Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2669–2685 | Cite as

The science-practice interface of connectivity in England

  • Dimitrios BormpoudakisEmail author
  • Joseph Tzanopoulos
Research Article



A disconnect has been identified at the interface between landscape science and practice. More commonly, it is assumed that better or more targeted science would lead to better practice. Others argue that such a view is partial, and propose an understanding that foregrounds how social and political factors shape the science-practice interface.


In this study we explore how (the combination of) different conceptualisations, novel governance architectures, and political-economic conditions shape the science-practice interface between landscape ecology and practice, using connectivity conservation and enhancement initiatives in England as a case study.


We conducted interviews (n = 36) with practitioners involved in connectivity-related projects (predominantly Nature Improvement Areas and Green Infrastructure initiatives). We transcribed and analysed the interviews using standard methods of qualitative analysis. We also conducted a desk study of green infrastructure strategies (n = 58 documents).


Enhancing or maintaining connectivity is perceived positively by conservation and planning practitioners in England. Considering both planning and ecological contexts, quantitative assessments are rare on the ground. Conceptual ambiguity, lack of resources (time, personnel, software and hardware), novel governance architectures, and changing economic and political conditions are implicated.


We find that the co-articulation of conceptual ambiguity and resource issues with novel forms of governance in changing economies is diminishing opportunities and creating challenges for (ecological) connectivity conservation. This is particularly true in relation to large scale operationalisation that requires multi-scale and multi-partner coordination.


Connectivity Landscape scale Implementation gap Green infrastructure Governance Financial crisis 



Funding was provided by FP7 EC Grant (Grant 226 852 (SCALES project)).

Supplementary material

10980_2019_913_MOESM1_ESM.kml (8 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (KML 7 kb)
10980_2019_913_MOESM2_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 29 kb)


  1. Adams WM, Hodge ID, Macgregor NA, Sandbrook LC (2016) Creating restoration landscapes: partnerships in large-scale conservation in the UK. Ecol Soc 21:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams WM, Hodge ID, Sandbrook L (2014) New spaces for nature: the re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Trans Inst Br Geogr 39:574–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adaptation Sub-Committee (2013) Managing the land in a changing climate. Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report 2013. Committee on Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonson H, Gustafsson M, Angelstam P (2010) Cultural heritage connectivity. A tool for EIA in transportation infrastructure planning. Transp Res D 15:463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apostolopoulou E, Bormpoudakis D, Paloniemi R, Cent J, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Pantis JD (2014) Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: the case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. Int J Sust Dev World 21:481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. Bioscience 60:835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergsten A, Zetterberg A (2013) To model the landscape as a network: a practitioner’s perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 119:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertuol-Garcia D, Morsello C, El-Hani CN, Pardini R (2018) A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation. Biol Rev 93:1032–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Beunen R, Hagens JE (2009) The use of the concept of ecological networks in nature conservation policies and planning practices. Landsc Res 5:563–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bormpoudakis D, Foster J, Gent T, Griffiths RA, Russell L, Starnes T, Tzanopoulos J, Wilkinson J (2015) Developing models to estimate the occurrence in the English countryside of Great Crested Newts, a protected species under the Habitats Directive. Final Report [Defra Project Code WC1108]Google Scholar
  12. Brand FS, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol Soc 12:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brenner N, Peck J, Theodore N (2010) Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modalities, pathways. Glob Netw 10:182–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Castella JC, Bourgoin J, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B (2014) A model of the science–practice–policy interface in participatory land-use planning: lessons from Laos. Landscape Ecol 29:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castree N (2008) Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and reregulation. Environ Plan A 40:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collingwood Environmental Planning (2013) Monitoring and evaluation of nature improvement areas: year 1 (2012–13) progress report. Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Collingwood Environmental Planning (2014) Updated monitoring and evaluation framework for nature improvement areas. Report to Defra [Defra project WC1061]. Accessed 16 Sept 2019
  19. Collingwood Environmental Planning (2015) Monitoring and evaluation of nature improvement areas: final report (2012–15). Report to Defra [Defra project WC1061]. Accessed 16 Sept 2019
  20. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Defra (2011) Competition opens to create bigger and better local wildlife areas. Defra Press Release. Accessed 3 June 2019
  22. Defra (2012) Report of the habitats and wild birds directives implementation review. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Accessed 2 Dec 2013
  23. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) (2011) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixon J (2014). Thirteen into fourteen: new year message. Accessed 27 Oct 2016
  25. Douglas I (2014) The political filter in the local implementation of initiatives relating to urban ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 125:312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eden S (2016) Environmental publics. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Eggermont H, Le Roux X, Heughebaert A, Balian E, BiodivERsA partners (2013) The BiodivERsA data-base: analysis of the competitive funding landscape for research on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. BiodivERsA report. Accessed 18 Sept 2019
  28. Ellis G, Hunter R, Tully MA, Donnelly M, Kelleher L, Kee F (2016) Connectivity and physical activity: using footpath networks to measure the walkability of built environments. Environ Plann B Plann Des 43:130–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garmendia E, Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM, Bormpoudakis D (2016) Biodiversity and green infrastructure in Europe: boundary object or ecological trap? Land Use Policy 56:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Görg C (2007) Landscape governance: the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38:954–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harding S (2006) Science and social inequality: feminist and postcolonial issues. University of Illinois Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawker G, Burrell P (2006) Oxfordshire conservation target areas mapping project draft report. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
  34. Hodgetts T (2018) Connectivity as a multiple: in, with and as “nature”. Area 50:83–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Dytham C, Travis JM, Cornell SJ (2012) The speed of range shifts in fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Isaac NJ, Brotherton PN, Bullock JM, Gregory RD, Boehning-Gaese K, Connor B, Crick HQ, Freckleton RP, Gill JA, Hails RS, Hartikainen M (2018) Defining and delivering resilient ecological networks: nature conservation in England. J App Ecol 55:2537–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keeley AT, Basson G, Cameron DR, Heller NE, Huber PR, Schloss CA, Thorne JH, Merenlender AM (2018) Making habitat connectivity a reality. Conserv Biol 32:1221–32. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Knight AT, Cowling M, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK, Elphick C, Fitter AH, Forshaw J, Haddow RW, Hilborne S, Leafe RN, Mace GM, Southgate MP, Sutherland WA, Tew TE, Varley J, Wynne GR (2010) Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra, DefraGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockhart A (2015) Developing an offsetting programme: tensions, dilemmas and difficulties in biodiversity market-making in England. Environ Conserv 42:335–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moon K, Brewer TD, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Adams VM, Blackman DA (2016) A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecol Soc 21:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moyse R, Rowsell E (2007) A model for an ecological framework for Kent and Medway. Report for Kent Wildlife Trust, Kent County Council. Accessed 27 Oct 2016
  45. Nassauer JI (2012) Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 106:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Introduction: mode 2’revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Brien K (2013) Global environmental change III: closing the gap between knowledge and action. Prog Hum Geog 37:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Opdam P (2018) Exploring the role of science in sustainable landscape management. An introduction to the special issue. Sustainability 10:331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Opdam P, Coninx I, Dewulf A, Steingröver E, Vos C, van der Wal M (2016) Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance? Curr Opin Env Sustain 18:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 28:1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinto-Correia T, Kristensen L (2013) Linking research to practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plan 120:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plummer R, Armitage DR, de Loë RC (2013) Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecol Soc 18:21Google Scholar
  54. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2005) Assessing conservation management’s evidence base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conserv Biol 19:1989–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salomaa A, Paloniemi R, Hujala T, Rantala S, Arponen A, Niemelä J (2016) The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests. For Policy Econ 73:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schweiger M (2015) Ecological network planning: exemplary habitat connectivity projects in Germany. In: Czechowski D, Hauck T, Hausladen G (eds) Revising Green Infrastructure: Concepts between nature and design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 285–230.Google Scholar
  57. Snäll T, Lehtomäki J, Arponen A, Elith J, Moilanen A (2016) Green infrastructure design based on spatial conservation prioritization and modeling of biodiversity features and ecosystem services. Environ Manag 57:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Somerset Wildlife Trust (2016) Somerset’s ecological network: mapping the components of the ecological network in Somerset. Accessed 17 Sept 2019
  59. Swindon Borough Council (2011) A green infrastructure strategy for Swindon 2010–2026. Accessed 30 Jan 2019
  60. Swyngedouw E (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud 42:1991–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor S, Knight M, Harfoot A (2014) National biodiversity climate change vulnerability model. Natural England Research Report NERR054. Accessed 17 Sept 2019
  62. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P, Van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 79:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conserv Lett 10:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tsing AL (2005) Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. UE Associates (2010) Green infrastructure strategy for the partnership for urban South Hampshire. Accessed 19 Oct 2016
  66. van Dijk N, Taylor S, Morecroft M, Darch G, Duffield S, Buckle R, Wright J (2013) Assessing and enabling climate change adaptation in nature improvement areas. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR119. Accessed 16 Sept 2019
  67. Villard MA, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Von Haaren C, Reich M (2006) The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landsc Urban Plan 76:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vos C, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J, Bell C, Kuipers H (2008) Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45:1722–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watts K, Eycott A, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey J, Quine C (2010) Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecol 25:1305–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu J (2013) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landscape Ecol 28:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wyborn C (2015a) Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob Environ Change 30:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wyborn C (2015b) Connecting knowledge with action through co-productive capacities: adaptive governance and connectivity conservation. Ecol Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wyborn C (2015c) Cross-scale linkages in connectivity conservation: adaptive governance challenges in spatially distributed networks. Environ Policy Gov 25:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Youn H, Gastner MT, Jeong H (2008) Price of anarchy in transportation networks: efficiency and optimality control. Phys Rev Lett 101:128701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Žlender V, Thompson CW (2017) Accessibility and use of peri-urban green space for inner-city dwellers: a comparative study. Landsc Urban Plan 165:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Anthropology and ConservationUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  2. 2.Kent Interdisciplinary Centre for Spatial StudiesCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations