2004 
| and 
ndex 
total 
ional 
n the 
the 
it, an 
rtion 
Ies. 
'ased 
Land 
ed as 
ently, 
n of 
] an 
small 
iation 
on is 
ween 
cal or 
Is can 
) to I. 
uation 
se, for 
  
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B7. Istanbul 2004 
Isp=3/4=0.75 isd: 
Qualitative: Various edge combinations can be assigned 
2-2 Juxtaposition (Jxp) relative weight factors ranging from 0 to 1. Edge weight 
Quantitative: If Adjacency distance between 2 polygons is factors used in the calculation of juxtaposition in this study 
greater than the mean distance (centroid polygon were assigned using the criteria shown in Table-2 below 
perimeter/polygon number), the score is 2. If smaller, the score 
Table 2. Edge weight factors for calculation of juxtaposition 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Evaluation level of center cell or polygon 
I Il IT IV 
Evaluation level of adjacent | I 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 
cells or polygons Il 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 
111 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 
IV 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
4. RESULTS 
4-1 Ecosystem Analysis 
The results of the four indices used for evaluation of natural 
symbiosis are shown in Figure 1 through Figure 4; and the 
overall results in Figure 5. These results show that small 
watershed units with high degree of natural symbiosis are 
concentrated along the western mountain ridges. In addition, 
units with fairly high degree of natural symbiosis are also 
found along the mountain slopes and in the hilly areas along 
the northeastern coast. Lowlands, on the other hand, show a 
much lower degree of natural symbiosis. 
c 
     
   
   
BE ENO %—0, 05%) 
ES PRI (FN 0.056—0. 1 %) 
FREI (FN 0.1 %~0. 15%) 
. . . E Oy ~ ) 
4-2 Spatial Diversity ITA CN 0. 15 
Analysis of spatial diversity, as seen in Figure 6 and 7, 
shows that even among the western mountains, where many 
high suitability watershed units are concentrated, there are still 
some units with high interspersion scores, indicating that they 
are isolated. On the other hand, the juxtaposition results 
indicate that many of the highly suitable watershed units have 
good connectivity. 
Figure 3. Index of Fragmentation of Natural 
Environment (FN) 
   
BEE AD O%— 3%) 
ES FMI (LD 3%—10%) 
SES (LD 10%~30%) 
SFIV (LD 30%~ ) 
    
     
SEM 1 CVN 7—10) 
B Rn (VN 3— D 
SRE (VN 1-— 3) 
BEN ON O^ 1 Figure 4. Index of Land Modification 
Level (LD) 
Figure 1. Vegetation Naturalness Index 
(VN) 
FFM I (TV 4— 6) 
SET (TV 7— 8) 
SEE (OV 9~10) 
SEV (TV 11~16) 
   
ERU 1 (QF 85%~ 100%) 
Bl SFE I (OF 55%~ 85%) 
FFA (OF 35%~ 55%) 
"avc We vo Figure 5. Total Evaluation Level (TV) 
261 
Figure 2. Quantitative Index of 
Forest (QF)