Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 699–713 | Cite as

Modeling the impact of future development and public conservation orientation on landscape connectivity for conservation planning

  • Alex Mark Lechner
  • Greg Brown
  • Christopher M. Raymond
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Recent papers on the spatial assessment of conservation opportunity have focused on how social values for conservation may change modeled conservation outcomes. Accounting for social factors is important for regional wildlife corridor initiatives as they often emphasize the collaborative aspects of conservation planning.

Objectives

We present an approach for characterizing the potential effects of public conservation orientation and projected future development land use scenarios on landscape connectivity.

Methods

Using public participation GIS techniques (mail-based surveys linked to a mapping component), we classified spatially explicit conservation values and preferences into a conservation orientation index consisting of positive, negative, or neutral scores. Connectivity was then modeled using a least-cost path and graph-network approach for a range of conservation orientation and development scenarios in the Lower Hunter region, Australia. Scenarios were modelled through either adding vegetation (positive orientation) or removing vegetation (negative orientation, development).

Results

Scenarios that included positive conservation orientation link the isolated eastern and western reaches of the Lower Hunter, even when negative conservation scores were included in the model. This outcome is consistent with proposed connectivity corridors identified in regional strategies. The development scenario showed connectivity patterns similar to only modelling negative conservation orientation scores, with greater fragmentation across the region.

Conclusions

The modeled outcomes showed consistency between the public’s conservation orientation and the ecological rationale for increasing connectivity within the region. If conservation orientation can be translated into conservation initiatives, the result will be enhanced regional landscape connectivity that is both ecologically beneficial, as well as socially acceptable.

Keywords

Public participation GIS, social research, connectivity, dispersal Least-cost paths Graph theory Land use planning, conservation planning Scenario planning Urbanization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Australian Government Sustainable Regional Development Program in conjunction with the National Environmental Research Program. We would also like the thank Hunter Environment for the provision of the future development spatial data. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_153_MOESM1_ESM.docx (125 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 125 kb)

References

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247Google Scholar
  2. Alagador D, Triviño M, Cerdeira JO, Brás R, Cabeza M, Araújo MB (2012) Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats. Landsc Ecol 27:291–301Google Scholar
  3. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G (2008) Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–195Google Scholar
  5. Ban NC, Mills M, Tam J, Hicks CC, Klain S, Stoeckl N, Bottrill MC, Levine J, Pressey RL, Satterfield T, Chan KM (2013) A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front Ecol Environ 11:194–202. doi: 10.1890/110205
  6. Brost BM, Beier P (2012) Comparing linkage designs based on land facets to linkage designs based on focal species. PLoS One 7:e48965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048965 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown G (2006) Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planning. Int J Tour Res 8:101–113. doi: 10.1002/jtr CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004 Google Scholar
  9. Brown G, Raymond CM (2014) Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landsc Urban Plan 122:196–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown G, Smith C, Alessa L, Kliskey A (2004) A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Appl Geogr 24:161–180Google Scholar
  11. Brown G, Weber D, de Bie K (2015) Is PPGIS good enough? An empirical evaluation of the quality of PPGIS crowd-sourced spatial data for conservation planning. Land Use Policy 43:228–238. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D (2011) Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 25:172–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01560.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091Google Scholar
  14. Cowling RM, Knight AT, Privett SDJ, Sharma G (2010) Invest in opportunity, not inventory of hotspots. Conserv Biol 24:633–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01342.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Curran P, Smedley D, Thompson P, Knight AT (2012) Mapping restoration opportunity for collaborating with land managers in a carbon credit-funded restoration program in the Makana Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Restor Ecol 20:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DECCW (2009) Lower Hunter regional conservation plan. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillman D (2007) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Doerr VAJ, Doerr ED, Davies MJ (2010) Does structural connectivity facilitate dispersal of native species in Australia’s fragmented terrestrial landscapes? CEE Rev 08-007:70Google Scholar
  19. Eco Logical Australia (2012) Port Stephens biodiversity connectivity mapping. Prepared for Port Stephens CouncilGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:478Google Scholar
  21. Foltête JC, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Softw 38:316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foltête J-C, Girardet X, Clauzel C (2014) A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning. Landsc Urban Plan. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.012 Google Scholar
  23. Goldberg CS, Pocewicz A, Nielsen-Pincus M, Waits LP, Morgan P, Force JE, Vierling LA (2011) Predictions of ecological and social impacts of alternative residential development policies to inform decision making in a rural landscape. Conserv Lett 4:423–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00194.x
  24. Haslam SA, McGarty C (2001) A 100 years of certitude? Social psychology, the experimental method and the management of scientific uncertainty. Br J Soc Psychol 40:1–21. doi: 10.1348/014466601164669 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol 20:408–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lechner AM, Lefroy EC (2014) General approach to planning connectivity from local scales to regional (GAP CLoSR): combining multi-criteria analysis and connectivity science to enhance conservation outcomes at regional scale. Centre for Environment, University of Tasmania. www.nerplandscapes.edu.au/publication/GAP_CLoSR. Accessed Jan 2015
  27. Lechner AM, Stein A, Jones SD, Ferwerda JG (2009) Remote sensing of small and linear features: quantifying the effects of patch size and length, grid position and detectability on land cover mapping. Remote Sens Environ 113:2194–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lechner AM, Langford WT, Bekessy SA, Jones SD (2012) Are landscape ecologists addressing uncertainty in their remote sensing data? Landscape Ecol 27:1249–1261. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9791-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lechner AM, Raymond CM, Adams VM, Polyakov M, Gordon A, Rhodes JR, Mills M, Stein A, Ives CD, Lefroy EC (2014) Characterizing spatial uncertainty when integrating social data in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 28:1497–1511. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12409
  30. Mills M, Pressey RL, Ban NC, Foale S, Aswani S, Knight AT (2013) Understanding characteristics that define the feasibility of conservation actions in a common pool marine resource governance system. Conserv Lett 6:418–429. doi: 10.1111/conl.12025
  31. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Moilanen A, Meller L, Leppänen J, Pouzols FM, Arponen A, Kujala H (2013) Spatial conservation planning framework and software Zonation v.3.1 User manual. University of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  33. Moon K, Cocklin C (2011) Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27:331–342. doi:  10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001
  34. NSW Department of Planning (2006) The Lower Hunter regional strategy 2006. Government of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  35. Opdam P, Steingröver E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parris H, Whitten S, Wyborn C, Hill R, Freudenberger D (2011) An overview of key socio-economic factors, principles and guidelines in wildlife “corridor” planning and implementation. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, June 2011Google Scholar
  37. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21:959–967. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858. doi: 10.1890/09-2190.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Raymond C, Brown G (2006) A method for assessing protected area allocations using a typology of landscape values. J Environ Plan Manag 49:797–812. doi: 10.1080/09640560600945331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raymond CM, Brown G (2011) Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions. J Environ Manag 92:2513–2523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raymond C, Curtis A (2013) Mapping community values for regional sustainability in the Lower Hunter Region. University of Tasmania, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  42. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31:748–760. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96:491–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siggins A, Opie K, Culvenor D, Newnham G (2006) Mapping vegetation cover and vegetation formation from SPOT5 satellite imagery. In: McCauley A (ed) Vegetation survey and mapping—hunter, central and lower North Coast Region of NSW. HCCREMS, Tocal, NSW, Australia, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  47. Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG, Barnes M, Sherrouse BC (2012) Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl Geogr 35:164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.008
  48. Whitehead AL, Kujala H, Ives CD, Gordon A, Lentini P, Wintle B, Nicholson E, Raymond CM (2014) Integrating biological and social values when prioritising for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 28:992–1003Google Scholar
  49. Wu JG, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wyborn C (2013) A collaborative future for Conservation: lessons from connectivity conservation. Innovation 21st Century Conservation Publishing, CSIRO, Campbell, pp 44–49Google Scholar
  51. Wyborn C, Jellinek S, Cooke B (2012) Negotiating multiple motivations in the science and practice of ecological restoration. Ecol Manag Restor 13:249–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2012.00667.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Mark Lechner
    • 1
  • Greg Brown
    • 2
  • Christopher M. Raymond
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for EnvironmentUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.School of Geography, Planning and Environmental ManagementThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksbergDenmark
  4. 4.School of Commerce and Barbara Hardy InstituteUniversity of South AustraliaStirlingAustralia

Personalised recommendations