovided by M. Dunbar (UK CEH), Prof. N. Prat (FEMR, University ofBarcelona), J. Barquin (Cantabria University, Spain), Prof. T. Ferreiraand F. Aguiar (Tech. University Lisboa). We acknowledge the Span-ish Minister of Science and Innovation in relation to project MARCEand all involved institutions for making available RHS data.

References

AGVT – ASTER GDEM Validation Team, 2009. ASTER Global DEM Validation Sum-mary Report. Report Prepared by METI/ERSDAC, NASA/LPDAAC and USGS/EROS.In Collaboration with NGA and Other Collaborators. Available at: http://www.ersdac.or.jp/GDEM/E/image/ASTERGDEM ValidationSummaryReport Ver1.pdf(accessed September 2011).

Baraldi, A., Puzzolo, V., Blonda, P., Bruzzone, L., Tarantino, C., 2006. Automatic spec-tral rule-based preliminary mapping of calibrated LandsatTM and ETM+ Images.IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 2563–2586.

Bayley, P.B., 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience 45,153–158.

Benedict, M.A., McMahon, E.T., 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes andCommunities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 299 pp.

Bennett, J., Simon, A., 2004. Riparian Vegetation and Fluvial Geomorphology. Amer-ican Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

Boschetti, L., Flasse, S.P., Brivio, P.A., 2004. Analysis of the conflict between omissionand commission in low spatial resolution dichotomic thematic products: thePareto boundary. Remote Sens. Environ. 91, 280–292.

Bossard, M., Feranec, J., Otahel, J., 2000. CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Adden-dum 2000. Technical Report No. 40. European Environment Agency.

Clerici, N., Weissteiner, C.J., Paracchini, M.L., Strobl, P., 2011. Riparian Zones: WhereGreen and Blue Networks Meet – Pan-European Zonation Modelling Based onRemote Sensing and GIS. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, JRC EUR 24774 EN2011. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg,60 pp.

Collins, J.N., Sutula, M., Stein, E., Odaya, M., Zhang, E., Larned, K., 2006. Comparisonof Methods to Map California Riparian Areas. Technical Report 502. Prepared forthe California Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. Contribution No. 522. San FranciscoEstuary Institute, San Francisco, CA.

Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Systems.Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daniels, R.B., Gilliam, J.W., 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction by grass andriparian filters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 246–251.

Darveau, M., Labbe, P., Beauchesne, P., Belanger, L., Huot, J., 2001. The use of riparianforest strips by small mammals in a boreal balsam fir forest. Forest Ecol. Manag.143, 95–104.

Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D., Lévêque, C.,Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J., Sullivan, C.A., 2006.Freshwater biodiversity: importance, status, and conservation challenges. Biol.Rev. 81, 163–182.

EEA – European Environment Agency, 2006. The Thematic Accuracy of CorineLand Cover 2000 Assessment Using LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area Frame Sta-tistical Survey). 85 pp., available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical report 2006 7 (accessed September 2011).

EIONET – European Environment Information and Observation Network, 2011.Data Dictionary: Dataset Specification for Common Database on Des-ignated Areas (CDDA), Version December 2011. European Topic Centreon Biological Diversity. Available at: http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/GetPrintout?format=PDF&obj type=DST&obj id=2981&out type=GDLN.

Eurostat, 2009. LUCAS 2009 (Land Use/Cover Area Frame Survey). Technical Refer-ence Document C-3. Land Use and Land Cover: Nomenclature. Statistical Officeof the European Communities, Luxembourg. Version of 16/03/2009.



Fahey, T.J., 2001. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Forest Ecology, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity.Elsevier, NY, pp. 41–51.

Feyen, L., Vrugt, J.A., Nualláin, B.Ó., van der Knijff, J., De Roo, A., 2007. Parameteroptimisation and uncertainty assessment for large-scale streamflow simulationwith the LISFLOOD model. J. Hydrol. 332, 276–289.

Gillies, C.S., Cassidy St. Clair, C., 2008. Riparian corridors enhance movement of aforest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.105, 19774–19779.

Goebel, P.C., Hix, D.M., Dygert, C.E., Holmes, K.L., 2003. Ground-Flora Communitiesof Headwater Riparian Areas in an Oldgrowth Central Hardwood Forest. USDAFor. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-234, pp. 136–145.

Goetz, S.J., 2006. Remote sensing of riparian buffers: past progress and futureprospects. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42, 133–143.

Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., Cummins, K.W., 1991. An ecosystem per-spective on riparian zones focus on links between land and water. Bioscience41, 540–551.

Hagan, J.M., Pealer, S., Whitman, A.A., 2006. Do small headwater streams have ariparian zone defined by plant communities? Can. J. Forest Res. 36, 2131–2140.

Hayakawa, Y.S., Oguchi, T., Lin, Z., 2008. Comparison of new and existing globaldigital elevation models: ASTER G-DEM and SRTM-3. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35,1–5.

Ilhardt, B.L., Verry, E.S., Palik, B.J., 2000. In: Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., Dolloff, C.A.(Eds.), Defining Riparian Areas. Riparian Management in Forests of the Conti-nental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Ivits, E., Cherlet, M., Mehl, W., Sommer, S., 2009. Estimating the ecological statusand change of riparian zones in Andalusia assessed by multi-temporal AVHHRdatasets. Ecol. Indic. 9, 422–431.

Johansen, K., Arroyo, L.A., Armston, J., Phinn, S., Witte, C., 2010. Mapping ripariancondition indicators in a sub-tropical savanna environment from discrete returnLiDAR data using object-based image analysis. Ecol. Indic. 10, 796–880.

Keddy, P.A., 2010. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation, 2nd edition. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kempeneers, P., Sedano, F., Seebach, L., Strobl, P., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2011. Datafusion of different spatial resolution remote sensing images applied to forest-type mapping. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 99, 1–10.

Knopf, F.L., Samson, F.B., 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in westernriparian ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 8, 669–676.

Lavalle, C., Baranzelli, C., Mubareka, S., Rocha Gomes, C., Hiederer, R., Batista, E.,Silva, F., Estreguil, C., 2011. Implementation of the CAP Policy Options with theLand Use Modelling Platform – A First Indicator-Based Analysis – EUR 24909 EN.Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Lowrance, R., Altier, L.S., Newbold, J.D., Schnabel, R.R., Groffman, P.M., Denver, J.M.,1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer systems in the ChesapeakeBay watershed. Environ. Manage. 21, 687–712.

Machtans, C.S., Villard, M.A., Hannon, S.J., 1996. Use of riparian buffer strips asmovement corridors by forest birds. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1366–1379.

Malmqvist, B., Rundle, S., 2002. Threats to running water ecosystems of the world.Environ. Conserv. 29, 134–153.

MCPFE – Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 2007. Stateof Europe’s Forests. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management inEurope. MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE and FAO, Warsaw. ISBN-10: 83-922396-8-7.

MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Milner, A.M., Gloyne-Phillips, I.T., 2005. The role of riparian vegetation and woodydebris in the development of macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams. RiverRes. Appl. 21, 403–420.

Müller, E., 1997. Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and newmethods. Aquat. Bot. 58, 411–437.

Munne, A., Prat, N., Sola, C., Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., 2003. A simple field methodfor assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitats in rivers and streams:QBR index. Aquat. Conserv. 13, 147–163.

Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., 1997. The ecology of interfaces – riparian zones. Annu.Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 621–658.

Naiman, R., Decamps, H., McClain, M., 2005. Riparia – Ecology, Conservation, andManagement of Streamside Communities. Academic Press, 448 pp.

National Research Council – NRC, 2002. Riparian Areas. Functions and Strategiesfor Management. Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies forManagement, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council,National Academy Press, Washington, DC, xii + 428 pp., ISBN: 0-309-08295-1.

Nunes de Lima, M.V., 2005. IMAGE2000 and CLC2000: Products and Methods. Euro-pean Commission, Joint Research Centre, EUR 21757 EN.

Pekkarinen, A., Reithmaier, L., Strobl, P., 2009. Pan-European forest/non-forest map-ping with Landsat ETM+ and CORINE Land Cover 2000 data. ISPRS J. Photogramm.64, 171–183.

Perkins, D.W., Hunter Jr., M.L., 2006. Use of amphibians to define riparian zones ofheadwater streams. Can. J. Forest Res. 36, 2124–2130.

Peterjohn, W.T., Correll, D.L., 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed:observations on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65, 1466–1475.

Pistocchi, A., Pennington, D., 2006. European hydraulic geometries for continentalscale environmental modelling. J. Hydrol. 329, 553–567.

Prenda, J., Granado-Lorencio, C., 1996. The relative influence of riparian habitatstructure and fish availability on otter Lutra lutra L. sprainting activity in a smallMediterranean catchment. Biol. Conserv. 76, 9–15.

Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Dawson, F.H., Everard, M., 1998. Quality assessment usingRiver Habitat Survey data. Aquat. Conserv. 8, 477–499.

Resh, V.H., Brown, A.V., Covich, A.P., Gurtz, M.E., Li, H.W., Minshall, G.W., Reice, S.R.,Sheldon, A.L., Wallace, J.B., Wissmar, R.C., 1988. The role of disturbance in streamecology. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7, 433–455.

Reuter, H.I., Nelson, A., Strobl, P., Mehl, W., Jarvis, A., 2009. A first assessment ofaster GDEM tiles for absolute accuracy, relative accuracy and terrain parameters.In: International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 5, art.:5417688, pp. V240–V243.

Simberloff, D., 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity.Forest Ecol. Manag. 115, 101–111.

Sundseth, K., Silwester, A., 2009. Towards green infrastructure for Europe. In: Sund-seth, K., Silwester, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of EC Workshop. 25–26 March 2009,DG ENV – Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brus-sels, Belgium, Available at: http://green-infrastructure-europe.org/ (accessedDecember 2011).

Sutula, M., Stein, E.D., Inlander, E., 2006. Evaluation of a Method to cost-EffectivelyMap Riparian Areas in Southern California Coastal Watersheds. Technical Report480. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.

Sweeney, B.W., Bott, T.L., Jackson, J.K., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D., Standley, L.J., Hes-sion, W.C., Horwitz, R.J., 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and lossof stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 14132–14137.

Thomlinson, J.R., Bolstad, P.V., Cohen, W.B., 1999. Coordinating methodologies forscaling land-cover classifications from site-specific to global: steps toward val-idating global map products. Remote Sens. Environ. 70, 16–28.

Thorndycraft, V.R., Benito, G., Gregory, K.J., 2008. Fluvial geomorphology: a perspec-tive on current status and methods. Geomorphology 98, 2–12.

Tucker, C.J., Grant, D.M., Dykstra, J.D., 2004. NASA’s global orthorectified Landsatdata set. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 70, 313–322.

Van Der Knijff, J.M., Younis, J., De Roo, A.P.J., 2010. LISFLOOD: a GIS-based distributedmodel for river basin scale water balance and flood simulation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf.Sci. 24, 189–212.

Verry, E.S., Dolloff, C.A., Manning, M.E., 2004. Riparian ecotone: a functional defini-tion and delineation for resource assessment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 4, 67–94.

Vogt, J.V., Soille, P., de Jager, A.L., Rimaviciute, E., Mehl, W., Foisneau, S., Bodis, K.,Dusart, J., Paracchini, M.L., Haastrup, P., Bamps, C., 2007. A Pan-European Riverand Catchment Database, Report EUR 22920 EN, Luxembourg. 120 pp.

Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Arscott, D.B., Claret, C., 2002. Riverine landscape diversity.Freshw. Biol. 47, 517–539.

Whitaker, D.M., Carroll, A.L., Montevecchi, W.A., 2000. Elevated numbers of fly-ing insects and insectivorous birds in riparian buffer strips. Can. J. Zool. 78,740–747.

Woodley, S., Kay, J., Francis, G., 1993. Ecological Integrity and the Management ofEcosystems. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 8, 338–353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.

Zimmermann, H., 2001. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Boston.

pan-europeangeog.umd.edu/sites/geog.umd.edu/files/pubs/ecologicalindicators_st… · ne resolution....

Documents