Planning for ecological connectivity can be challenging because it requires bringing together stakeholders that have different expertise, priorities, and ideas about conservation. Although connectivity science can provide guidance on how habitats function and how species move through land- or seascapes, translating that knowledge into planning decisions requires compromises.
Maps can help bridge the gap between science and implementation, but the choices behind those maps can influence how connectivity is ultimately understood and applied. Understanding how stakeholders interpret connectivity and translate it into maps may help improve planning processes.
Bellil, A., Comby, E. and Foltête, J.C. 2026. How do stakeholders map ecological connectivity? Discourse analysis of French planning instruments dedicated to biodiversity conservation. Ambio. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-026-02417-8
New research examined this process across 21 territorial planning instruments in the Bourgogne Franche-Comté region of France. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with practitioners from diverse backgrounds that were responsible for developing or revising the plans, and compared their perspectives with the resulting maps of habitat networks. They then used text and qualitative analysis to identify patterns in how connectivity was discussed and mapped.
The analysis identified four distinct discourse categories that reflected different approaches to connectivity mapping. One emphasized biodiversity conservation and ecological connectivity as a core objective, including considerations such as species movement and ecological coherence. Another treated ecological maps primarily as tools for communication and stakeholder engagement. Two additional categories put greater emphasis on political and territorial considerations, such as existing land uses and current governmental priorities. These different perspectives were reflected in large variation among the resulting habitat network maps.
The findings highlight a fundamental tension in connectivity planning. More technically detailed approaches can better represent ecological processes and provide stronger scientific justification, but they may be difficult for nonspecialists to understand or use. Simpler maps can be more accessible and useful for communication, but may sacrifice ecological detail and functionality. Practical limitations, such as gaps in ecological data or limited technical resources, can further influence which approaches are most feasible.
Ultimately, connectivity maps are not neutral representations of the landscape. They reflect decisions about which ecological processes, places, knowledge, and priorities should be emphasized. Recognizing this complexity can help practitioners better understand the limitations of connectivity maps, and create planning processes that balance scientific precision with the practical and political realities of conservation.
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.
