Integrating a landscape connectivity approach into mitigation hierarchy planning by anticipating urban dynamics

Abstract Urbanization leads to land-use changes and landscape fragmentation, impacting natural habitats and their connectivity. In principle, many local decision-makers are obliged to adopt a mitigation hierarchy whereby development projects must be designed to avoid impacts on biodiversity, reduce, and ultimately compensate for the remaining impacts to reach the goal of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. In practice, however, both developers and regulators lack relevant practical tools to support their strategies to better anticipate and plan this mitigation hierarchy. More importantly, the available tools generally ignore connectivity issues and ecological constraints. Here, we propose an original methodology that anticipates future urban needs under different development scenarios and selects the most relevant strategies for biodiversity offsets (BO). We used a spatialized digital simulator (called SimUrba) to model fine-scale urban dynamics, combining it with ecological networks modelling based on graph theory to assess the environmental impacts of urbanization on a habitat connectivity index for focal species. We test the different outcomes produced by adopting two offset ratios (1:1 and 2:1) using this approach. The methodology is applied to empirical data on the future urban sprawl of a large French city up to 2040 under two realistic development scenarios currently discussed by policy-makers, and on 20 species that we grouped by type of habitat. Our results reveal that that the most highly impacted species are those associated with open and semi-open areas, and cultivated plots. Then, we identify the most promising cells for BO implementation to compensate for negative effects on habitat area, according to gains in habitat connectivity. We further show that using both private and public land can maximize habitat connectivity by including larger plots and reducing the number of plots needing long-term monitoring. Finally, we demonstrate that using standard offset ratios that ignore connectivity issues is very risky and can compromise any BO objective. Overall, we show that this framework provides decision-makers with a valuable and precise strategic tool that articulates land-use planning with ecological constraints to identify whether, how and where NNL objectives can be achieved.

[1]  Dean L Urban,et al.  A Graph‐Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  T. Dutoit,et al.  Environmental impact assessment of development projects improved by merging species distribution and habitat connectivity modelling. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  Gilles Vuidel,et al.  A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  Andreas Zetterberg,et al.  To model the landscape as a network : A practitioner’s perspective , 2013 .

[5]  L. Beaumont,et al.  Influence of adaptive capacity on the outcome of climate change vulnerability assessment , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[6]  Glenn D. Sutherland,et al.  Scaling of Natal Dispersal Distances in Terrestrial Birds and Mammals , 2000 .

[7]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[8]  Coralie Calvet,et al.  The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics , 2015 .

[9]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning , 2014 .

[10]  Andrew K. Skidmore,et al.  Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling , 2014 .

[11]  Maria Jose Carreras Gamarra,et al.  Accounting for no net loss: A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[12]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  A multi-species approach for assessing the impact of land-cover changes on landscape connectivity , 2017, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Robert S Schick,et al.  Graph models of habitat mosaics. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[14]  R. Forman Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology , 1995, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  Mihai Razvan Nita,et al.  Evaluating the Functional Connectivity of Natura 2000 Forest Patch for Mammals in Romania , 2016 .

[16]  Amy Pocewicz,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Development by design : blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy , 2009 .

[17]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000) , 2011 .

[18]  Lael Parrott,et al.  Distributed under Creative Commons Cc-by 4.0 an Individual-based Modelling Approach to Estimate Landscape Connectivity for Bighorn Sheep (ovis Canadensis) , 2022 .

[19]  Jean Christophe Foltête,et al.  How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs: A response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti , 2019, Land Use Policy.

[20]  S. Pioch,et al.  Strategic landscape-scale planning to improve mitigation hierarchy implementation: An empirical case study in Mediterranean France , 2020 .

[21]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Locating wildlife crossings for multispecies connectivity across linear infrastructures , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[22]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools: A case study on mining impacts in Australia , 2015 .

[23]  J. Long,et al.  Conservation planning with spatially explicit models: a case for horseshoe bats in complex mountain landscapes , 2017, Landscape Ecology.

[24]  L. Bezombes,et al.  Introduction of a European Strategy on No Net Loss of Biodiversity , 2018 .

[25]  Philip Leitner,et al.  Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Integrating regional-scale connectivity in habitat restoration: an application for amphibian conservation in eastern France , 2015 .

[27]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review , 1991 .

[28]  T. Gardner,et al.  Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[29]  Paul Beier,et al.  Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[30]  Begoña de la Fuente,et al.  Connectivity as the Amount of Reachable Habitat: Conservation Priorities and the Roles of Habitat Patches in Landscape Networks , 2017 .

[31]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  On the limitations of graph‐theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation , 2011 .

[32]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes , 2014 .

[33]  Hélène Houot,et al.  Impact of urban developments on the functional connectivity of forested habitats: a joint contribution of advanced urban models and landscape graphs , 2016 .

[34]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  A. Jeliazkov,et al.  Coupling a landscape-based approach and graph theory to maximize multispecific connectivity in bird communities , 2018, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[36]  Ellen I. Damschen,et al.  Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems , 2015, Science Advances.

[37]  J. Kool,et al.  Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[38]  C. Coralie,et al.  Tracking the origins and development of biodiversity offsetting in academic research and its implications for conservation: A review , 2015 .

[39]  R. Duflot,et al.  Combining habitat suitability models and spatial graphs for more effective landscape conservation planning: An applied methodological framework and a species case study , 2018, Journal for Nature Conservation.

[40]  B. Deák,et al.  Mapping an ecological network of green habitat patches and their role in maintaining urban biodiversity in and around Debrecen city (Eastern Hungary) , 2016 .

[41]  K. McGarigal,et al.  The gradient concept of landscape structure [Chapter 12] , 2005 .

[42]  António Mira,et al.  A distribution-oriented approach to support landscape connectivity for ecologically distinct bird species , 2018, PloS one.

[43]  F. Guillet,et al.  Policy flaws of biodiversity offsetting as a conservation strategy , 2018 .

[44]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank , 2010 .

[45]  Robert J Fletcher,et al.  The negative effects of habitat fragmentation operate at the scale of dispersal. , 2018, Ecology.

[46]  C. Kerbiriou,et al.  A set of organized indicators to conciliate scientific knowledge, offset policies requirements and operational constraints in the context of biodiversity offsets , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[47]  L. Maiorano,et al.  Ecological Networks as Conceptual Frameworks or Operational Tools in Conservation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[48]  Lucie Bezombes,et al.  Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? , 2017, Environmental Management.

[49]  Tamás Székely,et al.  Avian body sizes in relation to fecundity, mating system, display behavior, and resource sharing , 2007 .

[50]  G. Sonnemann,et al.  Assessing habitat loss, fragmentation and ecological connectivity in Luxembourg to support spatial planning , 2019, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[51]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .

[52]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[53]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Fifteen operationally important decisions in the planning of biodiversity offsets , 2018, Biological Conservation.

[54]  T. Dutoit,et al.  Maximizing habitat connectivity in the mitigation hierarchy. A case study on three terrestrial mammals in an urban environment. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[55]  Lawrence N. Hudson,et al.  Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide , 2016, Nature Communications.

[56]  S. Pioch,et al.  The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[57]  Arnaud Béchet,et al.  The true loss caused by biodiversity offsets , 2015 .

[58]  L. Fahrig Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se , 2017 .

[59]  Geoffrey J. Hay,et al.  Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA): A new name for a new discipline , 2008 .

[60]  Fabien Quétier,et al.  Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions , 2011 .

[61]  A. Etter,et al.  Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation , 2016 .

[62]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity , 2012 .

[63]  J. Veech,et al.  Examining the occurrence of mammal species in natural areas within a rapidly urbanizing region of Texas, USA , 2017 .

[64]  R. Julliard,et al.  Biodiversity offsetting: Certainty of the net loss but uncertainty of the net gain , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[65]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

[66]  Dennis Rödder,et al.  Coupling Satellite Data with Species Distribution and Connectivity Models as a Tool for Environmental Management and Planning in Matrix-Sensitive Species , 2016, Environmental Management.

[67]  A. M. Hersperger,et al.  Trading connectivity improvement for area loss in patch-based biodiversity reserve networks , 2012 .

[68]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? , 2007 .

[69]  Harold Levrel,et al.  L’émergence du marché de la compensation des zones humides aux États-Unis : impacts sur les modes d’organisation et les caractéristiques des transactions , 2013 .

[70]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study , 2007 .

[71]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Are offsets effective? An evaluation of recent environmental offsets in Western Australia , 2017 .

[72]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape , 2010 .

[73]  A. Apan,et al.  Can offsets really compensate for habitat removal? The case of the endangered red‐tailed black‐cockatoo , 2010 .

[74]  Mingyue Zhao,et al.  Assessing landscape eco-risk associated with hilly construction land exploitation in the southwest of China: Trade-off and adaptation , 2016 .

[75]  Thomas R. Etherington,et al.  Assessing the performance of common landscape connectivity metrics using a virtual ecologist approach , 2018 .

[76]  B. Mcrae,et al.  ISOLATION BY RESISTANCE , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[77]  Andreas T. Ernst,et al.  Integrated planning of linear infrastructure and conservation offsets , 2015 .

[78]  Neville D. Crossman,et al.  Systematic landscape restoration in the rural–urban fringe: meeting conservation planning and policy goals , 2007, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[79]  J. Foltête,et al.  Evaluating the effect of habitat connectivity on the distribution of lesser horseshoe bat maternity roosts using landscape graphs , 2013 .

[80]  J. Resasco,et al.  Meta-analysis on a Decade of Testing Corridor Efficacy: What New Have we Learned? , 2019, Current Landscape Ecology Reports.

[81]  Céline Clauzel Evaluating and mitigating the impact of a high-speed railway on connectivity: a case study with an amphibian species in France , 2017 .

[82]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation , 2011 .

[83]  E. Feil,et al.  Evidence for an effect of landscape connectivity on Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto dispersion in a zone of range expansion. , 2018, Ticks and tick-borne diseases.

[84]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers , 2016, Nature.

[85]  T. Brooks,et al.  Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation , 2013, Science.

[86]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation , 2015 .

[87]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[88]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[89]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting , 2016 .

[90]  C. Clauzel,et al.  Apports de la modélisation spatiale pour la gestion de la trame verte et bleue , 2019, Cybergeo.

[91]  Erik Matthysen,et al.  The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model , 2003 .

[92]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. , 2011, Ecology.

[93]  John A. Litvaitis,et al.  Modeling landscape connectivity for bobcats using expert‐opinion and empirically derived models: how well do they work? , 2017 .

[94]  Viral B. Shah,et al.  Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. , 2008, Ecology.

[95]  Joseph R. Bennett,et al.  SDMtoolbox 2.0: the next generation Python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses , 2017, PeerJ.

[96]  Guangshun Jiang,et al.  Effects of human activities on the spatial distribution of eastern roe deerCapreolus pygargus bedfordi in the Lesser Khingan Mountains, northeastern China , 2009, Mammal Research.

[97]  M. Fortin,et al.  EDITOR'S CHOICE: Stepping stones are crucial for species' long‐distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks , 2014 .

[98]  J. Tracey Connectivity Conservation: Individual-based modeling as a tool for conserving connectivity , 2006 .