Filling evidence gaps with expert opinion: The use of Delphi analysis in least-cost modelling of functional connectivity

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 103, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 400-409

  Eycott, Amy E ^a   Marzano, Mariella ^a   Watts, Kevin ^a  

^a FOREST RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Connectivity; Focal species; Fragmentation; Indicator; Matrix

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; INDICATORS (INSTRUMENTS); MATRIX ALGEBRA; SURVEYS;

CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION MEASURES; FOCAL SPECIES; FRAGMENTATION; FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY; LOW PERMEABILITY; RELATIVE PERMEABILITY; SPECIES SPECIFICS;

FEEDBACK;

BIODIVERSITY; BIOINDICATOR; CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELPHI ANALYSIS; DISPERSAL; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; LAND COVER; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; MATRIX; PERMEABILITY; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 80054872076     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.08.014     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., et al. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 64:233-247.
2. Beier P., Majka D.R., Newell S.L. Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecological Applications 2009, 19:2067-2077.
3. Beier P., Majka D.R., Spencer W.D. Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 2008, 22:836-851.
4. Buckley C. Delphi: A methodology for preferences more than predictions. Library Management 1995, 16:16-19.
5. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2004, 2:529-536.
6. Carey P.D., Wallis S., Chamberlain P.M., Cooper A., Emmett B.A., Maskell L.C., et al. Countryside Survey: UK results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 2008.
7. Clark K.E., Applegate J.E., Niles L.J., Dobkin D.S. An objective means of species status assessment: Adapting the Delphi technique. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006, 34:419-425.
8. Crance J.H. Guidelines for using the Delphi technique to develop habitat suitability index curves. Biological Report 82(10. 134) 1987, National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
9. Crooks K.R., Sanjayan M. Connectivity conservation 2006, Cambridge University Press.
10. Donald P.F., Evans A.D. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: The wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006, 43:209-218.
11. Drielsma M., Ferrier S., Manion G. A raster-based technique for analysing habitat configuration: The cost-benefit approach. Ecological Modelling 2007, 202:324-332.
12. Edwards D., Jensen F.S., Marzano M., Mason B., Pizzirani S., Schelhaas M.-J. A theoretical framework to assess the impacts of forest management on the recreational value of European forests. Ecological Indicators 2011, 11:81-89.
13. Epps C.W., Wehausen J.D., Bleich V.C., Torres S.G., Brashares J.S. Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. Journal of Applied Ecology 2007, 44:714-724.
14. Eycott, A., Watts, K., Brandt, G., Buyung-Ali, L., Bowler, D., Stewart, G., et al. (2010). Do landscape matrix features affect species movement? Systematic review number 43. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, published online at http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR43.html.
15. Geneletti D. Formalising expert opinion through multi-attribute value functions: An application in landscape ecology. Journal of Environment Management 2005, 76:255-262.
16. Gonzales E.K., Gergel S.E. Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis-A tool for invasive species management. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:1155-1168.
17. Gordon T.J. The Delphi method. AC/UNU Millenium project. Futures Research Methodology 1994.
18. Gurrutxaga M., Lozano P.J., del Barrio G. GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning. Journal of Natural Conservation 2010, 18:318-326.
19. Hartley M.J., Hunter M.L. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 1998, 12:465-469.
20. Heller N.E., Zavaleta E.S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:14-32.
21. Hurley M.V., Rapaport E.K., Johnson C.J. Utility of expert-based knowledge for predicting wildlife-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 2009, 73:278-286.
22. Kangas J., Alho J.M., Kolehmainen O., Mononen A. Analyzing consistency of experts' judgements-Case of assessing forest biodiversity. Forest Science 1998, 44:610-617.
23. Lambeck R.J. Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:849-856.
24. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2006, 73:467-482.
25. Lawler J.J., Tear T.H., Pyke C., Shaw M.R., Gonzalez P., Kareiva P., et al. Resource management in a changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2010, 8:35-43.
26. Lindenmayer D.B., Manning A.D., Smith P.L., Possingham H.P., Fischer J., Oliver I., et al. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: A critique. Conservation Biology 2002, 16:338-345.
27. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications 1975, Addison-Wesley. H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff (Eds.).
28. MacMillan D., Marshall K. The Delphi process-An expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 2006, 9:11-19.
29. Margules C.R., Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 2000, 405:243-253.
30. Martin T.G., Kuhnert P.M., Mengersen K., Possingham H.P. The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: Impact of grazing on birds. Ecological Applications 2005, 15:266-280.
31. Mawdsley J.R., O'Malley R., Ojima D.S. A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:1080-1089.
32. Melbourne B.A., Davies K.F., Margules C.R., Lindenmayer D.B., Saunders D.A., Wissel C., et al. Species survival in fragmented landscapes: Where to from here?. Biodiversity and Conservation 2004, 13:275-284.
33. Moilanen A., Hanski I. Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. Connectivity conservation 2006, 44-71. Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
34. Moreno V., Morales M.B., Traba J. Avoiding over-implementation of agri-environmental schemes for steppe bird conservation: A species-focused proposal based on expert criteria. Journal of Environment Management 2010, 91:1802-1809.
35. Murcia C. Edge effects in fragmented forests: Implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1995, 10:58-62.
36. Novakowski N., Wellar B. Using the Delphi technique in normative planning research: Methodological design considerations. Environment and Planning A 2008, 40:1485-1500.
37. O'Neill S.J., Osborn T.J., Hulme M., Lorenzoni I., Watkinson A.R. Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology 2008, 45:1649-1659.
38. Opdam P., Foppen R., Vos C. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 2002, 16:767-779.
39. Opdam P., Steingrover E., van Rooij S. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:322-332.
40. Patrick W.S., Damon-Randall K. Using a five-factored structured decision analysis to evaluate the extinction risk of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2906-2911.
41. Pill J. The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1971, 5:57-71.
42. Prugh L.R., Hodges K.E., Sinclair A.R.E., Brashares J.S. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105:20770-20775.
43. Pullinger M.G., Johnson C.J. Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: Evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landscape Ecology 2010, 25:1547-1560.
44. Ray D., Watts K., Hope J.C.E., Humphrey J. Developing forest habitat networks in lowland Scotland. Landscape ecology of trees and forests-Proceedings of the 2004 IALE (UK) conference 2004, R.J. Smithers (Ed.).
45. Ray N., Lehmann A., Joly P. Modelling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: A GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodiversity and Conservation 2002, 11:2143-2165.
46. Rayfield B., Fortin M.-J., Fall A. The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecology 2010, 25:519-532.
47. Richard Y., Armstrong D.P. Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47:603-610.
48. Stewart T.R. The Delphi technique and judgmental forecasting. Climatic Change 1987, 11:97-113.
49. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K., Merriam G. Connectivity as a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
50. UK Biodiversity Partnership. (2010). Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2010: Measuring progress towards halting biodiversity loss. Defra, London. Available at (Accessed June 2010). http://www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp.
51. UK Biodiversity Steering Group Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report - Volume II: Action Plans (Annex F - Lists of key species, key habitats and Broad Habitats) 1995, HMSO.
52. van Rooij S.A.M., van der Sluis T., Steingröver E.G. Networks for life: Development of an ecological network for Persiceto (Emilia-Romagne, Italy). Alterra Report 729 2003, Alterra Green World Research.
53. Vos C.C., Berry P., Opdam P., Baveco H., Nijhof B., O'Hanley J., et al. Adapting landscapes to climate change: Examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. Journal of Applied Ecology 2008, 45:1722-1731.
54. Vos C.C., Verboom J., Opdam P.F.M., Ter Braak C.J.F. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 2001, 157:24-41.
55. Watling J.I., Nowakowski A.J., Donnelly M.A., Orrock J.L. Meta-analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2010, 20:209-217.
56. Watts K., Eycott A.E., Handley P., Ray D., Humphrey J.W., Quine C.P. Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: An approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecology 2010, 25:1305-1318.
57. Watts K., Handley P. Developing a functional connectivity indicator to detect change in fragmented landscapes. Ecological Indicators 2009, 10:552-557.
58. Watts K., Quine C., Eycott A.E., Moseley D.G., Humphrey J.W., Ray D. Conserving forest biodiversity: Recent approaches in UK forest planning and management. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes-Multiple use and sustainable management 2008, Springer. R. Lafortezza, J. Chen, G. Sanesi, T.R. Crow (Eds.).
59. With K.A., Gardner R.H., Turner M.G. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 1997, 78:151-169.
60. Woudenberg F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1991, 40:131-150.