Making habitat connectivity a reality

Conservation Biology

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 1221-1232

  Keeley, Annika T H ^a   Basson, Galli ^b   Cameron, D Richard ^c   Heller, Nicole E ^d,f   Huber, Patrick R ^e   Schloss, Carrie A ^c   Thorne, James H ^e   Merenlender, Adina M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority   (United States)

^c THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^d Peninsula Open Space Trust ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f SECTION OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

case studies; corredores de fauna; estudios de caso; framework; lecciones aprendidas; lessons learned; marco de trabajo; planning implementation gap; vac o en la implementaci n de la planeaci n; wildlife corridors; ; ; ; ;

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; HABITAT CORRIDOR; HABITAT STRUCTURE; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LAND MANAGEMENT; LITERATURE REVIEW; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; PRIORITIZATION; REGULATORY APPROACH; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER;

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM;

EID: 85053445187     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13158     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bay Area Open Space Council. 2011. The Conservation Lands Network: San Francisco Bay area upland habitat goals Project Report. Bay Area Open Space Council, Berkeley, California
2. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836-851
3. Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH. 2011. Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conservation Biology 25:879–892
4. Bennett G. 2004. Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological networks. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland
5. Beunen R, Hagens JE. 2009. The use of the concept of ecological networks in nature conservation policies and planning practices. Landscape Research 34:563–580
6. Brodie JF, Paxton M, Nagulendran K, Balamurugan G, Clements GR, Reynolds G, Jain A, Hon J. 2016. Connecting science, policy, and implementation for landscape-scale habitat connectivity. Conservation Biology 30:950–961
7. Bunnefeld N, Nicholson E, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2017. Introduction. Pages 1–16 in Bunnefeld N, Milner-Gulland EJ, editors. Decision-making in conservation and natural resource management: models for interdisciplinary approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
8. Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. Open standards for the practice of conservation. Available from http://cmp-openstandards.org/ (accessed July 2018)
9. Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Possingham HP, Fuller RA. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge–action boundary. Conservation Biology 27:669–678
10. Dettman S. 2006. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Panama and Costa Rica: integrating bioregional planning and local initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 22:15–34
11. Fitzsimons J, Pulsford I, Wescott G. 2013. Lessons from large-scale conservation networks in Australia. Parks 19:115–125
12. Gleason M, et al. 2013. Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean & Coastal Management 74:90–101
13. Goldman M. 2009. Constructing connectivity: Conservation corridors and conservation politics in East African rangelands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99:335–359
14. Hannah L. 2011. Climate change, connectivity, and conservation success. Conservation Biology 25:1139–1142
15. Hilty JA, Chester CC, Cross MS, editors. 2012. Climate and conservation: landscape and seascape science, planning, and action. Island Press, Washington, D.C
16. Jongman R. 2008. Ecological networks are an issue for all of us. Journal of Landscape Ecology 1:7–13
17. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22:610–617
18. Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253
19. Merenlender AM, Reed S, Kitzes J, Feirer S. 2010. Mayacamas connectivity report. Report. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Sonoma County, California
20. Morrison SA, Boyce WM. 2009. Conserving connectivity: Some lessons from mountain lions in southern California. Conservation Biology 23:275–285
21. Naumann S, Davis M, Kaphengst T, Pieterse M, Rayment M. 2011. Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment. Ecologic Institute and GHK Consulting
22. Pulsford I, Lindenmayer D, Wyborn C, Lausche B, Worboys GL, Vasilijević M, Lefroy T. 2015. Connectivity conservation management. Pages 851–888 in Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I, editors. Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra
23. Rottle ND. 2006. Factors in the landscape-based greenway: a mountains to sound case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 76:134–171
24. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford K. 2001. Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C
25. Schlotterbeck C. 2012. The Coal Canyon story. Ecological Restoration 30:290–293
26. Shadie P, Moore P. 2008. Connectivity conservation: international experience in planning, establishment and management of biodiversity corridors. Report International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland
27. Spencer WD, Beier P, Penrod K, Winters K, Paulman C, Rustigian-Romsos H, Strittholt J, Parisi M, Pettler A. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration
28. Theobald DM, Zachmann LJ, Dickson BG, Gray ME, Albano CM, Landau V, Harrison-Atlas D. 2016. Description of the approach, data, and analytical methods used to estimate natural land loss in the western U.S. Conservation Science Partners. Available from https://disappearingwest.org/ (accessed September 2017)
29. Tiemann S, Siebert R. 2009. Ecological networks implemented by participatory approaches as a response to landscape fragmentation: a review of German literature. Outlook on Agriculture 38:205–212
30. Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J. 2017. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10:619–625
31. von Haaren C, Reich M. 2006. The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 76:7–22
32. White MD, Penrod K. 2012. The Tehachapi connection: a case study of linkage design, conservation, and restoration. Ecological Restoration 30:279–282
33. Worboys GL, Francis WL. 2010. Themes and lessons from global experience in connectivity conservation. Pages 283–298 in Worboys GL, Francis WL, Lockwood M, editors. Connectivity conservation management, a global guide. Earthscan, Washington, D.C
34. Worboys GL, Lockwood M. 2010. Connectivity conservation management framework and key tasks. Pages 301–341 in Worboys GL, Francis WL, Lockwood M, editors. Connectivity conservation management, a global guide. Earthscan, Washington, D.C
35. Wyborn C. 2015. Connectivity conservation: Boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 51:292–303