英语论文网

odels Or Trade-Off Sps And Exercising Spatial Bartering Based On SPs Figure 6 shows a proposed tourist development plan and its potential impact on the ecological SP for the dispersal of medium-sized mammals. As a result, the remaining native habitat at the upper-right corner and the immediate buffer zone will be destroyed by the expanding construction of tourist facilities and three ecological corridors will be negatively affected by the tour line. One solution to reduce the negative impact of tourist development is to modify the plan of tourist development based on ecological SPs. This solution suggests moving the tourist center to the edge of the park and imposing a special management policy on the tour sections across the ecological corridors. It is, however, possible that any modifications of the tourist development plan may not be acceptable to the developers or local officials. In this case, the defender of ecological processes should consider the solution of spatial bartering to trade-off components of SPs for their overall consolidation. This solution of spatial bartering may include, but is not limited to, the following tactics (Figure 8). Figure 8 Possible spatial bartering tactics based on ecological SPs Figure 9 shows an example of how the tourist development plan can be adapted by trading-off some components of ecological SPs, but not security levels. It is suggested that the ecologist may abandon the native habitat at the upper-right corner of the map, but restore a native patch at the middle left and add a corridor to connect the two existing patches that will potentially be isolated because of the interruption of the corridors by the introduced tour line. Figure 9 Tourist-development plan and spatial bartering on an ecological SP for the medium-sized mammals as a moderately secure level It should be noted that all the gains in Figure 8 are based on the identified ecological SPs and the accessibility surfaces that represent the accessibility of the landscape. SP Approach Integrated with GIS in Support of Decision Making for Securer Landscape Changes Those identified SPs at various security levels are the basis of strategies of spatial defense, or spatial bartering among defenders of ecological, visual and agricultural conversion processes, represented by ecologists, tourists and farmers . Two situations have been simulated when using SPs in support of decision making: situation one: negotiations for landscape changes within currently defined security levels. This is an optimistic result of the SP approach. Any of the four change models proposed in the last section may be acceptable. situation two: negotiations for landscape changes beyond current security levels. Situation one can be taken as a special case of situation two where further solutions will be explored at other security levels. In situation two, one or more defenders has to give up his current requirement for the security of the concerned processes, and retreat to a lower level of security for further defense. Figure 10 shows the negotiation or gaming procedure and the strategies that reflect the decision making process among the defenders of the three processes, each of the defenders has SPs of three security levels in mind. This procedure of redefining security levels may repeat until solutions can be found. Figure 10 Strategies for negotiation and GIS-support decision making based on SPs As is shown in this case study, planners do not provi