International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B7. Istanbul 2004 
  
5. CONCLUSIONS 
The ecosystem evaluation using small watershed units was 
judged to be effective when compared with data on 
environmental and biological diversity. Employing the exiting 
data for comparison, it was clear that the number of species 
and plant communities were higher in the units that have 
higher scores in the evaluation system. This indicates that the 
system adopted in this study provides a simple, easily applied 
but reliable tool for spatial environmental evaluation. 
This research demonstrates that GIS analysis is a convenient 
tool for evaluation of habitat suitability over a broad area, and KEY WOI 
that the results can be quickly incorporated into regional plans 
for environmental and species management. 
ABSTRAC 
6. REFERENCES 
The paper 
  
[1] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. Habitat as a basis for Hydrolog 
environmental assessment (ESM 101) snowfalls 1. 
[2] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. Habitat Evaluation The metho 
Procedure (HEP)(ESM 102) satellite, ai 
Degree of The Interspersion [3] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981. Standards for the - the compl 
Low (0.00 ~ 033 Development of Habitat Suitability Index Models (ESM - the neces: 
poss 103) - the instab 
: [4] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. Habitat Suitability requires a € 
Figure 6. Interspersion Map Index Models: Black bear, upper great lakes region - the need t 
[5] Hansen, A.J. and D.L. Urban, 1992. Avian response to A complex 
landscape pattern — the role of species’ life histories. MODIS, L. 
Landscape Ecology 7(3), pp.163-180. (maps and 
[6] Masuyama T., T. Yamamoto, K. Hara and Y. Yasuda snowcover 
(2003), Habitat evaluation of Japanese Black Bear using , hydro-mete 
GIS. The 24th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing & informatior 
2003 International Symposium on Remote Sensing, spring perit 
Proceedings of The 24th Asian Remote Sensing 2003 
(CD), p. 43. 
[7] Mcintyre, N.E. et al., 1995. Effects of forest patch size on 
avian diversity, Landscape Ecology, 10(2), pp. 85-99. 
[8] Rickers, JR, LP Queen, GJ. Arthaud, 1905. À The surveil 
proximity-based approach to assessing, Landscape Romania re 
Ecology, 10(5), pp. 309-321. the fact tha 
[9] Heinen, J. & G.H. Cross, 1983. An approach to measure reduced, al 
interspersion, juxtaposition, and spatial diversity from redistribute 
cover-type maps, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 11(3), pp. watercours 
232-237. European « 
[10] Mead, R.A., T. L. Sharik, S. P. Prisley, and J. T. Heinen, multi-annu: 
Parallel Degree 1981. A Computerized spatial analysis system for the limit of 
e m assessing wildlife habitat from vegetation maps. Canadian east and so 
- 1.00} 
Journal of Remote Sensing, 11(1), pp. 34-44. 
Water reso 
in space a 
Figure 7. Juxtaposition Map Water reso 
observation 
processing. 
The remote 
developmei 
Systems v 
electromag 
spatial and 
remote sen 
supply obs 
hydrologic: 
techniques 
- areal mea: 
- gathering 
262