Protecting or restoring habitat connectivity in landscapes undergoing rapid environmental change requires multiple conservation and restoration strategies. These strategies have different risk profiles, costs, and require various types of expertise to conduct. This diversity in landscape context and strategic approach requires more nuance than traditional connectivity conservation plans have supported.
Cameron, D.R., Schloss, C.A., Theobald, D.M. and Morrison, S.A. 2022. A framework to select strategies for conserving and restoring habitat connectivity in complex landscapes. Conservation Science and Practice. DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12698.
A new study illustrates a strategy selection approach for habitat connectivity by combining the importance of a given place to sustaining connectivity and the type of land ownership present in that place. This “strategy mapping” approach can be used to identify priority areas for conservation investment and suites of potential implementation mechanisms and partners.
The authors use Omniscape, a recently developed moving window version of Circuitscape to model structural connectivity in California based on human modification due to land use and infrastructure. The current flow output from Omniscape is classified by normalizing the flow based on the potential flow using only source weight (with no resistance). By doing so, the analysis distinguishes between channelized areas with more constraints on movement, and broadly permeable diffuse flow areas. Intensified lands are in the middle between channelized and diffuse. These categories are combined with land ownership information depicting whether land is publicly or privately protected (i.e. secured), or whether it is in privately-owned unprotected status. Unprotected land is divided into small and large properties.
The combination of the channelized, intensified, diffuse categories and land status creates a 3×3 matrix that is used to suggest possible types of strategic interventions to secure or restore connectivity. This strategic framework is then mapped to display the location of possible interventions, with the goal of matching strategies that are most efficient at providing connectivity given the land status and relative constraints on movement options.
Many connectivity assessments focus solely on depicting potential corridors and don’t take the next step to consider what actions make sense given the connectivity need, land use, and ownership constraints/opportunities. It is often assumed that the hundreds or thousands of highlighted parcels in a corridor can be purchased by a conservation NGO or agency. This paper tries to bridge this persistent gap between modeling and implementation, and show how conserving and restoring habitat connectivity can be the work of not just land trusts and conservation agencies, but also land use and transportation planners, and public land managers.
Related Posts
How do stakeholders map connectivity?
An analysis of stakeholder perspectives across a protected area network in France reveals how mapping ecological connectivity requires balancing scientific rigor with practical considerations.
Balancing biodiversity and carbon conservation in 30×30
A global analysis shows that conservation strategies can simultaneously advance biodiversity and carbon goals, but may come with trade-offs for connectivity.
Nature Positive conservation through connected systems
Employing a “Nature Positive” framework could potentially halt and reverse biodiversity loss by integrating conservation, climate action, and ecosystem management across interconnected terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems.
