Protected area networks remain one of the best ways to protect biodiversity. Incorporating connectivity into plans for network expansion is critical to make sure they remain effective, but there are many different ways to do this.
For examples, some approaches for integrating connectivity into protected area networks focus on spatial configuration, while others use metapopulation dynamics, and still others focus on continuous scores from land use data. These different approaches all differ in their assumptions and datasets, potentially leading to different results.
Hanson, J.O., Vincent, J., Schuster, R., Fahrig, L., Brennan, A., Martin, A.E., Hughes, J.S., Pither, R. and Bennett, J.R. 2022. A comparison of approaches for including connectivity in systematic conservation planning. Journal of Applied Ecology 59(10): 2507-2519.
Given all the different approaches, which is the most effective for promoting connectivity within protected area reserves? A new study uses data from over 250 bird species in Washington State to compare eight different connectivity approaches based on:
- total area
- species representation
- boundary length
- human pressure
- naturalness-based landscape resistance
- focal species landscape resistance
- habitat heterogeneity, and
- environmental similarity.
The results of the comparisons provide strong evidence of how different approaches can produce marked differences in the selection of priority areas, with very similar or very different results depending on the underlying assumptions. One of the most widely used approaches – boundary length – produced clearly different results and selected a much smaller total area than the other approaches. However, some approaches based on very different underlying assumptions still led to very similar results.
In addition, none of the proposed network expansions promoted a high level of connectivity under all eight of the approaches. This highlights the trade-off inherent between each approach, and how prioritizing total area, for example, might not necessarily lead to higher species representation. The study includes an extensive chart comparing the advantages and disadvantageous of each approach, and when each might be most appropriate.
The study reinforces the importance of understanding the assumptions and limitations that underpin any approach used to promote connectivity in protected area networks. Choosing the appropriate methods and tools is a critical part of conservation planning, and that first step can have a big impact on the final step in planning. Understanding which approach is most effective for an individual project or plan is the best way to ensure that connectivity is promoted and biodiversity conserved.
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.
Planning connected protected areas for 30×30
A new predictive framework helps conservation planners identify where protected areas can most effectively strengthen ecological connectivity while advancing global 30x30 conservation goals.
New book released on regional landscape conservation planning
Regional Landscape Conservation Planning synthesizes conservation science and spatial planning approaches to show how landscape connectivity can support biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and sustainable land-use policy at regional scales.
