Sustainable Environment

An international journal of environmental health and sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaes21

Assessing habitat quality using the InVEST model

in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds, central
highland of Ethiopia: Implication for watershed
management

Simeneh Admasu, Kumelachew Yeshitela & Mekuria Argaw |

To cite this article: Simeneh Admasu, Kumelachew Yeshitela & Mekuria Argaw | (2023)
Assessing habitat quality using the InVEST model in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds, central
highland of Ethiopia: Implication for watershed management, Sustainable Environment, 9:1,
2242137, DOI: 10.1080/27658511.2023.2242137

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2023.2242137

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

View supplementary material

Published online: 04 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 283

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaes21
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
2023, VOL. 9, NO. 1, 2242137
https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2023.2242137

ECOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessing habitat quality using the InVEST model in the Dire and Legedadi
watersheds, central highland of Ethiopia: Implication for watershed
management
Simeneh Admasua,b, Kumelachew Yeshitelaa and Mekuria Argawc
a
Building Construction and City Development, Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; bGFA Consulting Group; Biodiversity
and Forests Program in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; cCollege of Natural Science, Center for Environmental Science, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to quantify and map habitat quality in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds Received 31 January 2023
between 1985 and 2022 using the InVEST habitat quality model. The purpose of this study was Accepted 25 July 2023
to assess the spatiotemporal changes in habitat quality in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds. The KEYWORDS
result showed, between 1985 and 2022, both watersheds experienced a significant decline in Dire and Legedadi;
habitat quality. The extent of high habitat quality habitat in the Legadadi watershed has decreased watersheds; InVEST; habitat
significantly from 206 km2 in 1985 to 50.26 km2 in 2022. Similarly, high habitat quality habitat in the quality
Dire watershed has gradually declined from 87.29 km2 in 1985 to 35.44 km2 in 2022. The construc­
tion of the Dire water reservoir in 1999 helped to maintain the extent of moderate habitat quality
which increased from 6.93 km2 in 1995 to 25.36 km2 in 2010. The rapid expansion of farmland and
settlement at the expense of natural vegetation was strongly linked to the decline in habitat
quality. As a result, appropriate watershed management intervention is required. Therefore, the
outcome of this research will provide a scientific basis for future ecosystem monitoring to monitor
the impacts of watershed management interventions.

1. Introduction Similarly, the study watersheds have been signifi­

cantly affected by LULC (Simeneh et al., 2023a).
A high-biodiversity ecosystem is regarded as a high- Natural forests and grassland were the dominant land
quality habitat that contributes to improved ecosystem cover types until the late 1980s when they were largely
processes (Johnson, 2007). The decline in biodiversity replaced by farmland and settlement (Addis Ababa
resources and intactness, on the other hand, is having Water and Sewerage Authority [AAWSA], 2016;
a significant negative impact on habitat quality as Awraris, 2017). Due to the increased deterioration of
a result of several unprecedented Land Use Land natural habitats in both watersheds, the water quality in
Cover (LULC) changes such as increased settlement, the reservoirs was reported to be very low (Helnata,
farming, and artificial monoculture plantations 2019; Taye, 2009). Understanding landscape patterns,
(Abreham et al., 2020; Hamere et al., 2021; H. Zhang the interaction of human activities, and the effects of
et al., 2020). The degradation of habitat quality was land conversion on natural phenomena is critical for
primarily caused by intensive land use expansion asso­ proper land management and decision-making that
ciated with human activities (Liang and Liu, 2017). As contributes to the preservation of ecosystem integrity
a result, the proximity to and intensity of adverse land (Rawat & Kumar, 2015). The study of watersheds’ rapid
uses has a significant impact on ecosystem functioning LULC changes and their effects on the quality and
and process (Fu et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2018), and the quantity of ecosystem services are poorly known and
ability to support ecosystem services that are necessary less understood. Assessing the effects of LULC changes
to produce all ecosystem services can be deteriorated on habitat quality and Ecosystem Service Values (ESVs)
(Polasky et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2021; Villamagna in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds can help with
et al., 2013). proper ecosystem management intervention, which

CONTACT Simeneh Admasu [email protected] Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building Construction and City development 518 Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
Reviewing editor: Michelle Bloor University of Western Australia, Australia
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2023.2242137
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted
Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 S. ADMASU ET AL.

can support humans meet a variety of economic and been under rapid changes (AAWSA, 2016; Awraris,
environmental needs. 2017; Simeneh et al., 2023a) and impacted the eco-
Assessments of habitat quality and ecological risk are hydrological processes (Ajanaw & Miano, 2021;
required as part of sustainable ecosystem management Simeneh et al., 2023b; Sisay, 2014), the quality and
to reduce the negative effects of anthropogenic distur­ quantity of water (Helnata, 2019; Taye, 2009).
bances (Y. Zhang et al., 2022). This study’s assessment Therefore, the establishment of sustainable watershed
model can be used as an effective decision-support tool management intervention is highly essential. Since
to prioritize important ecological areas and can also be the development of a robust ecosystem monitoring
adapted for use in ecosystem management intervention system is crucial to monitor changes; the outcome of
(Y. Zhang et al., 2022). The availability of biodiversity this study can be used as a baseline for future eco­
resources in a specific environment and the environ­ system service monitoring assessment in the study
ment’s ability to provide suitable living conditions are watersheds.
influenced by quality habitat (Hall et al., 1997). It is
regarded as a critical representation of regional biodi­
2. Materials and methods
versity and ecosystems, as well as a critical link in
ensuring regional ecological security and enhancing 2.1. The study area
human well-being (Chen et al., 2016;). Understanding
The Legedadi and Dire are critical watersheds, covering
the temporal and geographical aspects of habitat quality
215 km2 and 97.5 km2 respectively. They are located in
is the foundation for developing land-use planning and
Oromia regional state, approximately 35 kilometers
management (Liu et al., 2018).
northeast of Addis Abeba, between 09 01’00“and 09
The environmental level that the ecological envir­
13’ 00” N latitude and 38 50’ 00“−39 07’ 00”
onment provides for the survival of individual organ­
E longitude (Figure 1). They are sub-catchments of the
isms and populations is referred to as habitat quality
Akaki River basin, which flows northeast-southwest,
(Yanan et al., 2022). It is a variable with a numerical
and are part of the drainage system that forms the
range ranging from low to high (Sharp et al., 2020;
northwest corner of the Awash River basin.
Yanan et al., 2022). The higher the quality of the
habitat, the more stable the ecosystem’s ecological
structure and function (Sharp et al., 2020; Yanan 2.2. The InVEST habitat quality model
et al., 2022). The manner and intensity with which
human land use determines habitat quality, and the The InVEST model offers a good research method as
more intense the land use, the more pronounced the well as perspectives (Abreham et al., 2020; Hamere
decline in habitat quality (Almpanidou et al., 2014). et al., 2021; Romero-Calcerrada & Luque, 2006; Sharp
To quantify habitat quality, the Integrated Valuation et al., 2020; Terrado et al., 2016; H. Zhang et al.,
of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model 2020). To compute habitat quality, the model incor­
has been widely used (Abreham et al., 2020; Hamere porates information on land use and threats. The
et al., 2021; Mohsen & Mohammadyari, 2023; spatial extent of habitat quality within the landscape
H. Zhang et al., 2020). The model provides an excel­ was determined by the habitat’s proximity to human-
lent research method and perspectives (Romero- dominated land use and the intensity of disturbance
Calcerrada & Luque, 2006; Terrado et al., 2016), as caused by the LULC (Sharp et al., 2020). The model
well as information on land use and threats to com­ considers LULC with higher habitat quality to be
puting habitat quality. The spatial extent of habitat relatively intact and capable of supporting increased
quality within the landscape was determined by the biodiversity, whereas LULC with lower habitat quality
habitat’s proximity to human-dominated land use indicates reduced biodiversity support and denotes
and the intensity of disturbance caused by the land a degraded habitat (Baral et al., 2014). The model is
use (Sharp et al., 2020). We hypothesize that habitat based on the relative impact of threats to habitats, the
quality deteriorated over time as a result of threat distance between the threat source and the habitat,
factors present in the study area. As a result, the and the sensitivities of specific habitats to any poten­
purpose of this study was to assess the spatiotem­ tial threats that could lead to habitat degradation
poral changes in habitat quality in the Dire and (Chen et al., 2016; Sharp et al., 2020).
Legedadi watersheds using InVEST software. The For this study, five biodiversity threats were identi­
Legedadi and Dire watersheds the main water supply fied, namely settlement, farming, eucalyptus plantation,
for Addis Ababa city (AAWSA, 2011, 2016). road, and land degradation, and the significance
Unlikely, the watershed’s natural environment has (weight) of each threat was prioritized based on the
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 3

Figure 1. Map the study areas.

Table 1. Ecological habitat quality input data used for InVEST habitat quality model in the Dire and Legedadi watersheds
LULC types
Threat Maximum Distance Weight Decay NV W S GL EP C BL
Habitat suitability score
1 1 0 1 1 0 0
Habitat sensitivity to threats
Eucalyptus dominance 1 0.75 Linear 0.75 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00
Settlement 2 1.00 Exponential 1.00 0.8 0.00 1.00 0.8 0.00 0.6
Farming 2 1.00 Exponential 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.8 0.00 0.00
Roads 3 0.75 Linear 0.8 0.75 0.00 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5
Land degradation 1 0.60 Linear 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

opinions of local key informants, experts’ knowledge, suitability to species (Sharp et al., 2020). The model’s
and review of the literature (Abreham et al., 2020; final input is the sensitivity of habitat type to different
Hamere et al., 2021), using the approach developed by threats; this allows for the differentiated impacts of
Terrado et al. (2016) and Wu et al. (2014) (Table 1). threats on different habitats to be accounted for.
The key inputs of habitat quality in the InVEST model, Threat impacts on habitat are determined by: 1) the
according to Sharp et al. (2020), are the suitability of each threat’s effect over space (irxy); 2) the relative weight
LULC type (Hj) for providing habitat for of each threat’s importance compared to the others (wr);
biodiversity; second, anthropogenic threats that originate and 3) a relative sensitivity of each habitat to respective
at pixel x (rx) affecting habitat quality; and third, the threat (Sjr) (Sharp et al., 2020). The grid x’s stress level
sensitivity of each LULC type to each threat (Table 1). Dxj with land-use type j is calculated as follows.
� � !
dxy XR XYr wr
irxy ¼ 1 if linear (1) Djx ¼ PR rx irxy θx Sjr (3)
drmax r¼1 y¼1
r¼1 wr
� �
2:99 where R= number of threat factors, yr = set of grid cells
irxy ¼ expð dxy Þ if exponential (2)
drmx on r’s map, wr =relative effect of each threat, θx = level of
accessibility to a grid cell x, and Sjr = relative sensitivity of
Where, dxy= linear distance between grid cells x and y,
each habitat types to each threat (Sharp et al., 2020).
and drmax = maximum effective distance of threats r’s
across space (Sharp et al., 2020). The model’s output ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 repre­
The total threat level in a grid cell x with LULCj is senting the highest level of habitat quality (Sharp et al.,
calculated as the relative habitat suitability score (Hj), 2020). Threats with higher destructive values (on a scale
which ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the highest of 0–1) have higher impacts on habitat, and the more
4 S. ADMASU ET AL.

sensitive a habitat type is to a threat (higher Sjr), the 2.3. Data preparation and input for the
more degraded the habitat type could be by the threat. InVEST-habitat quality model
The degree of habitat degradation was used to calcu­ The InVEST habitat quality model requires data inputs
late habitat quality, and the habitat quality score (both spatial and non-spatial) (Figure 2). Thus, LULC
decreased as the degree of habitat degradation increased maps, threat sources and impacts, habitat types, habitat
(Sharp et al., 2020; Yanan et al., 2022). The habitat quality sensitivity to each threat, and half-saturation constant were
calculation formula is as follows (Sharp et al., 2020). all required inputs (Sharp et al., 2020). The information on
" !#
D2xj LULC was obtained from Simeneh’s (2023) previous study
Qxj ¼ Hj 1 (2) in the study area (Figures 3, 4). To run the habitat quality
D2xj þ kz
model, all of the required inputs were loaded, including
where, Qxj is the habitat quality of grid cell x in land cover LULC maps for the respective years, threat sources and
type j; Hj is the habitat suitability of land cover type j; Dz xj impacts, habitat types, and habitat sensitivity to each
is the level of habitat threat for grid cell x in land cover type threat. Finally, habitat quality maps for each year were
j; k is the half-saturation factor, which is generally taken as created; the final habitat quality maps were classified into
half of the maximum value of Dz xj; and x is a constant. three categories (low, moderate, and high).

Figure 2. Flowchart showing methodological steps followed in the study.

´ 1985 1995 2010 2022

Cultivation
Cultivation
Natural vegetation
Natural vegetation
Eucalyptus
Grassland km
Settlement
Eucalyptus 0 1 2 4 6 8
Water
Settlement
Bareland

Figure 3. LULC changes in the Dire watershed (1985–2022).

 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 5

´
1985 1995 2010 2022

Natural vegetation
Water
km
Settlement 0 4 8 16 24 32
Grassland
Eucalyptus
Cultivation

Figure 4. LULC changes in the Legedadi watershed (1985–2022).

3. Results and discussions 50.26 km2 (23.28%). Low habitat quality, on the other
hand, increased from 9.62 km2 (4.46%) in 1985 to 36.31
Between 1985 and 2010, the watersheds were dominated
km2 (16.82%) in 1995, then to 59 km2 (27.34%) in 2010
by high habitat quality. The extent of high habitat quality
and 165 km2 (76.72%) in 2022. (Table 2; Figures 5, 6).
in the Legadadi watershed has decreased significantly
from 206 km2 (95.5%) in 1985 to 179.5 km2 (83.2%) in In the Dire watershed, the extent of high habitat
1995 and then to 156.85 km2 (72.66%) in 2010. However, quality has gradually declined between 1985 and 2022,
by 2022, the high habitat quality would have dropped to from 87.29 km2 (89.84%) in 1985 to 78.23 km2 (80.56%)

Table 2. Habitat quality changes in the Legedadi and Dire watersheds using InVEST habitat quality model (1985, 2022)
Habitat
quality 1985 (km2) % 1995 (km2) % 2010 (km2) % 2022 (km2) %
Legadadi watershed
Low 9.62 4.46 36.31 16.82 59.03 27.34 165.62 76.72
Moderate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
High 206.27 95.54 179.57 83.18 156.85 72.66 50.26 23.28
Total 215.89 100.00 215.88 100.00 215.88 100.00 215.88 100.00
Dire watershed
Low 9.87 10.16 11.95 12.31 0.00 0.00 49.00 50.44
Moderate 0.00 0.00 6.93 7.14 25.36 26.10 12.71 13.08
High 87.29 89.84 78.23 80.56 71.81 73.90 35.44 36.48
Total 97.16 100.00 97.11 100.00 97.17 100.00 97.15 100.00

1985 1995 2010 2022

´

1 Km
0
0 4.5 9 18 27 36

Figure 5. Habitat quality in the Legadadi watershed (1985-2022).

6 S. ADMASU ET AL.

´ 1985 1995 2010 2022

Low
Moderate
High
Km
0 4.5 9 18 27 36

Figure 6. Classified habitat quality maps in the Dire Legedadiwatershed.

´ 1985 1995 2010 2022

0
km
0 1 2 4 6 8

Figure 7. Habitat quality in the Dire watershed (1985-2022).

´ 1985
1995
2010 2022

Low
km
Moderate
0 1 2 4 6 8
High

Figure 8. Classified habitat quality maps in the Dire watershed.

in 1995, 71.81 km2 (73.9%) in 2010, and 35.44 km2 extremely deteriorated quality environment consisted of
(36.48%) in 2022. Low habitat quality, on the other 77%, 13.30%, and 8.12%, respectively (AAWSA, 2011).
hand, has increased from 9.87 km2 (10.16%) in 1985 to Rapid anthropogenic LULC changes associated with the
11.95 km2 (12.31%) in 1995 and then to 49 km2 expansion of human settlements and artificial planta­
(50.44%) in 2022. (Table 2; Figures 7, 8). The construc­ tions may result in a significant loss of habitat quality
tion of the Dire water reservoir in 1999 helped to main­ (Abreham et al., 2020; Hamere et al., 2021; Jie et al.,
tain the extent of moderate habitat quality. It increased 2015; Li et al., 2018; Liting et al., 2019), pose a threat to
from 6.93 km2 (7.14%) in 1995 to 25.36 km2 (26.1%) in biodiversity (Sun et al., 2019) and led to a decline in the
2010 but then decreased to 12.71 km2 (13.08%) in ESs (Mohammadyari et al., 2023). Similarly, rapid urba­
n 2022 (Table 2; Figures 7, 8). nization and agricultural expansion have destroyed pre­
In the last 37 years, the quality of the habitat has viously dominant natural habitats, resulting in
deteriorated dramatically. In general, high-quality habi­ significant habitat quality degradation in watersheds.
tats in 1985 degraded into low-quality habitats by 2022 Natural habitat loss can have a variety of effects on the
(Table 2). This is due to an unprecedented increase in larger ecosystem and have a significant impact on
anthropogenic pressure, which has resulted in severe human well-being. The magnitude of poor habitat qual­
changes in the ecosystem’s healthy functioning. ity has grown significantly as settlement and cultivation
A similar finding was reported that only 1.96 % of the areas have expanded. With a declining trend, high habi­
area has high environmental quality; the medium, poor tat quality values have only occurred in areas where
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 7

natural habitats and reservoirs are located. Human incentive-based watershed management practices in
activities, particularly settlement and urbanization, the study landscapes. Thus, this study will assist
unrestricted grazing, deforestation, and agricultural decision-makers in appropriately planning for sus­
practices, have the potential to degrade habitat quality tainable watershed management practices in the
and disrupt ecological processes. Similar findings have study watersheds.
been reported in the Winkie and Beressa watersheds
(Abreham et al., 2020; Hamere et al., 2021).
Furthermore, eucalyptus plantations’ dominance and
Acknowledgements
land degradation have contributed to the watershed’s The authors are grateful for the support provided by Bereh
declining habitat quality (Hamere et al., 2021). woreda agriculture and natural resource protection office, and
Addis Ababa Water and Sewage Authority (AAWSA). The jour­
nal’s anonymous reviewers and Editor in Chief are also thanked
4. Limitations of the study for their critical comments that improved the manuscript.

The assessment of habitat quality using the InVEST

model has been successfully used for biodiversity Disclosure statement
conservation and is invaluable for landscape manage­ No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ment and planning (Sharp et al., 2020). The major
limitations of the InVEST habitat quality model are
still insufficient information about species’ spatial Funding
and temporal distribution across the landscape The work was supported by the Addis Ababa University
(Stephen et al., 2011). To obtain ecologically valid under the thematic research project on Integrated Landscape-
and robust information on the distribution of quality based Management (ILM) Approach for Improving
habitat and species abundance across watersheds, it Ecosystem Services, Agricultural Productivity and Water
is critical to conduct a field-based habitat suitability Availability in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia (ILM-
ESAW). [NA].
assessment (Nagendra et al., 2013). Another disad­
vantage of the InVEST habitat quality model is that
it does not account for the impact of soil, climate, Authors’ contributions
hydropower generation, edge effect, and vegetation
‘SA designed the research, collects relevant data, analyzed data
differences in the habitat (Y. Zhang et al., 2014). and wrote the draft manuscript and KY and MA contributed
Furthermore, the maximum effective distance of the to the work through their persistent guidance, reviewing and
threat and the weights of each ecological threat fac­ editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript’.
tor are heavily reliant on the model dataset para­
meters and expert judgments (Baral et al., 2014;
Data availability statement
Terrado et al., 2016). As a result, the expert’s judg­
ment has had a significant impact on the habitat The authors want to declare that they can submit the data at
quality modeling work, which is one of the model’s whatever time based on request. The data used for the current
major limitations (Abreham et al., 2020). study are available from the corresponding author upon rea­
sonable request.

5. Conclusion
References
By mapping critical habitats for ecosystem conserva­
Abreham, B., Noszczyk, T., Soromessa, T., & Elias, E. (2020). The
tion, habitat quality modeling helps in sustainable InVEST habitat quality model associated with land use/cover
land management initiatives. The rapid expansion changes: A qualitative case study of the winike watershed in
of farmland and settlement in the study watersheds the Omo-Gibe Basin, Southwest Ethiopia. Remote Sensing, 12
has largely resulted in a decline in habitat quality. (7), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12071103
The decline in habitat quality is expected to con­ Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority. (2011). Master
tinue. A sustainable water management intervention plan review, catchment rehabilitation, and awareness crea­
should be implemented based on the level of habitat tion for geffersa, legedadi, and dire catchments. Addis
Ababa.
degradation to improve habitat quality in both Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority. (2016). Urban
watersheds. It is also critical to ensure that the water supply and sanitation; Legedadi and Dire dam reha­
watershed management intervention causes little or bilitation project. Addis Ababa.
no economic loss to other land uses (mainly for Ajanaw, N., & Miano, T. M. (2021). Impacts of land use and
agriculture) through implementing appropriate land cover change on soil erosion and hydrological
8 S. ADMASU ET AL.

responses in Ethiopia. Applied & Environmental Soil the transitional area of the three natural zones: A case
Science Article ID 6669438, 2021, 1–10. https://doi.org/10. study in Yuzhong county. Geographical Research, 37,
1155/2021/6669438 419–432. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063594
Almpanidou, V., Mazaris, A. D., Mertzanis, Y., Avraam, I., Mohammadyari, F., Zarandian, A., Mirsanjari, M. M.,
Antoniou, I., Pantis, J. D., & Sgardelis, S. P. (2014). Suziedelyte Visockiene, J., & Tumeliene, E. (2023).
Providing insights on habitat connectivity for male brown Modelling impact of urban expansion on ecosystem ser­
bears: A combination of habitat suitability and landscape vices: A scenario-based approach in a mixed natural/urba­
graph-based models. Ecological Modelling, 286, 37–44. nised landscape. Land, 12, 291. https://doi.org/10.1007/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.04.024 s11252-022-01297-6
Awraris, M., (2017). Analysis of the impact of land use land Mohsen, T., & Mohammadyari, F. (2023). Modeling the spa­
cover dynamics on soil erosion using the RUSLE model: The tial distribution of multiple ecosystem services in Ilam dam
case of water supply reservoir watersheds around Addis watershed, Western Iran: Identification of areas for spatial
Ababa [M.Sc thesis]. Addis Ababa University. planning. Urban Ecosystems, 26(2), 459–478. https://doi.
Baral, H., Keenan, R. J., Sharma, S. K., Stork, N. E., & Kasel, S. org/10.1007/s11252-022-01297-6
(2014). Spatial assessment and mapping of biodiversity and Nagendra, H., Lucas, R., Honrado, J. P., Jongman, R. H. G.,
conservation priorities in a heavily modified and fragmen­ Tarantino, C., Adamo, M., & Mairota, P. (2013). Remote
ted production landscape in north-central Victoria, sensing for conservation monitoring: Assessing protected
Australia. Ecological Indicators, 36, 552–562. https://doi. areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity,
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.022 and threats. Ecological Indicators, 33, 45–59. https://doi.
Chen, Y., Qiao, F., & Jiang, L. (2016). Effects of land use org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.014
pattern change on regional scale habitat quality based on Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., & Johnson, K. A.
InVEST modeld—a case study in Beijing. Acta Scientiarum (2011). The impact of land-use changes on ecosystem ser­
Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 52, 553–562. https:// vices, biodiversity and returns to Landowners: A case study
doi.org/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2016.057 in the state of Minnesota. Environmental & Resource
Fu, B., Wang, S., Su, C., & Forsius, M. (2013). Linking eco­ Economics, 48(2), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/
system processes and ecosystem services. Current Opinion s10640-010-9407-0
in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/ Rawat, J., & Kumar, M. (2015). Monitoring land use/cover change
10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002 using remote sensing and GIS techniques: A case study of
Hall, L. S., Krausman, P. R., & Morrison, M. L. (1997). The Hawalbagh block, district Almora, Uttarakhand, India. The
habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing & Space Science, 18(1),
Soc Bull, 25, 171–182. 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.02.002
Hamere, Y., Soromessa, T., Argaw, M., & Dewan, A. (2021). Romero-Calcerrada, R., & Luque, S. (2006). Habitat quality
Spatio-temporal change in habitat quality and linkage with assessment using Weights-of-Evidence based GIS model­
landscape characteristic in the Beressa watershed of ling: The case of Picoides tridactylus as species indicator of
Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Environmental the biodiversity value of the Finnish forest. Ecological
Management, 281, 11188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv Modelling, 196(1–2), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol
man.2020.111885 model.2006.02.017
Helnata Tilahun. (2019). Key drivers of water quality in Dire Sharp, R., Douglass, J., Wolny, S., Arkema, K.,
and Legedadi reservoirs, Ethiopia [M.Sc thesis]. Addis Bernhardt, J., Bierbower, W., Chaumont, N., Denu, D.,
Ababa University. Fisher, D., Glowinski, K., Griffin, R., Guannel, G.,
Jie, G., Feng, L., Hui, G., Zhou, C., & Zhang, X. (2015). The Guerry, A., Johnson, J., Hamel, P., Kennedy, C.,
impact of land-use changes on water-related ecosystem Kim, C. K., Lacayo, M. & Wyatt, K. (2020). The natural
services: A study of the Guishui River Basin, Beijing, capital project, stanford university, university of
China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S148–S155. Minnesota, the nature conservancy and world wildlife
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.049 fund. InVEST User’s Guide.
Johnson, M. D. (2007). Measuring habitat quality: A review. Simeneh, A., Yeshitela, K., & Argaw, M. (2023a). Impact of
The Condor, 109(3), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/con land use land cover changes on ecosystem service values in
dor/109.3.489 the Dire and Legedadi watersheds, central highlands of
Liang, Y., & Liu, L. (2017). Simulating land use change and its Ethiopia: Implication for landscape management decision
effect on biodiversity conservation in a watershed in north­ making. Heliyon, 9(4), e15352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
west China. Ecosystem Health & Sustainability, 3, 1335933. heliyon.2023.e15352
Li, X., Hou, X., Song, Y., Shan, K., Zhu, S., Yu, X., & Mo, X. Simeneh, A., Yeshitela, K., & Argaw, M. (2023b). Impacts of
(2018). Assessing habitat quality changes for shorebirds in land use land cover changes and climate variability on
stopover sites: A case study in yellow river Delta, China. water yield in the dire and legedadi watersheds central
Wetlands, 39(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157- Ethiopia. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 8
018-1075-9 (1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-023-00188-x
Liting, X., Shuang Chen, S., Xu, Y., Guangyu, L., & Weizhong, S. Sisay Habtegebreal Mogesie. (2014). Impact of land use and
(2019). Impacts of land-use change on habitat quality during land cover change on soil erosion potential in Legedadi
1985–2015 in the Taihu Lake Basin. Sustainability, 11(13), reservoir watershed [M.Sc thesis]. Addis Ababa University.
3513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133513 Stephen, P., Jeremy Nelson, E., Pennington, D. N., &
Liu, C. F., Wang, C., & Liu, C. L. (2018). Spatio-temporal Johnson, K. A. (2011). The impact of land-use changes on
variation on habitat quality and its mechanism within ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners:
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 9

A case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental & Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 128, 60–71.
Resource Economics, 48(2), 219–242. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.020
1007/s10640-010-9407-0 Yanan, L., Duo, L., Zhang, M., Yang, J., & Guo, X. (2022).
Sun, X., Jiang, Z., Liu, F., & Zhang, D. (2019). Monitoring Habitat quality assessment of mining cities based on
spatio-temporal dynamics of habitat quality in Nansihu Lake InVEST model—a case study of Yanshan County, Jiangxi
basin, Eastern China, from 1980 to 2015. Ecological Indicators, Province. Jiangxi Province International Journal of Coal
102, 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.041 Science & Technology, 9(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Taye, A., (2009). Impact of LULC change on catchment hydrol­ s40789-022-00498-w
ogy and water quality of Legedadi-Dire catchments [M.Sc Yan, S., Wang, X., Cai, Y., Li, C., Yan, R., Cui, G., & Yang, Z.
Thesis]. Addis Ababa University. (2018). An integrated investigation of spatiotemporal habi­
Terrado, M., Sabater, S., Chaplin-Kramer, B., Mandle, L., tat quality dynamics and driving forces in the upper basin
Ziv, G., & Acuna, V. (2016). Model development for the of Miyun Reservoir, North China. Sustainability, 10(12),
assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in con­ 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124625
servation planning. The Science of the Total Environment, Zhang, Y., Qi, W., Zhou, C., Ding, M., Liu, L., Gao, J., Bai, W.,
540, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064 Wang, Z., & Zheng, D. (2014). Spatial and temporal variability
Thomas, E., Jansen, M., Chiriboga-Arroyo, F., Wadt, L. H. O., in the net primary production of alpine grassland on the
Corvera-Gomringer, R., Atkinson, R. J., Bonser, S. P., Tibetan Plateau since 1982. Journal of Geographical Sciences,
Velasquez-Ramirez, M. G., & Ladd, B. (2021). Habitat 24(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-014-1087-1
quality differentiation and consequences for ecosystem ser­ Zhang, H., Zhang, C., Hu, T., Zhang, M., Ren, X., & Hou, L.
vice provision of an Amazonian hyperdominant tree (2020). Exploration of roadway factor and habitat quality in
species. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 621064. https://doi. InVEST. Transportation Research, Part D: Transport &
org/10.3389/fpls.2021.621064 Environment, 87, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.
Villamagna, A. M., Angermeier, P. L., & Bennett, E. M. (2013). 2020.102551
Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual frame­ Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Liu, T., Li, Z.,
work for analyzing ecosystem service provision and Lin, Q., Jing, Z., Wang, X., Huang, Q., Sun, W., Zhai, J.,
delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15, 114–121. https://doi. Tan, L., Wang, J., Zhou, G., Tian, Y., Hao, J., Song, Y., &
org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 Fei, M. (2022). Habitat quality assessment and ecological
Wu, C.-F., Lin, Y. P., Chiang, L. C., & Huang, T. (2014). risks prediction: An analysis in the Beijing-hangzhou grand
Assessing highway’s impacts on landscape patterns and canal (Suzhou Section). Water, 14(17), 2602. https://doi.
ecosystem services: A case study in Puli township, org/10.3390/w14172602