IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v80y2019icp391-394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs: A response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti

Author

Listed:
  • Foltête, Jean-Christophe

Abstract

Ecological networks are tools for conservation planning that rely on the concept of connectivity. Criticisms leveled at them are that they are widely used in a dogmatic way regardless of how they compare against other tools and that their efficiency is rarely assessed. I propose to include landscape graphs in the debate because they are designed to be operational models of ecological networks. I outline the key features of landscape graphs that can be matched with some of these criticisms: weighting of patches and links to take the landscape matrix into account, integrated metrics dealing with both connectivity and amount of habitat, and the possibility of including them in a decision-support system based on scenario analyses. I conclude that criticisms of ecological networks reveal the lack of diffusion of modeling tools such as landscape graphs, and that approaches such as participatory modeling bringing together scientists and practitioners could be one way to improve matters.

Suggested Citation

  • Foltête, Jean-Christophe, 2019. "How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs: A response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 391-394.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:391-394
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718302084
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Céline Clauzel & Deng Xiqing & Wu Gongsheng & Patrick Giraudoux & Li Li, 2015. "Assessing the impact of road developments on connectivity across multiple scales: Application to Yunnan snub-nosed monkey conservation," Post-Print halshs-01252484, HAL.
    2. Drielsma, Michael & Ferrier, Simon & Manion, Glenn, 2007. "A raster-based technique for analysing habitat configuration: The cost–benefit approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 324-332.
    3. Gippoliti, Spartaco & Battisti, Corrado, 2017. "More cool than tool: Equivoques, conceptual traps and weaknesses of ecological networks in environmental planning and conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 686-691.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Megan K. Jennings & Emily Haeuser & Diane Foote & Rebecca L. Lewison & Erin Conlisk, 2020. "Planning for Dynamic Connectivity: Operationalizing Robust Decision-Making and Prioritization Across Landscapes Experiencing Climate and Land-Use Change," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Megan K. Jennings & Katherine A. Zeller & Rebecca L. Lewison, 2020. "Supporting Adaptive Connectivity in Dynamic Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Stewart, Christopher William & van der Ree, Rodney, 2010. "A Voronoi diagram based population model for social species of wildlife," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(12), pages 1554-1568.
    4. Bo-Syuan Wu & Laddaporn Ruangpan & Arlex Sanchez & Marzenna Rasmussen & Eldon R. Rene & Zoran Vojinovic, 2021. "Environmental Design Features for Large-Scale Nature-Based Solutions: Development of a Framework That Incorporates Landscape Dynamics into the Design of Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Shih, Wan-Yu & Mabon, Leslie & Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A., 2020. "Assessing governance challenges of local biodiversity and ecosystem services: Barriers identified by the expert community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Drielsma, Michael & Ferrier, Simon & Howling, Gary & Manion, Glenn & Taylor, Subhashni & Love, Jamie, 2014. "The Biodiversity Forecasting Toolkit: Answering the ‘how much’, ‘what’, and ‘where’ of planning for biodiversity persistence," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 80-91.
    7. Raihan Jamil & Jason P. Julian & Jennifer L. R. Jensen & Kimberly M. Meitzen, 2024. "Urban Green Infrastructure Connectivity: The Role of Private Semi-Natural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-25, August.
    8. de la Fuente, Begoña & Mateo-Sánchez, María C. & Rodríguez, Gema & Gastón, Aitor & Pérez de Ayala, Ramón & Colomina-Pérez, Diana & Melero, María & Saura, Santiago, 2018. "Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: The connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 429-441.
    9. Drielsma, Michael & Love, Jamie, 2021. "An equitable method for evaluating habitat amount and potential occupancy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 440(C).
    10. Drielsma, Michael J. & Love, Jamie & Taylor, Subhashni & Thapa, Rajesh & Williams, Kristen J., 2022. "General Landscape Connectivity Model (GLCM): a new way to map whole of landscape biodiversity functional connectivity for operational planning and reporting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 465(C).
    11. Nándor Csikós & Péter Szilassi, 2021. "Modelling the Impacts of Habitat Changes on the Population Density of Eurasian Skylark ( Alauda arvensis ) Based on Its Landscape Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Zhonggui Lu & Wei Li & Yidi Wang & Siyang Zhou, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Ecological Networks in Nature Conservation from 1990 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:391-394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.