Wildlife Connectivity Approaches and Best Practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large‐scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide‐ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide‐ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state‐specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community‐wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information. Acercamientos a la Conectividad de Vida Silvestre y las Mejores Prácticas en los Planes de Acción de Vida Silvestre Estatales en los Estados Unidos     

Scale Mismatches,Conservation Planning,and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses

Many of the challenges conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the planning for and implementation of conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the conservation problem. The challenges in conservation planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine‐resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social‐ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long‐term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when planning for conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of conservation problems and that do not achieve conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with conservation planning will help determine the potential for implementing conservation actions at the required scales. Social‐network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation projects. Discordancia de Escalas, Planificación de la Conservación y el Valor del Análisis de Redes Sociales     

A Critical Assessment of the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Planning in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta,California (U.S.A.)

Abstract: Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.     

Multi-scale marine biodiversity patterns inferred efficiently from habitat image processing

Cost-effective proxies of biodiversity and species abundance, applicable across a range of spatial scales, are needed for setting conservation priorities and planning action. We outline a rapid, efficient, and low-cost measure of spectral signal from digital habitat images that, being an effective proxy for habitat complexity, correlates with species diversity and requires little image processing or interpretation. We validated this method for coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia, across a range of spatial scales (1 m to 10 km), using digital photographs of benthic communities at the transect scale and high-resolution Landsat satellite images at the reef scale. We calculated an index of image-derived spatial heterogeneity, the mean information gain (MIG), for each scale and related it to univariate (species richness and total abundance summed across species) and multivariate (species abundance matrix) measures of fish community structure, using two techniques that account for the hierarchical structure of the data: hierarchical (mixed-effect) linear models and distance-based partial redundancy analysis. Over the length and breadth of the GBR, MIG alone explained up to 29% of deviance in fish species richness, 33% in total fish abundance, and 25% in fish community structure at multiple scales, thus demonstrating the possibility of easily and rapidly exploiting spatial information contained in digital images to complement existing methods for inferring diversity and abundance patterns among fish communities. Thus, the spectral signal of unprocessed remotely sensed images provides an efficient and low-cost way to optimize the design of surveys used in conservation planning. In data-sparse situations, this simple approach also offers a viable method for rapid assessment of potential local biodiversity, particularly where there is little local capacity in terms of skills or resources for mounting in-depth biodiversity surveys.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation

There is increasing recognition among conservation scientists that long‐term conservation outcomes could be improved through better integration of evolutionary theory into management practices. Despite concerns that the importance of key concepts emerging from evolutionary theory (i.e., evolutionary principles and processes) are not being recognized by managers, there has been little effort to determine the level of integration of evolutionary theory into conservation policy and practice. We assessed conservation policy at 3 scales (international, national, and provincial) on 3 continents to quantify the degree to which key evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity and gene flow, are being incorporated into conservation practice. We also evaluated the availability of clear guidance within the applied evolutionary biology literature as to how managers can change their management practices to achieve better conservation outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, conservation policies provide little guidance about how this can be achieved in practice and other relevant evolutionary concepts, such as inbreeding depression, are mentioned rarely. In some cases the poor integration of evolutionary concepts into management reflects a lack of decision‐support tools in the literature. Where these tools are available, such as risk‐assessment frameworks, they are not being adopted by conservation policy makers, suggesting that the availability of a strong evidence base is not the only barrier to evolutionarily enlightened management. We believe there is a clear need for more engagement by evolutionary biologists with policy makers to develop practical guidelines that will help managers make changes to conservation practice. There is also an urgent need for more research to better understand the barriers to and opportunities for incorporating evolutionary theory into conservation practice.     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the field of conservation planning, the speed and success with which conservation plans are converted into conservation action remains limited. This gap between science and action extends beyond conservation planning into many other applied sciences and has been linked to complexity of current societal problems, compartmentalization of knowledge and management sectors, and limited collaboration between scientists and decision makers. Transdisciplinary approaches have been proposed as a possible way to address these challenges and to bridge the gap between science and action. These approaches move beyond the bridging of disciplines to an approach in which science becomes a social process resolving problems through the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders. We explored the principles of transdisciplinarity, in light of our experiences as conservation‐planning researchers working in South Africa, to better understand what is required to make conservation planning transdisciplinary and therefore more effective. Using the transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge (empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive), we found that conservation planning has succeeded in integrating many empirical disciplines into the pragmatic stakeholder‐engaged process of strategy development and implementation. Nevertheless, challenges remain in engagement of the social sciences and in understanding the social context of implementation. Farther up this knowledge hierarchy, at the normative and purposive levels, we found that a lack of integrated land‐use planning and policies (normative) and the dominant effect of national values (purposive) that prioritize growth and development limit the effectiveness and relevance of conservation plans. The transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge highlighted that we need to move beyond bridging the empirical and pragmatic disciplines into the complex normative world of laws, policies, and planning and become engaged in the purposive processes of decision making, behavior change, and value transfer. Although there are indications of progress in this direction, working at the normative and purposive levels requires time, leadership, resources, skills that are absent in conservation training and practice, and new forms of recognition in systems of scientific reward and funding.     

Can Large-Scale Climatic Models Be Linked with Multiscale Ecological Studies?*

On a global scale climatic changes driven by human activities are typically projected to increase from 1° C to 5° C per 100 years a rate of change that is an order of magnitude greater than that typically experienced naturally. Such a potentially dramatic change in climate could easily cause dramatic biological responses including extinction. Species show a wide range of responses to climate and consequently the response of different species of plants and animals to climatic change will be quite variable. This implies a likelihood for a disassembling of natural communities and for transient, nonequivalent restructuring of habitats as climatic change unfolds. Validated models that help forecast these events are needed to aid scientists in better understanding the ecological ramifications of global climatic change. Also, and perhaps more important for conservation biology, such validated models can help provide probabilities for the occurrence of these events, which will allow policy makers to make better, informed decisions. Typically, the study plots of most ecological field work are telecommunications, while the smallest resolved scales in global climatic models are about 500 × 500 km. Computer limitations preclude significant reduction in scales of climatic models. Consequently, more multi-species ecological studies are needed over broad geographic and long temporal scales. We provide an example of large-scale ecological response studies, namely the case of wintering North American birds. We also provide an example of attempts to translate results of large-scale climatic models (at a 500 × 500 km scale) to a mesoscale (50 × 50 km). Participation of climatologists with ecologists at early stages in research planning can help bridge the scale mismatch between climatic and ecological measurement, and provide more reliable estimates of community responses to century-long, time-evolving patterns of climatic change. We are convinced that many more such interdisciplinary research attempts are urgently needed if the scientific community is to produce information useful to the development of conservation strategies. Such strategies might help to mitigate potential negative consequences of global climatic changes before they manifest themselves irreversibly in nature.     

Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning

Abstract:  Local land-use policy is increasingly being recognized as fundamental to biodiversity conservation in the United States. Many planners and conservation scientists have called for broader use of planning and regulatory tools to support the conservation of biodiversity at local scales. Yet little is known about the pervasiveness of these practices. We conducted an on-line survey of county, municipal, and tribal planning directors (n = 116 ) in 3 geographic regions of the United States: metropolitan Seattle, Washington; metropolitan Des Moines, Iowa; and the Research Triangle, North Carolina. Our objectives were to gauge the extent to which local planning departments address biodiversity conservation and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder conservation actions in local planning. We found that biodiversity conservation was seldom a major consideration in these departments. Staff time was mainly devoted to development mandates and little time was spent on biodiversity conservation. Regulations requiring conservation actions that might benefit biodiversity were uncommon, with the exception of rules governing water quality in all 3 regions and the protection of threatened and endangered species in the Seattle region. Planning tools that could enhance habitat conservation were used infrequently. Collaboration across jurisdictions was widespread, but rarely focused on conservation. Departments with a conservation specialist on staff tended to be associated with higher levels of conservation actions. Jurisdictions in the Seattle region also reported higher levels of conservation action, largely driven by state and federal mandates. Increased funding was most frequently cited as a factor that would facilitate greater consideration of biodiversity in local planning. There are numerous opportunities for conservation biologists to play a role in improving conservation planning at local scales.     

Effectiveness of Environmental Surrogates for the Selection of Conservation Area Networks

Abstract:  Rapid biodiversity assessment and conservation planning require the use of easily quantified and estimated surrogates for biodiversity. Using data sets from Québec and Queensland, we applied four methods to assess the extent to which environmental surrogates can represent biodiversity components: (1) surrogacy graphs; (2) marginal representation plots; (3) Hamming distance function; and (4) Syrjala statistical test for spatial congruence. For Québec we used 719 faunal and floral species as biodiversity components, and for Queensland we used 2348 plant species. We used four climatic parameter types (annual mean temperature, minimum temperature during the coldest quarter, maximum temperature during the hottest quarter, and annual precipitation), along with slope, elevation, aspect, and soil types, as environmental surrogates. To study the effect of scale, we analyzed the data at seven spatial scales ranging from 0.01° to 0.10° longitude and latitude. At targeted representations of 10% for environmental surrogates and biodiversity components, all four methods indicated that using a full set of environmental surrogates systematically provided better results than selecting areas at random, usually ensuring that ≥90% of the biodiversity components achieved the 10% targets at scales coarser than 0.02°. The performance of surrogates improved with coarser spatial resolutions. Thus, environmental surrogate sets are useful tools for biodiversity conservation planning. A recommended protocol for the use of such surrogates consists of randomly selecting a set of areas for which distributional data are available, identifying an optimal surrogate set based on these areas, and subsequently prioritizing places for conservation based on the optimal surrogate set.     

Scale Dependency of Rarity, Extinction Risk, and Conservation Priority

Abstract:   In developing red data books of threatened species, the World Conservation Union uses measures of rarity, rates of decline, and population fragmentation to categorize species according to their risk of extinction. However, most quantitative measures of these three concepts are sensitive to the scale at which they are made. In particular, definitions of rarity based on an area-of-occupancy threshold can nearly always be met if area of occupancy is calculated from a sufficiently fine-scale (high-resolution) grid. Recommendations for dealing with scale dependency include (1) choosing a standard scale of measurement, (2) using multiple scales of measurement, and (3) developing indices that combine information from multiple scales. As an example of the second and third approach, the construction of a species' scale-area curve represents a unifying method for quantifying all three indicators of extinction risk—rarity, rate of decline, and population fragmentation—as functions of area of occupancy and measurement scale. A multiscale analysis is also of practical importance because measurements made at different scales are relevant to different extinction processes. Coarse-scale measures of rarity are most appropriate when threat is assessed on the basis of spatially autocorrelated events of a large extent, such as global climate change, whereas fine-scale measures may best predict extinction risk due to local processes such as demographic stochasticity. We illustrate our arguments with a case study of the British distributions of two related plant species that show a 200-fold reversal in their relative rarity when measured at different scales.     

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co‐production involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co‐production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross‐sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well‐established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co‐production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stake‐holder workshops that included co‐development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision‐making contexts. Knowledge co‐production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi‐scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented >1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co‐production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multi‐agency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved.     

Statistical matching for conservation science

The awareness of the need for robust impact evaluations in conservation is growing and statistical matching techniques are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of conservation interventions. Used appropriately matching approaches are powerful tools, but they also pose potential pitfalls. We outlined important considerations and best practice when using matching in conservation science. We identified 3 steps in a matching analysis. First, develop a clear theory of change to inform selection of treatment and controls and that accounts for real-world complexities and potential spillover effects. Second, select the appropriate covariates and matching approach. Third, assess the quality of the matching by carrying out a series of checks. The second and third steps can be repeated and should be finalized before outcomes are explored. Future conservation impact evaluations could be improved by increased planning of evaluations alongside the intervention, better integration of qualitative methods, considering spillover effects at larger spatial scales, and more publication of preanalysis plans. Implementing these improvements will require more serious engagement of conservation scientists, practitioners, and funders to mainstream robust impact evaluations into conservation. We hope this article will improve the quality of evaluations and help direct future research to continue to improve the approaches on offer.     

Downscaling species occupancy from coarse spatial scales

The measurement and prediction of species' populations at different spatial scales is crucial to spatial ecology as well as conservation biology. An efficient yet challenging goal to achieve such population estimates consists of recording empirical species' presence and absence at a specific regional scale and then trying to predict occupancies at finer scales. So far the majority of the methods have been based on particular species' distributional features deemed to be crucial for downscaling occupancy. However, only a minority of them have dealt explicitly with specific spatial features. Here we employ a wide class of spatial point processes, the shot noise Cox processes (SNCP), to model species occupancies at different spatial scales and show that species' spatial aggregation is crucial for predicting population estimates at fine scales starting from coarser ones. These models are formulated in continuous space and locate points regardless of the arbitrary resolution that one employs to study the spatial pattern. We compare the performances of nine models, calibrated at regional scales and demonstrate that a very simple class of SNCP, the Thomas process, is able to outperform other published models in predicting occupancies down to areas four orders of magnitude smaller than the ones employed for the parameterization. We conclude by explaining the ability of the approach to infer spatially explicit information from spatially implicit measures, the potential of the framework to combine niche and spatial models, and the possibility of reversing the method to allow upscaling.     

The Value of Using Feasibility Models in Systematic Conservation Planning to Predict Landholder Management Uptake

Understanding the social dimensions of conservation opportunity is crucial for conservation planning in multiple‐use landscapes. However, factors that influence the feasibility of implementing conservation actions, such as the history of landscape management, and landholders’ willingness to engage are often difficult or time consuming to quantify and rarely incorporated into planning. We examined how conservation agencies could reduce costs of acquiring such data by developing predictive models of management feasibility parameterized with social and biophysical factors likely to influence landholders’ decisions to engage in management. To test the utility of our best‐supported model, we developed 4 alternative investment scenarios based on different input data for conservation planning: social data only; biological data only; potential conservation opportunity derived from modeled feasibility that incurs no social data collection costs; and existing conservation opportunity derived from feasibility data that incurred collection costs. Using spatially explicit information on biodiversity values, feasibility, and management costs, we prioritized locations in southwest Australia to control an invasive predator that is detrimental to both agriculture and natural ecosystems: the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). When social data collection costs were moderate to high, the most cost‐effective investment scenario resulted from a predictive model of feasibility. Combining empirical feasibility data with biological data was more cost‐effective for prioritizing management when social data collection costs were low (<4% of the total budget). Calls for more data to inform conservation planning should take into account the costs and benefits of collecting and using social data to ensure that limited funding for conservation is spent in the most cost‐efficient and effective manner.     

Use of Abundance of One Species as a Surrogate for Abundance of Others

Abstract: Indicator species concepts have a long history in conservation biology. Arguments in favor of these approaches generally stress expediency and assume efficacy. We tested the premise that the abundance patterns of one species can be used to infer those of other species. Our data consisted of 72,495 bird observations on 55 species across 1046 plots distributed across 30 sub basins. We analyzed abundance patterns at two spatial scales (plot and sub basin) and for empirical and a priori grouping. There were few significant indicator relationships at either scale or under either grouping rule, and those few we found did not explain a substantial portion of the abundance of other species. Coupled with the lack of proven efficacy for species surrogacy in the literature, our results indicate the utility of indicators and similar types of surrogate approaches must be demonstrated rather than assumed.     

Putting People on the Map through an Approach That Integrates Social Data in Conservation Planning

Conservation planning is integral to strategic and effective operations of conservation organizations. Drawing upon biological sciences, conservation planning has historically made limited use of social data. We offer an approach for integrating data on social well‐being into conservation planning that captures and places into context the spatial patterns and trends in human needs and capacities. This hierarchical approach provides a nested framework for characterizing and mapping data on social well‐being in 5 domains: economic well‐being, health, political empowerment, education, and culture. These 5 domains each have multiple attributes; each attribute may be characterized by one or more indicators. Through existing or novel data that display spatial and temporal heterogeneity in social well‐being, conservation scientists, planners, and decision makers may measure, benchmark, map, and integrate these data within conservation planning processes. Selecting indicators and integrating these data into conservation planning is an iterative, participatory process tailored to the local context and planning goals. Social well‐being data complement biophysical and threat‐oriented social data within conservation planning processes to inform decisions regarding where and how to conserve biodiversity, provide a structure for exploring socioecological relationships, and to foster adaptive management. Building upon existing conservation planning methods and insights from multiple disciplines, this approach to putting people on the map can readily merge with current planning practices to facilitate more rigorous decision making. Poner a la Gente en el Mapa por Medio de una Estrategia que Integra Información Social en la Planeación de la Conservación     

Factors influencing incidental representation of previously unknown conservation features in marine protected areas

Spatially explicit information on species distributions for conservation planning is invariably incomplete; therefore, the use of surrogates is required to represent broad‐scale patterns of biodiversity. Despite significant interest in the effectiveness of surrogates for predicting spatial distributions of biodiversity, few researchers have explored questions involving the ability of surrogates to incidentally represent unknown features of conservation interest. We used the Great Barrier Reef marine reserve network to examine factors affecting incidental representation of conservation features that were unknown at the time the reserve network was established. We used spatially explicit information on the distribution of 39 seabed habitats and biological assemblages and the conservation planning software Marxan to examine how incidental representation was affected by the spatial characteristics of the features; the conservation objectives (the minimum proportion of each feature included in no‐take areas); the spatial configuration of no‐take areas; and the opportunity cost of conservation. Cost was closely and inversely correlated to incidental representation. However, incidental representation was achieved, even in a region with only coarse‐scale environmental data, by adopting a precautionary approach that explicitly considered the potential for unknown features. Our results indicate that incidental representation is enhanced by partitioning selection units along biophysical gradients to account for unknown within‐feature variability and ensuring that no‐take areas are well distributed throughout the region; by setting high conservation objectives that (in this case >33%) maximize the chances of capturing unknown features incidentally; and by carefully considering the designation of cost to planning units when using decision‐support tools for reserve design. The lessons learned from incidental representation in the Great Barrier Reef have implications for conservation planning in other regions, particularly those that lack detailed environmental and ecological data.     

Ecological Networks as Conceptual Frameworks or Operational Tools in Conservation

Abstract:  The establishment of ecological networks (ENs) has been proposed as an ideal way to counteract the increasing fragmentation of natural ecosystems and as a necessary complement to the establishment of protected areas for biodiversity conservation. This conservation tool, which comprises core areas, corridors, and buffer areas, has attracted the attention of several national and European institutions. It is thought that ENs can connect habitat patches and thus enable species to move across unsuitable areas. In Europe, however, ENs are proposed as an oversimplification of complex ecological concepts, and we maintain that they are of limited use for biodiversity conservation for several reasons. The ENs are species specific and operate on species-dependent scales. In addition, the information needed for their implementation is only available for a handful of species. To overcome these limitations, ENs have been proposed on a landscape scale (and for selected "focal" species), but there is no indication that the structural composition of core areas, corridors, and buffer areas could ensure the functional connectivity and improve the viability of more than a few species. The theory behind ENs fails to provide sufficient practical information on how to build them (e.g., width, shape, structure, content). In fact, no EN so far has been validated in practice (ensuring connectivity and increasing overall biodiversity conservation), and there are no signs that validation will be possible in the near future. In view of these limitations, it is difficult to justify spending economic and political resources on building systems that are at best working hypotheses that cannot be evaluated on a practical level.