Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 789–801 | Cite as

A method for building corridors in spatial conservation prioritization

Research article


We introduce a novel approach to building corridors in spatial conservation prioritization. The underlying working principle is the use of a penalty structure in an iterative algorithm used for producing a spatial priority ranking. The penalty term aims to prevent loss or degradation of structural connections, or, equivalently, to promote to a higher rank landscape elements that are required to keep networks connected. The proposed method shows several convenient properties: (1) it does not require a priori specification of habitat patches, end points or related thresholds, (2) it does not rely on resistance coefficients for different habitats, (3) it does not require species targets, and (4) the cost of additional connectivity via corridors can be quantified in terms of habitat quality lost across species. Corridor strength and width parameters control the trade-off between increased structural connectivity via corridors and other considerations relevant to conservation planning. Habitat suitability or dispersal suitability layers used in the analysis can be species specific, thus allowing analysis both in terms of structural and functional connectivity. The proposed method can also be used for targeting habitat restoration, by identifying areas of low habitat quality included in corridors. These methods have been implemented in the Zonation software, and can be applied to large scale and high resolution spatial prioritization, effectively integrating corridor design and spatial conservation prioritization. Since the method operates on novel principles and combines with a large number of features already operational in Zonation, we expect it to be of utility in spatial conservation planning.


Boundary length penalty Corridor design Corridor loss penalty Decision support tool Structural connectivity Systematic conservation planning Zonation software 

Supplementary material

10980_2014_31_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (131 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 132 kb)
10980_2014_31_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (646 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 647 kb)
10980_2014_31_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 1117 kb)


  1. Arponen A, Lehtomaki J, Leppanen J, Tomppo E, Moilanen A (2012) Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conserv Biol 26(2):294–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Brost B (2010) Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors. Conserv Biol 24(3):701–710Google Scholar
  3. Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25(5):879–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernazzani P, Bradley BA, Opperman JJ (2012) Integrating climate change into habitat conservation plans under the US Endangered Species Act. Environ Manag 49(6):1103–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll C, Dunk JR, Moilanen A (2010) Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Glob Change Biol 16(3):891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll C, McRae BH, Brookes A (2012) Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conserv Biol 26(1):78–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conchon S, Filliâtre JC (2007) A Persistent Union-Find Data Structure. In: Russo CV, Dreyer D (eds) ML’07 Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on ML, Freiburg, Germany, October 2007. ACM, New York, USA, p 37–46 Google Scholar
  8. Conrad JM, Gomes CP, van Hoeve WJ, Sabharwal A, Suter JF (2012) Wildlife corridors as a connected subgraph problem. J Environ Econ Manage 63(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fennell M, Murphy JE, Armstrong C, Gallagher T, Osborne B (2012) Plant Spread Simulator: a model for simulating large-scale directed dispersal processes across heterogeneous environments. Ecol Model 230:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller T, Sarkar S (2006) LQGraph: a software package for optimizing connectivity in conservation planning. Environ Modell Softw 21(5):750–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24(3):660–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142(1):14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Killeen TJ, Solorzano LA (2008) Conservation strategies to mitigate impacts from climate change in Amazonia. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 363(1498):1881–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knight K (1989) Unification: a multidisciplinary survey. ACM Comput Surveys 21(1):93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koen EL, Bowman J, Walpole AA (2012) The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates. Mol Ecol Resour 12(4):686–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lagabrielle E, Rouget M, Payet K, Wistebaar N, Durieux L, Baret S, Lombard A, Strasberg D (2009) Identifying and mapping biodiversity processes for conservation planning in islands: a case study in Reunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Biol Conserv 142(7):1523–1535Google Scholar
  17. Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkonen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecol 26(7):951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leathwick J, Moilanen A, Francis M, Elith J, Taylor P, Julian K, Hastie T, Duffy C (2008) Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conserv Lett 1(2):91–102Google Scholar
  19. Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Modell Softw 47:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Li D, Li T, Qiao Q, Yang J, Zhang H (2010) Application of least-cost path model to identify a giant panda dispersal corridor network after the Wenchuan earthquake-Case study of Wolong Nature Reserve in China. Ecol Model 221(6):944–952Google Scholar
  21. Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP, Lacy RC, McCarthy MA, Pope ML (2002) How accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale tests in a fragmented system. Ecol Lett 6(1):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonnell MD, Possingham HP, Ball IR, Cousins EA (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ Model Assess 7:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McRae BH, Hall SA, Beier P, Theobald DM (2012) Where to restore ecological connectivity? detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One 7(12):e52604PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moilanen A (2007) Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134(4):571–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moilanen A, Wintle BA (2007) The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conserv Biol 21(2):355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 272(1575):1885–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (eds) (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Moilanen A, Leathwick JR, Quinn JM (2011) Spatial prioritization of conservation management. Conserv Lett 4(5):383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moilanen A, Meller L, Leppänen, J, Pouzols FM, Kujala H, Arponen A (2012) Zonation Spatial Conservation Planning Framework and Software. Version 3.1. User Manual. University of Helsinki, Finland. pp. 288Google Scholar
  31. Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Arponen A, Pouzols FM, Thomas CD (2013) Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation priority areas. Divers Distrib 19(2):171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mönkkonen M, Mutanen M (2003) Occurrence of moths in boreal forest corridors. Conserv Biol 17(2):468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nalle DJ, Arthur JL, Sessions J (2002) Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithm. For Sci 48(1):59–68Google Scholar
  34. Naujokaitis-Lewis IR, Curtis JM, Arcese P, Rosenfeld J (2009) Sensitivity analyses of spatial population viability analysis models for species at risk and habitat conservation planning. Conserv Biol 23(1):225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nuñez TA, Lawler JJ, McRae BH, Pierce DJ, Krosby MB, Kavanagh DM, Singleton PH, Tewksbury JJ (2013) Connectivity planning to address climate change. Conserv Biol 27(2):407–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Önal H, Briers RS (2002) Selection of a minimum-boundary reserve network using integer programming. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 270:1487–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24(2):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinto N, Keitt T, Wainright M (2012) LORACS: JAVA software for modeling landscape connectivity and matrix permeability. Ecography 35(5):388–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rathore CS, Dubey Y, Shrivastava A, Pathak P, Patil V (2012) Opportunities of habitat connectivity for tiger (Panthera tigris) between Kanha and Pench National Parks in Madhya Pradesh, India. PLoS One 7(7):e39996PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rayfield B, Moilanen A, Fortin MJ (2009) Incorporating consumer-resource spatial interactions in reserve design. Ecol Model 220(5):725–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roever CL, van Aarde RJ, Leggert K (2013) Functional connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors for African elephants. Biol Conserv 157:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose NA, Burton PJ (2009) Using bioclimatic envelopes to identify temporal corridors in support of conservation planning in a changing climate. For Ecol Manag 258:S64–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rouget M, Cowling RM, Lombard AT, Knight AT, Graham IHK (2006) Designing large-scale conservation corridors for pattern and process. Conserv Biol 20(2):549–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruckelshaus M, Hartway C, Kareiva P (2003) Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conserv Biol 11(6):1298–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Modell Softw 24(1):135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soille P (2004) Morphological image analysis: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulé M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5(2):123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson JR, Moilanen AJ, Vesk PA, Bennett AF, Mac Nally R (2009) Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. Ecol Appl 19(4):817–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Toteu SF, Anderson JM, de Wit M (2010) ‘Africa Alive Corridors’ Forging a new future for the people of Africa by the people of Africa. J Afr Earth Sci 58(4):692–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams P, Hannah L, Andelman S, Midgley G, Araujo M, Hughes G, Manne L, Martinez-Meyer E, Pearson R (2005) Planning for climate change: identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape proteaceae. Conserv Biol 19(4):1063–1074Google Scholar
  52. Wintle B, Elith J, Potts JM (2005) Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: a review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW. Austral Ecol 30(7):19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations